| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| mechanicalmouse |
Agricultural Planning Development rightsTo avoid thread-jacking another thread I'm going to pose the questions here.In order to get Agricultural Planning Development, I need to prove the need to live on site and financial viability to demonstrate that there is a profitable business to support an agricultural worker. Given the relatively high maintenance required by the high intensity farming needed to produce all year round produce from a single plot I think the need to be on site should be fairly easy, especially since the the two LPAs I've talked to will accept temporary accommodation (caravans) during the initial proving stage. Here is the crux. The plan is "self sufficiency" a contained life style, therefore by the very definition there will be no profit, and hopefully no loss. Unfortunately my earlier figures on wind power appear to be over optimistic (even at 1/2 potential output). The buy back from the grid was hopefully going to be enough to cover taxes, fuel and everything else we couldn't grow. If I can secure a plot with a sufficiently strong river Hydro power may be an option. Anyway I digress... My questions are :- What size plots have people been able to get Agricultural Planning Development for? I've heard figures of 12 acres, but its possible to be fully self sufficient on 1/2 that. Is there any thoughts or experiences on getting permission on Non-profit business? |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
I've been reading though the Nottingham Council Planning Guidance for Agricultural Workers' Dwellings. I've not found one for our Local authority, though I'm guessing it will be the same.
I'm curious on
Mind you while looking for a Charnwood Agricultural Workers' Dwelling Document I did find they allowed the building of a 4 bed detached house+garage for farms "Waste/Environmental Manager". Though it is a big poultry farm, I remember they where looking for an IT manager last year... that came with a house. |
||||||
| beean |
It depends on more than just size, surely: soil type, shelter, water supply, and the like. I THINK 5 hectares might be the minimum generally considered to be feasible, but that would relaly is "generally considered".
Some councils interpret things differently, similarly it's on a case-by-case basis. Some are (rightly) very suspiscious of it. Planners (and local people!) would understandably not take kindly to the idea that people are applying becuase they want to have a big house in idyllic setting cheap (agri land being much cheaper than development land!). You need to be able to show that you can cover cash expenditures like tax, insurance, pension funding, etc, so you will need to have sales as well as own-use products. You should have a sensible business plan extending to three-five years. You also need to be able to show that you have to live on-site all year-round. And it would help if you could proove you had appropriate experience too. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
Check out Annex A of PPS7 as most LPA's will be using this as their foundation in appraising Agri Workers dwellings.
This gives the tests that will be applied to any app. Since Petter and Harris gave a caselaw precedent self sufficiency and subsistence incomes are allowed but many LPA's take some convincing (PPS7 does refer to this change though) There are LPA's with Low Impact policies (such as Torridge and West Dorset) which specifically allow for 'sustainable lifestyle' holdings. As I have said before though, many LPA's make the temporary consent every bit as hard to get as they can due to the fact that once you have this (as long as your business survives) they know you are pretty much a shoe in for Permanent consent. My advice is get good professional advice as early as possible in proceedings, DO NOT wait until you come up against problems which may be a nightmare to unpick retrospectively. |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
I've just read the guidelines in the governments Planning Policy for development in rural areas.
Admittedly these are guidelines and any LPA can fairly ignore them but under the financial test there are clauses for self sufficient holdings.
Makes me feel a little more hopeful, though I will need to figure out a way to get the financials a little better than they are. Need to look at the overheads, try and split personal over heads from the business. 5 Hectares is 12 Acres, which is outside our budget, hoping to afford 6 or 7. 12 acres should produce all we need and more, great for the financial budget if we can sell the surplus. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
This is the bit I referred to. LPA's cannot sensibly ignore PPS7 as it is the Policy advice that the application will be judged on and will (somewhere) be in their Local Plan or LDF stuff.
For the temporary consent you only need to show that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. So as long as the figures relating to your business plan are reasonable and that any maths they include is correct that should satisfy the policy requirements. Functional need is ALWAYS the big issue! |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Currently my spreadsheets are looking at it from "personal endeavour" meaning all the costs are bundled together. I need to split them to what is the costs for the farm and what is our costs. Nappies, TV licence, fuel for personal travel and so on are not business costs and can be removed from my figures.
That way I can prove the farm itself is viable, however the farm + our living cost is not. Of course I'm still in a feasibility study stage, we've brought no land, its all just numbers at the moment. I've read most people here are having to have a part time job to make their smallholding work, hows that taken into account. I Know the Annex E mentions a "full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture", so I assume as long as part-time work is less that time on the smallholding that would be allowed. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
Like I said before, Functional Need is the key, if you dont have this nailed down the rest will be pointless.
This is the danger of factoring in 'off site' work as it effectively accepts that you dont need to be there all the time (the very basis of the functional test). What enterprise(s) are you reasoning is your need to be on site? |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
"Functional Need" is a bit vague though.
A good example is this Chicken Farm having houses for its IT manager and Environment manager. Sure a Server outage or Fly infestation are nasty and could be costly, but most companies don't have their IT manager living in the server room. On the other hand there are people that commute 2 hours to get to work. When we buy the land we will not have enough money to buy another house. Its all or nothing. But I know that will not be taken into account in the Planning permission. Nought like gambling your families entire future on a dream 
|
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
Functional need is anything but vague when it comes to your application though. You need to identify what needs you there, why (with good back up) and then some other planning Inspectorate precedent if possible that entirely relates to your proposals. We have a very detailed template that we use in Independent Assesments for Agri PP and this is where the entire focus of teh decision normally seems to be fought out. |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
this is just an idea draft.... A 6 acre organic subsistence farm with a combination of livestock and crops. In order to get sufficient produce from the area to allow a self sufficient system the crops will have to be farmed using high intensity methods. Such methods of growing crops, combined with the removal of chemical pest control will require a higher level of attendance than traditional farming methods. The condensed growing area will also be more vulnerable to vermin or disease, combined with a lower tolerance for loss/shrinkage* the response time to deal such with issue becomes critical. Livestock require daily attendance, and while they will have a healthy area for roaming they are subject to the same low tolerance to shrinkage as crops, making fast response to animal attack or theft of critical importance. *Shrinkage is the business term for account for loss (either through stealing, damage or malfunction). I don't know what the agricultural term is. |
||||||
| RichardW |
In your experiance, What will be accepted or it it just how well you fight? |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
This is a fine basic intro, but 'livestock' and intensive 'crops' needs to be turned into exactly what animals, kept under what system and which bits of that system require round the clock availiability/attendance of labour and why. Crops need their automated systems specified and explained to demonstrate risks and potential disasters etc. The council will generally have their own (very 'conventional') agricultural consultant who will go through your proposals and will be looking to show how your needs could be met from some local village or town, and remember he shoots such schemes down in flames most weeks, so know your stuff. We tend to break Functional need into three catagories: Core - Those enterprises that always carry with them an accepted, or at least a technically provable, requirement to live on site due to the intrinsically fragile nature of the systems unavoidably involved. Secondary - Those that have a convincing argument as to why attendance would be justified, but either requiring alot of background information or exceptional circumstances, to establish a watertight case. Supportive - These are factors that dont in themselves establish a functional need, but help make a better case of those above when added in to the mix. Security and risk of predation tends to be a typical one of these. We try to avoid suggesting enterprises specifically to help tick planning boxes as this can lead to abuses of the system that then make it harder for genuine attempts to find a sympathetic ear. and please trust that I am not angling for any work! but get a professional view on your plans before going to far. The way things are presented (or set up for later in proceedings) is all important. It may cost initially, but like all good advice will save more in the long run. 
|
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Thanks for all the advice.
Fertile, roughly how much do these consultancy fee cost, I'd like to factor them into my initial costs? As for automated systems, I had not really thought about using them. I did not think the scale of out project warranted such systems, so I've not really looked into them. Truthfully I was envisaging using irrigation troughs, sprinklers and hose pipes all in a very manual fashion. I'll have a look at automated systems, but I'm dubious about the benefits outweighing costs. Of course it most likely my inexperience of large scale growing is making a rod for my own back. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
The reason I mention automated systems is that, horticulturally speaking, they help the enterprise fall in to 'secondary' catagory. The possibility of automated systems malfunctioning and resulting losses being incured is specifically set out in PPS7, so is a handy one. Frost protection and pest control are more 'supportive' points. Cost wise I think it depends what you are asking someone to do. Some consultants will charge for a simple Independent assesment which is a bit of a must for your application (some LPA's demand them), others will offer to deal with the whole application process. We have a standard pack which involves a full 'Appreciative Inquiry' analysis, functional need assesment, policy context, fiscal presentation and management plan framework, and we're not particularly cheap, but obviously the more you can do yourself the cheaper it would be, I would just recommend doing it under some guidance so your efforts are well focused. Budget 1.5 to 5K depending what you are asking to be done, and remember if it gets you what you want it will have been a bargain! |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
I believe I'm coming at this project as an complete Underdog.
I'm 32 and have not retired. We don't have the luxury of having a house with no mortgage, no savings and in spite of the huge amount of work and responsibility seriously underpaid as a UNIX administrator. Our current budget is minimal around $50k (30K from equity, 20k mortgage/loan) to buy land and cover initial set up costs. Fortunately we have friends and family with sufficient building, plumbing and electrical skills to save a small fortune on those costs. The realism of the true costs are starting to kick in. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
As it goes nearly everyone wanting to seek a sustainable life , in a self built house, in the english countryside is an underdog! but enough underdogs can achieve alot of change
There is no reason why you cannot be entirely successful, just plan and prioritise your spending. We managed with a lot less to start with, and its been a bit tough  but its all possible.
Does your LPA have an LID policy? |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Thanks for that little background. I was starting to feel as my aspirations where beyond impossible.
LID = Low Impact Development? I'm not sure. I'll ask them if/when they get back to me with my last query. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
Not impossible at all, and getting less so each time new headway is made! Just trying to keep things realistic, it will take time, be infuriating and test the strength of your marriage 
Well worth it though IMO LID = Low Impact Development, yes. PS Be very careful what you tell a Planning department in the pre application stage |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
A cursory glance and web search give the standard green political rhetoric. Whether they have any policies in place to actual back up the claims of moving towards and supporting a carbon neutral, sustainable and all round happy lifestyle.
Fortunately my wife and daughters appear to want this lifestyle as much as me. I'm very much the dreamer, though I'm hitting this project with a realism and vigour that quite frankly scaring me. I've just been checking on permission for Barns, Sheds and Stores. I've found out where this 12 acre mark for setting up a self-sufficient hold comes from. "Permitted Development Rights" which allow farmers to build agricultural buildings with out having to go through the full planning permission come in two classes. Class A & B. Class A is land of 5 Hectares (12 Acres) and above, and Class B which is land 0.4 Hectares up to 5 Hectares. Whereas Class A permits any building works, excavation or engineering operations (subject to conditions), Class B is limited to more specific types of development. It looks like Class B sites would have to go through the full planning process in order to build any kind of building Below is the links I've got that information from. http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/agric.htm http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/03/15/109746/farm-buildings-know-your-permitted-development-rights.html Of course these are not governmental or LPA sites but does explain a few things. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
There are a couple of ways round needing full planning on agricultural facilities (especially useful on small holdings) depending on what you want to install.
Oh and by the way that 'green rhetoric' (normally drawn from PPS1)is in fact a major material consideration which is increasingly powerful tool to achieving what you want, dont under estimate LPA's obligations to support sustainable development where it can be shown to fit with policy
|
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Again, Thank you for all your assistance.
I've got a lot more information to work with. Its odd I've got through a lot of my pre-planning quicker than I thought and feel I've got a good handle on legal/planning side of things. I've still got to sit down and plan out possible growing areas, crop rotation and everything to do with ensuring we've got food all year round. Also write up draft applications, get exact prices for services The hardest bit now is waiting. Its at least a year and half before I can put my plans into action. At least we can put farming theory into practise. |
||||||
| Blue Peter |
Does that mean that non-livestock, low impact (not high-tech irrigation systems or whatever) would have a hard time of it? Chapter 7 (as I'm sure you know) are very keen to get a sort of "I can't live my life if I'm forever popping back to the village/town to do the school run, look after the children, cook some meals" aspect into this. But would that fall into the secondary class? Peter. |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Chapter 7? | ||||||
| yummersetter |
Ah, that's dredged up the 'planning permission required for chicken shed within 400metres of protected building' problem, which I wasn't aware of, but which would affect us, with our posh neighbours and Class B size. Blimey  This'll need some slow and concentrated reading
|
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
400 meters is a bloody long way!
And that's from the boundary of their property too. You could be OK with chicken shed as long as its a temporary/moveable structure. But I'm just guessing here. I think the bigger issue will be permanent structures like cattle sheds or crop stores. |
||||||
| Blue Peter |
Sorry. See This Land is Ours Peter. |
||||||
| yummersetter |
That'll be to keep us peasants in our place, then, don't want our nasty smelly sheds inconveniencing our lords and masters in their nice listed buildings hobbles off tugging forelock |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
http://www.tlio.org.uk/aims/who.html Surely with time travel anything is possible?
|
||||||
| yummersetter |
Google Earth shows that the entire village is about 600mx900m and there are about 20 listed buildings, so apart from the Big Farmers there's probably not a single legal pigsty or donkey shed! Or am I mistaken in this class B business? Must read on . . . |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
I'll have a quick go at these then
Not always it depends on the approach that your application takes, do PPS7 criteria apply? are the other material considerations that can be highlighted? But it will generally go better with 'accepted' functional requirements. There is Non livestock precedent.
Not always. The cordon sanitaire makes some sense but I bet we can avoid PP altogether if you tell me what you need. PM or email me. Simon Fairlie is about as good a fount of knowledge as you will find, but for his sake, read the Chapter7 Planning briefings rather than just phone him as he is snowed under all the time
If you want to email me specific queries (if you dont want to post them) I will do what I can to point you in the right direction. |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Blue Peter
All joking aside I agree with your aims, a lot of land is being held for no other purpose than profit. It sits there for decades, unused and wasted, because the owner can just sit and wait. I've already been very vocal about my views on uplift clauses. |
||||||
| Blue Peter |
Just for clarification, like, what of my aims are you referring to?
Peter. |
||||||
| yummersetter |
thanks RiF but we're just hammering out obscure clauses in contracts at this stage and I'm daily discovering what unknown hassles there are to try to protect ourselves from. At the moment there is no extra land, no chicken shed, no pig and no donkey but a 40 year set of clauses, costs and permissions that have to be beaten into submission before we sign.
Look who's hijacking threads now - sorry |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
OK not YOUR aims per say but those of TLIO. | ||||||
| Blue Peter |
I do agree with them, in general, of course, Peter. |
||||||
| RichardW |
Also remember that forestry holdings do not have size clauses for permitted development just that the size of the development should be suitable to the task & that the task can be on more than the one plot the development is on.
Richard |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
As the registered owner of this thread I give you rambling permissions. Question as many of those clauses you can, if you (well your solicitor) can prove they are no longer valid you can get them removed. |
||||||
| yummersetter |
well, spending my time working hard to pay solicitors and ex-landowners isn't my idea of a productive life, so I'm attempting not to get them written in and signed up to in the first place
Of course I could go back to my own thread but its so far away! |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Well once this thread covers 5 pages I'll be able to build a cosy little barn with relative impunity. | ||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Still trundling along with my plans.
Something I've thought about is the 3 year proving period. Is it possible to prove the Agricultural Unit is a viable business in less than three years? Or possible to build a permanent agricultural Dwelling before the end of that period? Anyone had any experience along these lines. 3 Years I a long time for a family of 6 to be in a set of caravans. |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
If you can show a profit in year one, and indicate a realistic likelihood that those profits are sustainable then you can apply for permanent permission, but LPA's tend to like the three year period to ensure there is not a fluke. Ostrich farms taught them alot of painful lessons
|
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
Mmmm next big thing edible dormouse farms.
I think getting the farm profitable in the first year is unlikely, even with writing off development costs. Looks like its best make the temporary accommodation as comfy as possible. . |
||||||
| resistance is fertile |
The best example of garanteed functional need in our office was 'a care home for critically ill lobsters' somewhat rashly put forward at Public Enquiry as the only enterprise with possibly more functional need than the one we were representing. |
||||||
| mechanicalmouse |
how do you take the pulse of a lobster? | ||||||
| Chez |
Very carefully. |