October 2021 Minutes EOM
STUBTON PARISH COUNCIL
Members
Martin Davis - Chair
Bob Warren - Clerk
David Butler – Vice Chair
Rick Crooks - Councillor
Andrew Smith -Councillor
Jackie Warren - Councillor
Minutes of the Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting held on Monday 4th October 2021
Present
Cllr Martin Davis - Chair
Cllr David Butler – Vice Chair
Cllr Rick Crooks
Cllr Jackie Warren
Bob Warren - Clerk
1. Cllr Smith sent his apologies for not attending the meeting due to being on holiday and the councillors present voted unanimously to accept this reason.
2. No declarations of interest in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 were received.
3. The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on Wednesday 14th July 2021 were approved unanimously and a copy signed by Cllr Davis.
4. Planning application S21/1734 Fenton Road Barns – Change of use of agricultural building to dwelling house on the west side of Fenton Road, Stubton.
Cllr Davis stated that the meeting was to discuss whether the planning application meets the criteria for permitted development under Class Q according to Government Regulations. Cllr Davis has received extracts of the regulations from the SKDC planning department and parts of these were read out (copy attached to the minutes).
A letter received by the PC from Mr Senior was read out at the meeting (copy attached).
A letter of response from the applicants Mr and Mrs Snook was also read out at the meeting (copy attached)
Cllr Davis asked if any of the members of public present wished to make a comment.
Cllr Crooks asked whether there had been planning permission granted for the 2 buildings on the site. A resident offered that the field shelter would not have needed permission because of its size and construction. The other building, the subject of the planning application would probably have been permitted development to go hand in hand with the land. When the land was sold to The Burton family there was a covenant requiring plans to be submitted for approval of any building by the Burtt family. This occurred in 1997 but the construction of the building took place in increments between 2001 and 2004.
The resident confirmed that although reference had been made to Beeswax owning the land adjacent to the field being discussed it was in fact owned by her. She purchased the land from Alan Barnsdale who in turn purchased the land from the Burtt family. Cllr Davis stated that he believed Beeswax/Dyson didn’t come to this area until around 2016.
The resident confirmed that the age of the building at its earliest would be 2001. Cllr Crooks stated that the date to be considered was March 20th 2013. The resident stated that the Burton family bought the land in 1995 and since that time it has been used for equestrian purposes. There are circumstances where the use of the land for horses can be considered agricultural but in her opinion the use has been for leisure purposes and is therefore considered as equestrian use.
A resident asked Cllr Davis how long he had been in the village and whether he could remember the field being used for anything else other than horses. Cllr Davis informed the meeting he had been a resident for 13 years and could personally only remember the field being used for horses. Cllr Crooks pointed out that this was only a remembrance.
It was pointed out that the building in question was constructed as 3 stables although 2 of them may have been demolished recently.
A resident stated that the PC should also be objecting to the development on the grounds that the build doesn’t fit in with the Neighbourhood plan and that it puts more pressure on existing services. Cllr Davis pointed out that the only consideration at the moment was to whether the application meets the criteria for Class Q development.
There was considerable debate amongst all present as to the use of the land and building in March 2013 with an overwhelming consensus from those that lived in the village at the time that it was not in use for agricultural purposes. There was a suggestion that Class Q applications often had supporting evidence that they had been used for agricultural purposes such as a registered holding number.
Cllr Davis asked each individual councillor for their comments.
Cllr Butler thanked everyone for their input and stated that he would like the PC to put forward a negative comment to SKDC regarding the application. He further commented that if this application was successful it could impact on the neighbourhood plan and in particular infill building between the edge of the village and the proposed building.
Cllr Warren stated she was new to the village and had no historical evidence but that she was hearing a lot of historical and paperwork evidence from residents disputing what Mr and Mrs Snook were saying in their application. The PC should be commenting that there are doubts about whether the application meets the criteria and let SKDC investigate.
Cllr Crooks stated that the PC should comment on what we have heard and that we have also had a contrary submission. He stated he was not in the village in 2013 and could not say for sure what was happening then. We could say that on balance we seem to be hearing more questions over the use of the building in 2013 than we hear positives.
Cllr Davis stated that the applicants letter states that the qualifying criteria under Class Q is that the building was in agricultural use on March 20th 2013 but on hearing concerns from everybody the facts seem to be that the Burtons built the structure as a horse shelter incorporating 3 loose boxes. A covenant on the land forbade the building of any structure other than a shelter for horses. The land does not appear to have been used since 1996 for agricultural purposes. It also appears that Beeswax farming have had no involvement with the structure or the land in question. In conclusion the structure does not qualify for permitted development under Class Q.
Cllr Davis moved to make a statement as follows.
This Parish Council has to enter an ‘objection’ to SKDC planning, that S21/1734 does not meet the Criteria, as set out by Government Regulation, to be considered for permissive development under Class Q, and the application should be withdrawn/refused; based upon a Parish Council meeting with contributions from residents, and that the Applicants’ Support Documentation is factually incorrect”
The statement was seconded by Cllr Butler and accepted by a unanimous vote.
Cllr Davis thanked everyone for attending the meeting and the meeting was concluded.
--------------
Class Q – agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses
Permitted development
Q. Development consisting of—
(a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural
building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes
Order; and or
(b) development referred to in paragraph (a) together with building operations reasonably
necessary to convert the building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class
C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule.
Development not permitted
Q.1 Development is not permitted by Class Q if—
(a) the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit—
(i) on 20th March 2013, or
(ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date,
when it was last in use, or
(iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20th March 2013, for a period of at
least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins;
(b) the cumulative floor space of the existing building or buildings changing use under Class Q
within an established agricultural unit exceeds 450 square metres;
(c) the cumulative number of separate dwellinghouses developed under Class Q within an established
agricultural unit exceeds 3;
(d) the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless the express consent of both the landlord
and the tenant has been obtained;
(e) less than 1 year before the date development begins—
(i) an agricultural tenancy over the site has been terminated, and
(ii) the termination was for the purpose of carrying out development under Class Q,
unless both the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing that the site is no longer required
for agricultural use;
(f) development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this Schedule (agricultural buildings and
operations) has been carried out on the established agricultural unit—
(i) since 20th March 2013; or
(ii) where development under Class Q begins after 20th March 2023, during the period which
is 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins;
(g) the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the
external dimensions of the existing building at any given point;
(h) the development under Class Q (together with any previous development under Class Q) would
result in a building or buildings having more than 450 square metres of floor space having a use
falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order;
(b) in the case of—
(i) a larger dwellinghouse, within an established agricultural unit—
(aa) the cumulative number of separate larger dwellinghouses developed under Class
Q exceeds 3; or
(bb) the cumulative floor space of the existing building or buildings changing use to a
larger dwellinghouse or dwellinghouses under Class Q exceeds 465 square
metres;
(ba) the floor space of any dwellinghouse developed under Class Q having a use falling within Class
C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order exceeds 465 square metres;
(c) in the case of—
(i) a smaller dwellinghouse, within an established agricultural unit—
(aa) the cumulative number of separate smaller dwellinghouses developed under Class
Q exceeds 5; or
(bb) the floor space of any one separate smaller dwellinghouse having a use falling
within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order
exceeds 100 square metres;
(d) the development under Class Q (together with any previous development under Class Q) within
an established agricultural unit would result in either or both of the following—
(i) a larger dwellinghouse or larger dwellinghouses having more than 465 square metres of
floor space having a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the
Use Classes Order;
(ii) the cumulative number of separate dwellinghouses having a use falling within Class C3
(dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order exceeding 5;
(e) the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless the express consent of both the landlord
and the tenant has been obtained;
(f) less than 1 year before the date development begins—
(i) an agricultural tenancy over the site has been terminated, and
(ii) the termination was for the purpose of carrying out development under Class Q,
unless both the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing that the site is no longer required
for agricultural use;
(g) development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this Schedule (agricultural buildings and
operations) has been carried out on the established agricultural unit—
(i) since 20th March 2013; or
(ii) where development under Class Q begins after 20th March 2023, during the period which
is 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins;
(h) the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the
external dimensions of the existing building at any given point;
(i) the development under Class Q(b) would consist of building operations other than—
(i) the installation or replacement of—
(aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or
(bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services,
to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and
(ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations
allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i);
(j) the site is on article 2(3) land;
(k) the site is, or forms part of—
(i) a site of special scientific interest;
(ii) a safety hazard area;
(iii) a military explosives storage area;
(l) the site is, or contains, a scheduled monument; or
(m) the building is a listed building.
Conditions
Q.2— (1) Where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) together with development
under Class Q(b), development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the
development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to
whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to—
(a) transport and highways impacts of the development,
(b) noise impacts of the development,
(c) contamination risks on the site,
(d) flooding risks on the site,
(e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or
undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class
C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, and
(f) the design or external appearance of the building,, and
(g) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses,
and the provisions of paragraph W (prior approval) of this Part apply in relation to that
application.
(2) Where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) only, development is
permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must
apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the
authority will be required as to the items referred to in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) and (g), and
the provisions of paragraph W (prior approval) of this Part apply in relation to that application.
(3) Development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development under Class
Q(a), and under Class Q(b), if any, must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the
prior approval date.
Interpretation of Class Q
Q.3. For the purposes of Class Q—
“larger dwellinghouse” means a dwellinghouse developed under Class Q which has a floor space of
more than 100 square metres and no more than 465 square metres having a use falling within Class C3
(dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order;
“smaller dwellinghouse” means a dwellinghouse developed under Class Q which has a floor space of
no more than 100 square metres having a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order.
Planning Application S21/1734
Change of Use of Agricultural Building to Dwelling
Comments for the Parish Council Meeting on 4th October 2021
by Gary Senior
There are regulations in place that allow the conversion of redundant agricultural
buildings without the need to go through the full planning permission process.
These regulations, introduced in 2014, are known as ‘Class Q permitted
development’ and they are part of the government’s drive to ease the pressure
on housing in rural areas. Normal restrictions in the council’s local plan such as
developing only within village boundaries do not apply to this type of
application.
To enjoy the permitted development rights the building must have been in a use
solely for agriculture as part of an established agricultural unit on or before 20th
March 2013. The use may have ceased before March 2013, but it cannot have
had any other material change of use since it stopped having an agricultural use.
An ‘Agricultural Building’ is defined in the General Permitted Development
Order. This states that the building should be used for agriculture and be so
used for the purposes of a trade or business. This definition also applies to the
term ‘Agricultural Use’. Therefore this does not include an agricultural use that is
purely recreational such as where the keeping or breeding of animals or the
growing of produce is undertaken as a hobby. It is essentially a use whereby a
person earns a living. The definition also expressly excludes equine activities
unless in very specific cases, horses are kept for agricultural purposes. If horses
are given supplemental feed (i.e. hay or hard feed) and kept in the field for
exercise and accommodation, then the predominant use of the land is not
regarded as agricultural.
The title deeds for the land show that in January 1995 the site was bought from
Dennis Burtt (and others) by David and Alison Burton. The Burtons sold the site
to the current owner and applicant in December 2020. There is reference in the
planning application to ownership by Beeswax Dyson Farming but they do not
appear to have ever owned it.
The transfer from Burtt to Burtons contained a covenant stating
“not to erect any buildings on the property save (subject to obtaining any
necessary statutory consents) a shelter for horses…”
The building that is the subject of this application is the one subsequently built
by the Burtons and used for horses/equestrian. It was never part of a previous
agricultural holding. Whilst a legal covenant is not in itself a planning matter it
does confirm the reason that the previous owner bought the site and the
purpose of the constructed building.
I have lived in the village since 1996 and I have only known the site to be used
for horses/equestrian from that time until April 2021 when sheep were
introduced to the land, and more recently pigs. For a number of years prior to
the Burtons selling the land to the applicant it was let to a third party who also
used it for equestrian, plus occasional dog training. They looked after the
Burton’s horse as well as their own horses.
The site and building do not therefore meet the requirements and conditions of
Class Q and conversion should be resisted. The Parish Council should object to
the application on the basis that the building was in use for equine and not
agriculture on 20 March 2013, and the equine use has continued from that date
until the applicant bought the site in December 2020.
Planning Application
The Barns
Fenton Road
Stubton
FTAO : Stubton Parish Council
Thank you for providing us with a copy of a public document/statement (sent via the PC email) regarding the above planning application. It needs to be noted that we were not able to contact our planning consultant until the afternoon of the 30th September; which has meant he has had only limited time to provide us with more detailed information to expand on the requirements of the formal submission to SKDC. Where appropriate the consultant has sought to address specific statements made in the document/statement (but not conjecture) in so far as they may have relevance to the application. Ongoing discussion on the application has and is taking place between our consultant and the SKDC planning officer as part of the process. The Class Q regulations are subject to interpretation at a Local Authority level and at individual case level.
It needs to be stated at the outset that the principal qualifying criteria is that “the building was in agricultural use on 20th March 2013”. The application is for change of use of the building and not the change of use of the land, which was, is and will remain agricultural in accordance with the title deed and the current Class Q regulations. If approved only the land equivalent to the footprint of the existing proposed barn can be designated for use for the purpose of outdoor space for the converted building.
Beeswax Farming own the adjacent retained land which was split from the proposed site during the 1995 transfer. Their reply to the solicitor's letter sent in November 2020, as part of the sale to Mr Mrs Snook, serves to demonstrate “the agricultural nature of the site during the 1995 transfer according to their records. This simply demonstrates the agricultural nature of the site at the point of the 1995 transfer and the subsisting agricultural operations in the locality”. (as per letter from Beeswax Dyson Farming dated 20th November 2020). The same letter also confirms that consent was sought and given for the two outbuildings.
There are four covenants, none of which can confirm or otherwise why the previous owner bought the site; that is conjecture. The two covenants pertaining to this application are set out in full below:
• “not to carry on or permit or suffer to be carried on upon the property any trade or business whatsoever other than agriculture”
During the transfer documentation when the land was purchased in 2020, the seller's replies to enquires provided the existing use of the property was “agricultural, more than 100 years continuous”. Further documentation from the original purchase of the land by the Burtt family in the 1940's also confirms that the land was wholly agricultural at that time.
• “not to erect any buildings on the property save (subject to obtaining statutory consents) a shelter for horses the design and location of which said shelter shall first be approved in writing by the vendors”.
There is no online planning history for either the proposed barn or the timber horse shelter to the north west of the site. In addition there was no “hard copy” documentation provided at the time of transfer to Mr Mrs Snook by the previous owner. The latter is unequivocally a shelter for horses and was likely erected in conjunction with 2 (c) of LL115283. The proposed barn is unambiguously agricultural in appearance and build. The materials and design are synonymous to agricultural Atcost buildings across the country.
We can confirm that the land is currently being used for agricultural purposes, as is the proposed barn. This is not relevant to the application as “the principal qualifying criteria for agricultural use is 20th March 2013”.
The fact that horses may or have grazed on the surrounding land does not materially change the lawful use of the proposed barn – its agricultural use can subsist. The same applies even in the case that the surrounding land has been used for recreational purposes.
Even if the proposed building itself has been used sporadically for keeping of recreational horses, the crucial question is whether this does in fact represent a material change in the use of the building, or whether it was of no real significance in planning terms, so as to have been “de minimis”. It cannot be assumed that any other use of an agricultural or former agricultural building for some non agricultural purpose would automatically represent a material change of use. This is bound to be a matter of fact and degree in each case, but a casual, low key or occasional use for other purposes would not normally amount to a material change of use if this did not result in any significant change in the character of the buildings use, nor a change in its impact in planning terms (Great Totham, Essex (Maldon DC) in July 2018 (3198348).
The question of proving agricultural use is simply “a matter of fact and degree” and an applicant cannot be required to prove any such facts beyond the balance of probability. In FW Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC (1985)J.P.L 630, it was held that the applicant's own evidence does not need to be corroborated by “independent” evidence in order to be accepted. If the LPA has no evidence to contradict or otherwise make the applicant's version of events less than probable, there would be no good reason for the LPA not to be satisfied that the relevant criteria are met, so that the proposed development complies with the qualifying limitations and restrictions set out in Class Q, provided the information produced by the applicant is sufficiently precise and unambiguous by itself. As regards representations from third parties, merely expressing doubt, scepticism or disbelief as to the use of the building would not amount to evidence that contradicts or otherwise makes the applicant's version of events less than probable.
A copy of the title deeds can be provided to the PC on request, however we can assure the PC that all the relevant wording from this document (as directed by planning consultant) in so far as it pertains to the proposed barn has been included.
The proposed change of use under the Class Q criteria is to enable Mr Mrs Snook to convert the barn to build a house that is fit for purpose for the future; whilst retaining the land itself for agricultural use in some shape or form; as per the SKDC long term plan, the Village/Community Plan, the Title Deed and the current Class Q Regulations.
Paul and Penelope Snook
October 2nd 2021.