PSPC considered this application at last night’s meeting however, as there was only one Councillor from Swineshead, it was decided to seek further comments from parishioners in order to help our Councillors to come to a decision. Please do take some time to have a look at the application by clicking on this link: https://edrms.bedford.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?appNumber=23/01212/FUL Please would you forward any comments to the Clerk at: clerk@pertenhallandswineshead-pc.gov.uk by 9:00am on 27th July 2023 You can also submit your comments directly to BBC Planning Department via their website.
The applicant, who attended last night’s meeting, has asked us to include the following statement to assist you in coming to a decision:
Dear Mrs D Robins & Councillor Martin Towler
Thank you for the opportunity to present the special situation of Hill Farm and how the revised planning proposal overcomes the 8 previous points for refusal; and how it has been designed to fall within the National Planning Framework
For ease I have laid this out in the following order:
- Reasons for previous refusal
- How the revised scheme overcomes these reasons
- Comparing the National Planning Policy with the Scheme Design
- Conclusion
- Request
I hope it makes for good reading? 🙏
This statement has been prepared in combination with Matt Brown (PGDIP) of Brown
Boots Town Planning and Zed PODs Ltd (RIBA Architects) to accompany the revised planning application to ultimately extrapolate the pertinent issues regarding development in open countryside.
The revised and resubmitted application addresses reasons for previous refusal and has accords with criteria vi, vii and viii and xi of Policy 7S and criteria i and ii of Policy 76 of the Local Plan 2030.
Planning Permission was refused previously for the following reasons.
- 01. The creation of tourism accommodation in this location would be unacceptable in principle and would not be located in a sustainable location. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Policy 7S (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) and Policy 76 (i) and (ii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030. The application therefore results in an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside and an urbanising effect on the surrounding undeveloped area, failing to accord with criterion xi of Policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030.
- The application fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for the managers’ accommodation on site to sustain the functioning of the proposed agricultural enterprises as an exception to local and national planning policies which seek to restrict development in the countryside. Therefore, the proposal would result in an unwarranted isolated residential development located in the open countryside and in an unsustainable location which would not accord with the spatial strategy contained within Policies 3S and 4S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, the development in rural areas strategy contained in Policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, nor would it accord with the exceptions set out within paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2021).
- By virtue of the precise design, form, external design features, scale, siting and overall visual appearance of the manager’s accommodation and eco lodges, the scheme would result in an unwarranted and unnecessary sprawl of development within undeveloped open countryside and a scheme which would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, nor would it promote local distinctiveness, enhance the landscape, or have a positive relationship with the surrounding area which would integrate well with and complement the character of the area in which the development is located. The scheme is therefore considered to fail to accord with Policies 7S (xi), 28S (i), (ii) and (iv), Policy 29 (i) and (ii) and Policy 30 (ii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, the guidance set out within Paragraph 130 (b) and (c) of the NPPF (2021) and design codes N1 and N2 of the Council’s Residential Extensions, New Dwellings and Small Infill Developments (2000) design guidance.
- The application would result in the intensification of an existing access where visibility is substandard. Such an arrangement would lead to danger and inconvenience to people using it and to highway users in general. The development is therefore contrary to Policy 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the advice set out within Paragraph 110 of the NPPF (2021).
- The application would result in creation of a vehicular access where visibility and forward visibility is substandard and would lead to danger and inconvenience to people using it and to highway users in general. The development is therefore contrary to Policy 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the advice set out within Paragraph 110 of the NPPF (2021).
- The application fails to demonstrate adequate provision for the parking and turning of service, emergency and any agricultural vehicles clear of the highway in accordance with Bedford Borough Council’s Parking Standards for Sustainable Communities: Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document (2014). The resultant reversing of vehicles onto or off the highway would lead to a danger and inconvenience to users of the Highway. The development is therefore contrary to Policy 31 (i), (iii) and (iv) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030.
- The application fails to successfully integrate the functional needs relating to bin storage and collection for both the domestic and commercial elements of the scheme and the application fails to accord with Policy 29 (viii), Policy 32 (v) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the advice set out within the Council’s Waste & Recycling in New Developments Supplementary Planning Document (2021).
- The application fails to demonstrate a suitable method for the disposal of foul waste and fails to accord with Policy 47S (i) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the guidance set out within the Planning Practice Guidance and the advice set out within paragraph 174 (e) of the NPPF (2021).
————————————————–
- Principle of Development
The site is located outside of the Settlement Policy Area of Riseley (but within the Parish of Perterhall and Swineshead) and is located within the open countryside, as identified in the Proposals Map of the adopted Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the lawful use of the site is agriculture.
The previously submitted application was refused for 8 reasons, 2 of these were of a principle nature they read as follows,
“01. The creation of tourism accommodation in this location would be unacceptable in principle and would not be located in a sustainable location. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Policy 7S (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) and Policy 76 (i) and (ii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030. The application therefore results in an unwarranted intrusion in to the countryside and an urbanising effect on the surrounding undeveloped area, failing to accord with criterion xi of Policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030.
- The application fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for the managers’ accommodation on site to sustain the functioning of the proposed agricultural enterprises as an exception to local and national planning policies which seek to restrict development in the countryside. Therefore, the proposal would result in an unwarranted isolated residential development located in the open countryside and in an unsustainable location which would not accord with the spatial strategy contained within Policies 3S and 4S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, the development in rural areas strategy contained in Policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, nor would it accord with the exceptions set out within paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2021).”
Therefore the Council has assessed whether the proposal is in accordance with policy 7S, 75 and 76.
How the revised scheme overcomes reason 1.
The previous application was for the erection of 6no self-contained visitor accommodation units (eco-lodges) and 1no managers accommodation and it is not considered that such development would fall within the criteria set out within i-v of Policy 7S. This is agreed
Policy 7S, sets out that exceptionally development proposals will be supported on sites that are well-related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, Small Settlements or the built form of other settlements where it can be demonstrated that the scheme would also accord with the listed criteria.
The site is located in the open countryside and consideration has been given as to whether the site would be well-related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, a Small Settlement or the built form of other settlements.
It is acknowledged that the site is located approximately 1.4 miles from the defined Settlement Policy Area of Riseley and 1.5 from Melchbourne, as denoted on Inset Map number 28. There are no footpaths located along Melchbourne Road or Swineshead Road between the site and Riseley and the roads in question are country lanes, featuring a 60mph speed limit with no street lighting . In the report supporting the previously refused application the Council state that due to its location the proposed use is inappropriate and was refused the application on principle grounds.
And the council attempt to quantify this approach by the following
“With regard to Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within the area, there are two byways which are located to the north west and south east of the site (BW14 and BW62). These byways connect to a larger footpath network with some of these ultimately providing access to the village of Riseley, however, their routes are not direct and would force future users of the site to navigate through and alongside woodland and open countryside. This PRoW network, in the main, would be unlit and it is considered unlikely that future users of the site would utilise this network throughout the year and throughout all times of the day to access the village. It is therefore not considered that the site is well-related to the Riseley Settlement Policy Area.”
In determining the previous application the Council appear to have overlooked the reasoning as to why the proposed development is required to be in this location and how other locations would not be appropriate for the development proposal before us. The Council have applied a very simplistic approach to what is a complex application which challenges the prescriptive nature of the adopted local policy.
What may not have been made clear in the previous submission, is the use of the land would be a mixture of agriculture(rare breed animals), residential tourism and education element providing a truly unique facility which would be, to our knowledge, a first of its kind within Bedfordshire. The retention of the agricultural side of the business model means that the eco lodges and education provision could not take place if one of the four elements was not in place it would not be exceptional or unique. It is the sites rural location that enables the four elements above to work effectively
Agriculture is at the hub of the revised scheme and without that element the tourism and education part of the proposal simply would not work
The revised scheme has been designed with education, wellness and opportunity in mind and these opportunities arise due to the fact that Hill Farm is used for agricultural purposes in a rural location and that is at the heart of the tourism and education uses proposed. It is the vision of the applicants to provide a facility that benefits people from all backgrounds and for those who may not have had the opportunities to enjoy the open countryside and increase their knowledge of rural practices.
The applicants have partnered with education providers and several Bedfordshire based charities to provide an outdoor education facility with potential residential stays (hence the pods and the one site management facility) and it is the out of the way nature of the location that would provide a facility that is beneficial to the specific needs of the end user, if it was located in or close to a settlement the proposal simply would not work.
The facility would promote mental and physical health by giving people opportunities to spend time working on the land at the farm and in the landscape. It provides health, social and educational benefits for a wide range of visitors, including people with learning difficulties, work-related stress, mental health issues, drug and alcohol problems and employability challenges. It can provide possible solutions for those suffering from obesity and depression. There are also social problems such as disconnection from nature, disaffected young people and elderly with limited opportunities.
On this very point Natural England’s document “Growing Care Farming”explains the £1.4 million-pound investment that is being made by the Government to significantly increase the number of what they call Care Farm places from 1 million to 1.3 million. The document makes reference to the value of the natural environment to wellbeing. Care Farming, as it is called, helps reduce the strain on statutory services while helping to grow income from rural land and provides a much-valued activity for those who are able to be part of a Care Farming project.
For example Phil Jones from the Kings Arm Project, which is a Bedford base homelessness charity, states that the activities proposed at Hill Farm state the following ,
“Pathways Community is a service provided by King’s Arms Project, a local charitable organisation working with the homeless and disadvantaged in Bedford. As part of our provision we currently partner with Scott and Jackie Hodson of Hill Farm to provide opportunities and education for our Pathways community members who are either vulnerable or homeless.
The programme benefits our members by providing access to open green spaces which they would not otherwise be able to reach or use. They specifically benefit from the remote space where they can explore, create and build self-confidence in a natural and supportive environment. We also partner to produce learning and growth opportunities through facilitating the planning and implementation of small projects, which engages community members in group work, team building, leadership skills and confidence, whilst equipping them with many life skills useful both for day-to-day life, and for the workplace.”
Previously, the application was submitted with a degree of information relating to why the proposed use needs to be located outside of a settlement area but we now have the opportunity to expand on this very important subject.
The proposed mixture would not only increase the number of people employed in the rural economy (6x) it would also ensure that a wider range of people are educated in rural practices.
The facilities on site would be managed on a day in day basis by the applicants and that is why the manager’s accommodation needs to be located where it is within the site. The managers accommodation includes the primary accommodation for the applicant and their family; and the mixture of facilities associated with the running of the agricultural business, the eco pods and the education provision, which requires a classroom to be located in within the managers accommodation, therefore the proposed uses are intrinsically linked to residential element of the proposal.
REASON FOR REFUSAL 2
The Council state in reason for refusal 2 that the managers dwelling does not provide evidence of an essential need, it reads as follows,
“The application fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for the managers accommodation on site to sustain the functioning of the proposed agricultural enterprises as an exception to local and national planning policies which seek to restrict development in the countryside. Therefore, the proposal would result in an unwarranted isolated residential development located in the open countryside and in an unsustainable location which would not accord with the spatial strategy contained within Policies 3S and 4S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, the development in rural areas strategy contained in Policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, nor would it accord with the exceptions set out within paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2021).”
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2021) states
“Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:
- there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;”
In effect para 80 of the NPPF states isolated homes should be avoided in the open countryside and that dwellings would only be permitted where there is an essential need for a rural worker and those taking control of a farm business to live permanently in their place of work. The applicants are living on site and use the site for agricultural purposes, catering for the needs of rare breed animals, as such the applicants are intrinsically linked to land and their business proposals are born out of the established agricultural use of the land. Therefore, the Council should view this application for a permanent dwelling in this location in that light, a permanent dwelling on site facilitates the smooth running of the agricultural business and would also assist with the operation of the future activities which diversify the rural economy.
The applicant runs Hens Help Humans which is a business described by companies house –“ Support activities for animal production (other than farm animal boarding and care) not elsewhere classified”. Thereby the applicant can demonstrate that the land is being used for a farm associated business and therefore there is a need for the applicant to live on the site.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires development proposals to be determined in accordance with the development plan for that area unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The application has accords with criteria vi, vii and viii and xi of Policy 7S and criteria i and ii of Policy 76 of the Local Plan 2030 as stated previously.
Examination of Planning Policy & The Proposed Development
| Policy 7S – Development in the countryside Development outside defined Settlement Policy Areas and the built form of Small Settlements will be permitted if it is appropriate in the countryside in accordance with:
i.Policy 65 – Reuse of rural buildings in the countryside ii.Policy 66 – The replacement and extension of dwellings in the countryside. iii. Policy 67 – Affordable housing to meet local needs in the rural area.
v. Neighbourhood Development Plans which have been ‘made’ by Bedford Borough Council. In addition, exceptionally development proposals will be supported on sites that are well-related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, Small Settlements or the built form of other settlements where it can be demonstrated that:
vi. It responds to an identified community need; and
vii. There is identifiable community support and it is made or supported by the parish council or, where there is no parish council, another properly constituted body which fully represents the local community; and
viii. Its scale is appropriate to serve local needs or to support local facilities; and
ix. The development contributes positively to the character of the settlement and the scheme is appropriate to the structure, form, character and size of the settlement.
x. Where a community building is being provided, users of the proposed development can safely travel to and from it by sustainable modes and it is viable in the long term, ensuring its retention as a community asset. All development in the countryside must:
xi. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and
xii. Not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others; and
xiii. Not give rise to other impacts that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, biodiversity or designated Natura 2000 sites. |
The proposal retains an agricultural use and the applicants are indeed the rural workers; the nature of the uses proposed require the site to be managed on a permanent basis. The residential element of the proposal should be considered under policy 68.
The proposed diversification of rural uses and specifics of the proposed mixture of uses need to be located in an area which is away from existing settlements, the allure of the educational and tourist side of the business is based on the rural escape and the health benefits of this which are advocated by Natural England
The letter of support from the Kings Arms (Bedford) demonstrates that the proposed use is in demand and provides real and meaningful benefits to a wide range of end users, children and those with medical issues. The idea of care farms is growing and the applicants are prepared to use their land to form recreational, education and tourism opportunities. At present the open countryside is closed off to wide sectors of society, the proposed use would provide opportunities for people in partnership with local charities / education providers.
Despite only proposing 6 eco pods on this vast site it inevitably attracts people to the area, The Giddy Goat Café and the St Johns Arms Pub, Eastfields Farm Barns will benefit from additional custom.
The design of the eco-lodges and managers accommodation use “agricultural themes” with vertical panelling, square structures, complementary colours and a nod to the local character.
N/A
The managers dwelling and eco pods have been designed to have the least amount of impact on the character of the area. The eco pods are very low small scale and located behind an established hedgerow and from the road side would appear like buildings associated with agriculture. New habitat created for bats, hedgehogs, rabbits. New ancient hedgerows and woodland will promote more insect, bird and small mammal habitation. The previously submitted ecology report did not raise any material objections. |
| Policy 75 – New employment development in the countryside New employment development (“B” use class and sui-generis business uses such as builder’s yards) will be supported in the countryside in the following circumstances:
i. Where it is within a defined employment area;
or ii. For the reuse of land last used for employment purposes within the ‘B’ use classes, sui generis or for the reuse of existing buildings;
or iii. For the expansion of an established business within its existing operational site;
or iv. For the diversification of agricultural and provision for other land based rural businesses. In all instances applicants will be required to demonstrate all of the following:
v. If a new building is proposed, there are no existing buildings that could be used for the proposed use;
vi. The proposed use needs to be in the rural area and cannot be located within a Settlement Policy Area or within a designated Small Settlement;
vii. Open storage is ancillary to employment buildings and is located in well contained and screened areas of the site with an appropriate height restriction;
viii. The proposal would not generate traffic movement and volume that would lead to unacceptable environmental impacts or detriment to highway safety objectives;
ix. The proposal would not have a significant and demonstrable harm to the established character of the area and the local amenities and adjoining land uses and accords with Policy 41S;
–
x. There would be no adverse impact on biodiversity including Natura 2000 sites in accordance with Policy 42S. |
N/A
N/A
Existing use of offices, storage and retail given by previous permissions.
The proposal will introduce uses in addition to the existing agricultural use of the site.
The existing buildings on the site could not readily be converted to satisfactory visitor accommodation.
The proposed tourist and education uses could not be located within a built up area. The bespoke selling point of application is the fact that the site is isolated and provides an escape from elements of life associated with urban living and also provides a rural environment for children/adults to learn in which is outside of a traditional classroom environment. There have been many studies undertaken which demonstrate the benefits of this way of learning.
N/A
The proposal due to its small scale would not result in the generation of more traffic movements than would be expected from a intensely used farm. The Transport Statement produced by Via Solutions November 2022 demonstrates that the proposed use would not result in traffic movements that would harm highway safety. (Previous reasons for refusal have been overcome)
Careful consideration was paid in development an aesthetic that was respectful of the rural setting but also with a modern contemporary finish. The timber cladding will be used to create a natural texture and aesthetic but with a modern aesthetic which will tie in with other shades of darkened grey finishes making the lodges contrast against the green context, the site is landscaped to reduce the proposals impact from the main road.
The metal roofing with metal panelling and flashings pays respect to neighbouring agricultural buildings and also provides a highly robust finish. There will be a generous external timber decking for each unit toward the front and rear with opaque glass screens to allow light to enter interior spaces whilst providing privacy between units.
The managers accommodation is a dwelling to house for the owners family with an office space to host the business. The design features a large open plan double height kitchen, living and dining space as the centrepiece with large glazing panels on two levels leading onto an outdoor deck and views over the entirety of the site. The home will contain 4 bedrooms, one master suite, one wheelchair accessible suite for elderly visitors and two additional suites.
The upper level is the be accessed staircase flight to a mezzanine lit by rooflights. The building is designed to provide for the family to grow into well above the national space standards. There will be a number of storage areas throughout the building and a pantry. There will also be three additional outdoor spaces accessible from the first floor, one for the master bedroom suite, one connecting the office spaces with an external stair access for business clients to bypass the main house and also provide a secondary means of escape, and one large area towards the front for the two kids bedrooms with an adjoining slide.
There were no previous biodiversity issues. |
| Policy 76 – Improvement and provision of new visitor accommodation Planning permission will be granted for new visitor-related buildings including hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and self-catering facilities where the following criteria have been met:
i.the proposal is located within the urban area, a Key Service Centre, a Rural Service centre or a Small Settlement; or settlement;
or ii. where the proposal is located within the countryside, it is well related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, a Small Settlement or the built form of other settlements in accordance with the principles set out in Policy 7S.
In all other locations, development for new visitor facilities will only be supported in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the proposal cannot reasonably be achieved from a location set out in i. or ii. of this policy. |
For reasons explained previously the proposal cannot be located in rural service centre or settlement |
Conclusion
The scheme would result in economic benefits arising from support for local businesses in the form of additional tourism footfall combined with the educational arm or the proposal.
Previous applications acknowledge that the use of the site for agriculture is lawful and it can be demonstrated that there is a need for 24 / 7 presence on site so there should not be an “in principle” objection to the use of part of the site for residential purposes. Therefore the residential element of the scheme should be considered under policy 68.
The provision of 6 self-catered eco lodges combined with the agricultural use (rare breed and rescue animals) leads to a requirement for on-site presence throughout the day and night. There is a functional need for a dwelling on site, or that the enterprise is currently financially sound and has the clear prospect of remaining so going forward.
The proposal is self-sufficient regarding the proposed buildings, these environmental benefits would significantly enhance the site, providing a bespoke use previously unseen in North Bedfordshire and thereby outweighs any environmental harm (No ecological impact).
It is recognised that the environmental performance of the buildings is a positive element of the proposal.
The scheme would result in biodiversity benefits, to include the planting of 1,600 trees and the creation and improvement of habitats, however, the Local Plan 2030 and the NPPF (2021) expects developments to secure a biodiversity net gain in any case. Whilst it is considered that the 1,400 trees proposed to be planted is likely to result in a net gain above that required by the Local Plan 2030.
It is recognised that paragraph 84 of the NPPF (2021) states that planning decisions should enable sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments, however the paragraph makes it clear that these developments should respect the character of the countryside. The same paragraph sets out that planning decisions should enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. As stated within this report, the creation of tourism accommodation in this location would fail to accord with Policies 7S and 76 of the Local Plan 2030 scheme would not pass the functional and financial test. It is therefore not considered that the scheme would constitute the sustainable growth and expansion of a business within a rural area.
Further, paragraph 84 of the NPPF (2021) sets out that planning decisions should enable the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. The supporting Planning and Design and Access Statement demonstrate that the proposal is genuine diversification of a rural business.
Overall, the revised application now accords with Policies 7S and 76 of the Local Plan 2030 and the identified benefits arising from the scheme will certainly outweigh the previously identified conflict or the harm arising from the proposed development. Therefore, the principle of agriculture, tourism, education and residential on site must be considered acceptable in this instance.
Request
Please publish this statement for the absent councillors and public to comment I am available for open dialogue on this email or 07739489227
As you now fully understand the special circumstances of this site and development I request that we have the opportunity to be heard at a full planning committee – Please can you support this request?
KR
Scotty Hodson
Hill Farm