As planning consultants we regularly check the schedule of planning decisions which DoE Planning send to the District Councils on a monthly basis. What is very noticeable about the decisions month after month is the shear volume of applications for farm dwellings and the large percentage of which are recommended for refusal. DoE Planning are often blamed for inconsistency from one planning office to another, but when it comes to making decisions on farm dwellings they are definitely consistent across all planning offices in their decision to refuse applications for farm dwellings month after month.Something is very wrong here; either DoE Planning have tightened up significantly on their policy for farm dwellings, or applicants are not submitting the right information, or worse still are getting the wrong advice.

Planning Policy
Rural planning policy has shifted somewhat in recent years from a fairly permissive policy on dwellings in general in the countryside outside of green belts up to 2006, to all but a total clamp down on rural house building when PPS 14 was published, to a now more balanced approach under PPS21 which is relatively sympathetic to proposals for houses in the countryside for those that need to live there such as farmers and their families. The policy isn’t perfect but by and large it provides increased opportunity for genuine rural dwellers to secure approval for a dwelling. Further to this, unlike previous rural planning policy, there is no agricultural occupancy condition attached to the approval; so what the farmer does with the dwelling once approved is up to them, provided they don’t want to apply for another one for a further 10 years. In theory therefore, it should be fairly straight forward to secure planning permission.

So what do you need to do to satisfy the policy and get permission? There are a number of key policy tests within PPS21 which need to be met,
- Firstly you need to have a farm that has been active for more than 6 years, ideally with a farm ID
- You must not have sold off any other dwellings or development opportunities on the farm in the previous 10 years (applicable from 25th November 2008)
- The new building must be sited so that it clusters with an established group of buildings on the farm

The main hurdle with the policy is that it requires applicants to propose a dwelling which clusters with a group of buildings on the farm – do this and you are reasonably assured of an approval. It should be noted that this does not necessarily have to be the main group of buildings, provided the proposal is sited to cluster with existing buildings somewhere within the holding.

Significantly, the policy makes an exception to the clustering requirement to allow an alternative site elsewhere on the farm if there are no opportunities adjacent to existing farm groupings. However, it must be proven that there are genuine health and safety reasons for this or there are plans to expand the farm such that a site for a dwelling wouldn’t be feasible. Health and safety grounds is often the easier of these to prove and it could include for example a dangerous access.

What the policy doesn’t say, but DoE Planning has released as separate guidance, is that in the rare scenario where there are no buildings on the farm to cluster with, it may still be possible to secure planning approval.

In reality, most farmers are reluctant to cluster beside the existing farm and would normally prefer to look for an alternative site elsewhere on the farm, so it is always worth fully exploring all your options before applying.

Are Applicants Getting it Wrong…………?
So, you have the requisite farm ID, you haven’t sold off any other dwellings and you can prove the need to site away from farm groupings, you will then need to find a site which is suitable (in planning terms) for a new building. This seems to be the main area where applicants are failing time and again. So, get good planning advice before choosing a site.

Planning Service will assess the suitability of a site based on the views of the site from main public view points, in particular, nearby roads. A building doesn’t have to be invisible when viewed from a public road, but it can’t be the most prominent feature in the landscape.

Buildings are best absorbed into the landscape through use of vegetation such as trees or hedges or landscape features. Hill top locations are not at all suitable, however, by moving the site further down the hill and using the hill as a backdrop, you instantly create a much better chance of approval because the building is now more “in” the landscape rather than “on” it.

It should be remembered of course to consider the views of the site from 360 degrees – moving the site for the dwelling away from a key view from one road may make it much more prominent from another road. Like anything in planning, it is about striking the balance. If it is not possible to site a dwelling on your land without it being too prominent from one or more main public view points, move on, don’t waste your time or money on such a site because if it is too prominent, you can be sure that the planners will not like it and you will get refused.

Linked with the prominence and integration issues is the need for the site to have well established boundaries. Planners favour sites that are naturally formed by trees or other vegetation or a landscape feature. Sites created out of a corner of a field will rarely be acceptable because you are likely to have only two boundaries and unless the other sides are formed by some landscape feature, the site is likely to be open making it difficult to successfully site a dwelling without it being prominent.

Many applications seem to be failing as a result of the proposed dwelling creating or adding to a ribbon of development. Ribbon development is where a suburban style row of 3 or more houses (or other buildings) has been developed over time along a rural road. Attempting to add another dwelling on to the end of this row will add to the ribbon and will be refused. By contrast the policy allows for buildings to be sited in a gap between 3 or more buildings along a road frontage. The main thing to look out for when choosing a suitable gap site is that its size ought to be comparable to the plot sizes either side of it.

While policy has improved significantly since PPS14, it should be noted that it is not a free for all again. Applicants will still have a number of hoops to jump through and while farmers are entitled to a farm dwelling, any old site won’t do. Also, the policy is written now to provide those with a genuine link to the countryside the opportunity to develop a house which will mainly benefit the agricultural community and the odd exception such as someone with a rural business who needs to live beside it or a personal circumstance case. Those seeking to move from the town to build a house in the countryside, need not apply.

Finally, look out for unscrupulous agents who would submit an application for you that will simply not work because the site would not tick any of the boxes as described above. A professional planner can guide you in choosing the right site and can take you through the application process – a relatively small amount spent up front obtaining sound planning advice before you think about applying for a new dwelling, could save you thousands later down the line.