Appeal 6003330

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether it has been demonstrated that the appeal dwelling is surplus to the current and foreseeable agricultural needs of the holding and/ or campsite operations and there is no continuing need for the dwelling to house persons employed or last employed in agriculture or forestry in the locality.

The appeal relates to a detached dwelling, adjacent to an existing caravan and camping site, within open countryside. The dwelling was originally approved as an agricultural worker’s dwelling in 1989 with a condition restricting occupation of the dwelling to be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last, working in the locality in agriculture or forestry.

Planning permission was sought in 1996, and approved, for the change of use of the wider site to a caravan and camping site. A subsequent variation of condition was approved in 1999 to include the occupation of the appeal dwelling by a person solely or mainly working in the running/ management of the adjoining caravan and camping site.

The main parties agree that Policy DP13 of the Mendip Local Plan 2006-2009 Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) (the MLP) is the most relevant policy to the appeal. Policy DP13 relates to accommodation for rural workers and supports proposals for the removal of occupancy conditions where all the listed criteria (a) to (c) are satisfied.

Criterion (a) of Policy DP13 requires the appeal dwelling to be genuinely surplus to the current and foreseeable future agricultural needs of the holding. The main parties agree that there is no longer an agricultural holding associated with the appeal dwelling. As a result, the dwelling is genuinely surplus to the current and foreseeable future agricultural needs of the holding, owing to its cessation. At the Hearing, the Council clarified that marketing would not be required to demonstrate compliance with criterion (a) as the agricultural holding associated with the appeal site has ceased.

In addition, the Council acknowledged that neither Policy DP13 nor any other policy in the development plan requires proposals to demonstrate that a dwelling is surplus to the current and foreseeable needs of campsite operations. Therefore, this matter does not constitute a policy requirement against which the proposal must be assessed. In any event, it is evident that the adjoining campsite has been operating successfully without an on-site manager, utilising an automated booking system and key-code entry. Such arrangements are common for small or seasonal sites of this nature.

Criterion (b) of Policy DP13 requires proposals to demonstrate that there is no evidence of a continuing need for housing for persons employed or last employed in agriculture in the locality. This is to be demonstrated through compliance with criterion (c), which explicitly requires that the dwelling has been widely marketed on terms reflecting its occupancy condition, normally for at least 12 months or an appropriate period as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The policy provides no exceptions to the requirement to undertake marketing.

Although the appellant indicated at the Hearing that the appeal property has been marketed for approximately one month, there is no evidence before me that this has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of criterion (c). Indeed, the appellant confirmed that no such compliant marketing has taken place.

Policy DP13 of the MLP does not preclude the use of alternative methods to marketing to demonstrate that there is no evidence of continuing need for the tied dwelling. However, there is no evidence before me that alternative methods have been used or even explored, such as an assessment of agricultural needs in the locality or evidence of agricultural activity in the surrounding area. Indeed, the appellant confirmed at the Hearing that alternative methods to marketing had not been undertaken.

In the absence of a policy-compliant marketing exercise, and with no alternative evidence to demonstrate that such accommodation is no longer needed in the area, it cannot be established that there is no continuing need for housing for persons employed or last employed in agriculture in the locality.

In the above context, it cannot be reasonably claimed that undue or disproportionate weight has been placed on the marketing requirement. The purpose of the marketing exercise is to establish, through robust evidence, whether a continuing need for this type of housing exists in the area. Furthermore, the Council indicated at the Hearing that it continues to receive applications for rural workers’ dwellings and emphasised the importance of safeguarding such accommodation where a need remains.

The dwelling is physically separated from the main caravan/ camping area to the north of the appeal site by a driveway serving only the dwelling, and a substantial garden/ grassed area. In addition, the eastern boundary of the site is screened by tall, dense vegetation providing an effective buffer between the property and the main caravan/ camping area. Therefore, although the site lies adjacent to an existing caravan and camping site, this does not render it unsuitable for accommodating rural workers. The physical characteristics of the site, including its separation from the main caravan/ camping area and robust boundary screening ensure that such a use would operate without conflict with the adjoining caravan and camping site.

Moreover, nothing in the site’s location or planning history suggests that it would be unsuitable for accommodating rural workers; indeed, the dwelling was originally permitted for precisely that purpose.

The appellant’s intention not to sell the dwelling is not relevant to the planning merits of the appeal and does not assist in demonstrating compliance with the tests set out in Policy DP13.

While it has been demonstrated that the appeal dwelling is surplus to the current and foreseeable agricultural needs of the holding and/ or campsite operations, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no continuing need for the dwelling to house persons employed or last employed in agriculture or forestry in the locality. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with Policy DP13 of the MLP.

The absence of harm to highway safety, residential amenity, infrastructure capacity, ecology and landscape character, together with the fact that the proposal would not increase the scale of the existing development, are neutral factors in the

As the proposal is for an unrestricted C3 dwelling, there is no certainty that it would support the adjoining caravan and camping business through its use as holiday accommodation. A planning condition requiring use of the dwelling as holiday accommodation associated with the existing caravan and camping site would not meet the tests for planning conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, particularly those of necessity, relevance, reasonableness and enforceability. Accordingly, the suggested benefits of the proposal to the existing caravan and camping business attract little weight. Furthermore, the appellant confirmed at the Hearing that the proposal is not necessary to make the caravan and camping site viable.

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no continuing need for the dwelling to house persons employed or last employed in agriculture or forestry in the locality. As a result, the proposal conflicts with Policy DP13 of the MLP. I attach significant weight to this policy conflict and the associated harm arising from the loss of the rural worker accommodation in the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate there is no longer a need for such accommodation.

Accordingly, the adverse impact of the scheme would outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.