Appeal 6006157

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of caravan accommodation with rural enterprise workers' tie for a temporary trial period, and associated agricultural building works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 80521, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made before the Hearing by [name], The Piggery Ltd against the refusal of planning permission by North Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

At the Hearing, an application for costs was made by North Devon District Council against [name], The Piggery Ltd. This application is also the subject of a separate decision.

It is clear from the appeal documentation, and my site visit, that the caravan accommodation and associated buildings are on site and being occupied and used. As such the development has already commenced. The use of the appeal site and position of the caravan and other buildings reflects the plans before me and for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based upon these plans.

I have removed reference to the application being retrospective from the description of development in the banner heading above as this is not an act of development.

At the Hearing the appellants confirmed that the name of their business has changed since the submission of the planning application from ‘The Piggery Ltd’ to ‘The Piggery’. However, given that the applicants and appellants remain as [name], I am satisfied that the appeal can proceed.

During the Hearing the Council submitted documents related to the Code of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids, Code of practice for the welfare of pigs, and A Soil Association guide to small scale pig keeping (as detailed at the bottom of this decision letter). Given that these relate directly to the Councils case with regard to the scale of the site and operation, and as they are very limited in extent, no parties would be prejudiced if I take this information into account. I have therefore taken these documents into consideration in my decision.

Before the Hearing the parties submitted a Statement of [name] (SoCG). This describes the appeal site, the appeal scheme, relevant plans, and relevant development plan policies and national guidance. It outlines areas of agreement between the parties including the site address, relevant documents, compliance with some Local Plan policies and it is agreed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The SOCG also indicates matters not agreed. These reflect the three reasons for refusal.

In light of the Preliminary and Agreed Matters above, the main issues are: • whether there is an essential operational need for a temporary mobile home to accommodate rural workers living permanently at the appeal site; and, • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The application seeks temporary residential accommodation in the form of caravan accommodation and associated buildings to support a rural enterprise comprising the ethical and rare-breed farming of specialist pigs and horses.

At the Hearing, [name] explained that following the refusal of planning permission, they had sold their pigs with [name] taking full-time work elsewhere. It was explained that they had taken this decision as they could not justify investing more money in the business given the uncertainty regarding the timing and outcome of any appeal. This results in 1 stallion, 1 mare and 1 foal being on the site at the time of the hearing. Should the appeal be allowed, it was stated that [name] would give up his current work and return to full-time work on the site.

It was also confirmed at the Hearing that the appellants were seeking to transition from the initial enterprise comprising Hackney horses and rare breed pigs to Shire and [name] and [name] and Black pigs. The appellants stated that this does not change their business plans or proposals as the focus still remains on rare breeds generating very similar management demands and income levels.

It was also clarified by [name] and [name] that the business would not use machinery or fertilisers and would specialise in selling organic meat direct to the public. In addition to this, the business comprises income from the stallion covering mares.

There was no dispute between the main parties at the Hearing that there is no policy support in the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP) for the principle of the development in this location other than as a rural worker dwelling. Furthermore, there was no dispute that the proposal does not meet the criteria under LP Policy DM28 for a new permanent dwelling. I have no reason to disagree.

As a result, the proposal falls to be considered against criteria (3) to LP Policy DM28 that states that ‘Where the enterprise does not meet the criteria set out to support the provision of a new permanent dwelling, the provision of temporary accommodation will be considered for an initial period of three years.’ In relation to this paragraph 13.152 of the LP states that the provision of a temporary period will offer the opportunity for the business to become established whilst offering the opportunity for its operational needs to be met. It further states that ‘The operational need for the temporary dwelling will have to be demonstrated on the same basis as for the provision of a permanent dwelling. The Local Planning Authorities will also require evidence to demonstrate that the enterprise giving rise to the need has been planned on a sound financial basis with a costed business plan provided.’

LP Policy DM28 is further supported by the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 Rural Worker’s Dwellings Supplementary Planning [name] 2020 (SPD). Paragraph 3.19 of the SPD clarifies that proposals for temporary rural worker’s dwellings will need to demonstrate an essential functional need; provide clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise; be planned on a sound financial basis with a business plan, and evidence that the need cannot be met by another existing dwelling.

In light of the above, and given that the site benefits from a suitable access, to gain support from LP Policy DM28 and the SPD, the development needs to demonstrate an essential operational need for a full-time worker to be resident; that the size and nature of the development is such that it can be sustained by the scale of the operation; that the business has been planned on a sound financial basis with a realistic prospect of the business thriving to support a permanent dwelling; and, that the accommodation needs cannot be met by other means.

I will deal with each of these in turn below.

[name] 13.149 states that an essential need might be justified where, for example, livestock require essential care and attention at short notice.

At the Hearing the appellants explained the [name] included as Appendix 8 to their Statement of Case detailing 4,850 hours (or 2.42 full-time equivalent workers) based on the keeping and breeding of pigs, heavy horse stud, market garden, land management, admin and compliance. I acknowledge that the Council raise concerns regarding the lack of detail and evidence behind the figures put forward by the appellant during the course of the application, but this could have been requested and it is not unreasonable for the appellants to expand on its evidence at appeal in response to the Council’s reasons for refusal. In this regard, I note that the 4,850 hours are not too dissimilar to the 4,700 hours stated at the time of the consideration of the planning application with the increase partly related to the subsequent introduction of a market garden.

In relation to the evidence, at the Hearing the Council in particular questioned the extent of grass cutting hours, tree maintenance and tree planting as detailed in the Addendum to Planning Application Document submitted by the appellants. As a result, the Council draws attention to its calculation of standard days based upon the [address] [name] (the [name]) that indicates a total requirement of 0.29 workers in Year 1 and 0.52 workers in Year 3.

[name] have had regard to the calculations based on the [name], I note that these figures exclude the hours related to the keeping and covering of horses. Furthermore, I have sympathy with the appellant with regard to some of the land being wet preventing the use of machinery, and to the nature of the business being organic without the use of fertilisers and comprising rare breeds requiring higher intervention therefore increasing the number of hours needed to manage the enterprise. These factors would increase the total hours necessary to run the enterprise.

I also have some sympathy with the Council’s position with regard to the number of hours stated by the appellants as being necessary to manage the site and to the evidence in this regard not using the [name] figures. However, given that paragraph 3.11 of the SPD allows some flexibility in estimating the amount of labour input, I do not find a departure from the [name] figures to be unreasonable in this instance, particularly given the specialist nature of the enterprise and wet conditions of parts of the site.

Furthermore, even significantly reducing the land management and admin and compliance hours from the appellant’s labour calculations, removing the figures related to the [name] as this did not form part of the original planning application, when combined with the hours related to the pigs and horses, and acknowledging that the nature of the business and condition of the land results in more man hours than stated in the [name], I find that the Council have underestimated the hours. However, taking on board the Councils points, I also find that the appellants have likely overestimated the hours. As a result, the figure is likely mid-way between the two. I therefore find that the evidence before me demonstrates a minimum of 2,200 hours in year 3 that the Council equates to one full-time worker.

At the Hearing the appellants expanded on the operation of the business. They stated that on-site presence 24 hours is required in relation to the keeping and breeding of the pigs and stallion. In relation to this, the appellants stated that with 2 pigs farrowing roughly every other month, this equates to approximately 20 hours work at night per month, with approximately 30 hours work per night per month for the care of horses during and after covering. [name] acknowledge that the appellant’s written case is a little lacking with regard to providing detailed evidence of the exact number of hours, other than in relation to the size of the site and animal numbers that I will address below, no substantive oral counter evidence was given in response at the Hearing to the hours put forward by the appellants and need to be on site of a nighttime. In relation to this, I accept the appellants evidence with regard to the difficulty of using CCTV at the site, to the previous security issue potentially being prevented by on-site accommodation and to the distances from existing housing meaning that they may not get to site in time in the case of an emergency or security issue.

Additionally, I have had regard to the appellants argument that the exact day/time of birth and development of health issues such as colic are unknown. I have also had regard to the support for skilled staff to be on site 24 hours a day from [address] Vets. Taking all of this into account, I find that an essential need has been demonstrated based on the projected number of pigs and breeding of horses.

[name] have had regard to the Council stating that there are many stables across the District without accommodation on-site, I do not have the details of these and cannot be sure that they are directly comparable in terms of comprising the covering and breeding of stallions. Furthermore, I must consider the appeal proposal on its merits.

In light of the above, I find that an essential operational need for at least one full-time worker has been demonstrated.

The Council raise concerns regarding the size of the site and its ability to cater for the number of pigs and horses needed to support a business of a size and scale to justify the development.

In this regard, the Council draw attention to the Department for Environment, Food and [name] of Practice of the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids. Paragraph 1.2 of this document states that as a general rule, each horse requires approximately 0.5 – 1ha of grazing land of suitable quality if no supplementary feeding is being provided.

However, it goes on to state that a smaller area may be adequate where a horse is principally housed and grazed areas are used only for occasional turnout. In this regard the appellants advised that not all of the horses would be grazing with supplementary feeding provided and with some exercising through road walking. In light of this and given that some of the horses at the site would be client horses being covered, I accept that an area smaller than 0.5ha per horse would be suitable. I therefore accept that half of the approximate 4ha site would be likely to be sufficient for the maximum 7 horses present at any one time.

With regard to the pigs, there was little dispute between the main parties that despite the location of the appeal site next to an Airfield, given the Airfield’s limited use, use by gliders, and the Air Ambulance seeking to avoid flying over the site, the pigs would not be exposed to significant constant or sudden noise.

Nonetheless, the Council have drawn my attention to The Department for Environment, Food and [name] of practice for the welfare of pigs. This states at paragraph 179 that free-draining soils are most suitable for outdoor pig keeping. With regard to this, the Council point to the appellant’s evidence regarding the wet nature of parts of the appeal site preventing the use of machinery. However, in response, the appellant stated that the pigs would be kept on the part of the site, including the woodland, that is less wet and more free draining.

The Council also directed me to pages 5 and 6 of the Soil Association guide to small scale pig keeping. In relation to how much land is needed, this document states that per hectare (ha), 9 sow and her litter would be allowed or 60 weaners. It further states that as ‘a handy rule of thumb’, 1ha will allow you to keep two sows and all their piglets born that year reared up to slaughter and that if sows aren’t kept 2ha will support 108 weaners. It is noteworthy that this guidance relates to the numbers allowed per ha at any time and not to the number of litter or weaners that can be born on the land in a calendar year.

In relation to this, I have had regard to the appellants advising that they plan to have approximately 7 sows with 9 allowed per hectare producing an average of 10 piglets per litter. Furthermore, the appellants advised that they plan to wean the piglets from their mother quickly such that they would be ready for slaughter within 5-8 months with the sows producing more than one litter a year. As a result, this gives a degree of flexibility with regard to numbers produced and numbers on site at any time. Given this, and with the staggering of litters, I am convinced by the appellants evidence that the 2ha could produce close to the 140 weaners stated at year 3, or the 80 pigs, 45 piglets and 10 boars at year 3 envisaged by the Business Plan.

Furthermore, with staggered births and weaners sent to slaughter every 5-8 months, and with careful management, I am convinced that the enterprise could be carried out close to the Soil Association stocking rates and guide to numbers per ha. This is the case without considering the stated intension of the appellants to purchase/lease more adjoining land and having the option of scaling down the equine element of the business as and when required to cater for increased pig numbers.

Given the above, and alongside the income derived from stud services, foal sales, horse and cart events, meat boxes and the sale of organic bacon and sausages for which the appellants states there is a high demand at premium prices, I find that with careful management, the scale and nature of the development is appropriate and that the size can accommodate the development proposed.

The planning application is accompanied by a Business Plan including [name] for Years 1, 2 and 3. This shows a very small profit in year 1, increased profit in Year 2 and a profit of approximately £25,000 in Year 3. There was no substantive evidence produced by the Council at the Hearing that the level of forecast profit in year 3 would be at a level that could not support a rural worker living at [address].

The Council does however question the level of detail in the financial forecasts, and I note the concerns raised in this regard by the Parish Council and [name] and lack of audited accounts.

At the Hearing the appellants stated that they have invoiced in excess of £11,000 this calendar year to stud and that prior to the refusal of planning permission, they were getting a considerable number of sausages and rashers of bacon per pig that were selling at premium prices per pack. Given this, given the projected sale of pigs, piglets and boars, given the appellants previous operations at the site, and given the size of the appeal site as detailed above, I find that the appellants business is planned on a sound financial basis with a realistic prospect of the business thriving to support a permanent dwelling.

[name] have had regard to the lack of submitted audited accounts, the appellant’s state that this was never requested by the Council. Although the submission of audited accounts would have been of some assistance, given the refusal of planning permission resulting in the scaling back of the business, and given that the proposal has only been near full occupation for the initial year with a temporary permission allowing the applicant to demonstrate financial viability, I do not find the lack of submitted audited accounts fatal in this instance. Moreover, given that the appellants intend to sell their produce directly to the public, the lack of contracts with external buyers is to be expected.

There was no dispute between the main parties at the Hearing that there is no other accommodation nearby to meet the needs on site and I have no reason to disagree.

Furthermore, the Council clarified orally at the Hearing that should the principle of development be found to comply with LP Policy DM28, the second reason for refusal falls away.

There was discussion at the Hearing regarding the rare breed nature of the proposal and the lack of control over this and to the Council being unable to prevent the use of machinery. However, I take the appellants point that should they depart from rare breeds and introduce machinery, this would undermine their business plans and likely reduce their income that is based upon high quality/high value locally produced organic produce. Furthermore, if necessary, the Council will be able to assess the success of the business plan and format through any future planning application around the time of the expiration of any 3 year temporary consent

In conclusion in relation to this main issue, it follows from the above the development adequately demonstrates an essential functional need; provides clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise; is planned on a sound financial basis with a business plan with a realistic prospect of the business thriving to support a permanent dwelling; is of a size and nature such that it can be sustained by the scale of the operation; and, supported by evidence that the need cannot be met by another existing dwelling.

It therefore follows that an essential operational need for a temporary mobile home to accommodate rural workers living permanently at the appeal site has been suitably demonstrated. As such, the development complies with [name] DM28 and the SPD, the aims of which I have outlined above. As a result of compliance with LP Policy DM28, the proposal also accords with LP Policy ST07(4) that limits development in the countryside to that which meet local economic and social needs and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location.

At the Hearing, the Council clarified that any harm to the character and appearance of the area is localised and restricted to views down the entrance from the public highway. However, from my site visit, the development was not generally visible from the public highway due to the distances involved and location behind buildings associated with the Airfield.

Given the single-storey nature of the buildings forming part of the development, given the timber finish to the buildings other than the caravan and given that the caravan is heavily screened from the public domain by hedge planting and buildings at the Airfield, the development causes no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Moreover, and as stated above, the Council confirmed orally that the second reason for refusal falls away if the principle of the development is acceptable. Given that I have found above that the development complies with LP Policy DM28 and the SPD in this regard, the proposal causes no harm to the rural character of the appeal site or wider landscape setting.

At the Hearing, there was also a discussion regarding the provision of outdoor space associated with the residential use of the caravan. The appellants advised that such an area was already provided on site and clearly demarked by fencing. As a result, the main parties agreed that the extent of this area could be controlled by condition to ensure that residential paraphernalia does not extend across the whole holding.

However, at the site visit, I noted that the vast majority of the fenced outdoor space provided falls outside of the red-line site. As such, it does not form part of the plans and development before me. Furthermore, given that the red-line is drawn tightly around the caravan accommodation, access and other buildings, I saw at my site visit that there is little room for outdoor space within the red-line site. Given this, there is no need for me to include a condition requiring the submission of details of outdoor space within the red-line site and there would be no associated harm to the character and appearance of the area from this.

As a result of the above, the development will not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it complies with [name] ST04, DM04, DM08A and DM14. Amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality design that responds to the characteristics of the site; reinforce the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed, avoid adverse landscape and seascape impacts, and respect the character and qualities of the landscape. For the same reasons, the development complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that seeks to achieve well-designed places.

I have had regard to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions, and the suggested planning conditions agreed by the Council and the appellant in the SoCG.

Given that the development is proposed for a temporary trial period, it is necessary for a condition to ensure that the caravan accommodation is removed and the land restored to its former condition within 3 years of the date of this decision.

It is necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

It is also necessary for a condition to be imposed to ensure that the dwelling is occupied by persons connected with agriculture or forestry given that this forms the justification for the proposal and its location in the countryside.

A condition is necessary to ensure the submission and approval of a foul drainage system in the interests of preventing pollution. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval of the foul drainage details. The condition will ensure that the development can be enforced against if the requirements are not met.

It was agreed by both parties at the Hearing that given that the caravan forming part of the development is not a dwelling, it does not benefit from permitted development rights. As a result, it is not necessary to impose a condition removing permitted development rights as suggested in the SoCG.

It was also agreed at the Hearing by both parties that the suggested condition in the SoCG related to external lighting is not necessary given the distance to other dwellings and limited views of the site from the public domain. I have no reason to disagree.

I note the request for a condition related to contaminated land from the Council’s Environmental Health Manager but given the temporary nature of the caravan accommodation and retrospective nature of the application, such a condition is not reasonable or necessary.

Finally, in light of my findings above regarding the position and effect of the curtilage/outdoor space to the caravan and relationship to the red-line site, a condition in relation to this is not reasonable or necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

Department for [name] & [name] of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids – cover page and page 9.

Department for Environment, Food & [name] of practice for the welfare of pigs 5 October 2023 – Preface and paragraphs 17 and 179.

Soil Association, Pig ignorant?, A Soil Association guide to small scale pig keeping – cover page and pages 5 and 6.

Costs Application on behalf of North Devon Council.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: [name] 25 06 25 Location Plan; [name] 25 06 26 Site/Block Plan Existing; [name] 25 06 26 Site/Block Plan Proposed; [name] 25 06 18 [name] Caravan; [name] S1 26 06 24 [name] Stables 1; [name] S2 25 06 24 [name] Stables 2; and, [name] 25 06 26 [name] [name].

The caravan accommodation hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the date three years following the date of this permission

The occupation of the caravan accommodation hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a spouse or partner, or a widow or widower of such a person.

Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision a detailed foul drainage scheme for the site is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 2 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the occupation of the caravan shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 6 months of the date of this decision, or, in the event of the local planning authority refusing the scheme or failing to determine it within the statutory period and a related appeal has not been lodged, the occupation of the caravan shall cease, and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a scheme approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition including an appeal against the refusal or non-determination of the scheme, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge or appeal has been finally determined. END OF CONDITIONS