Another letter to the council

In response to the last letter from the planning department another letter has been written and is posted below.

Trevalon
Herodsfoot
Liskeard
PL14 4RS

27 09 07

Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter dated 18th September 2007. Unfortunately it fails to answer most of the questions that I put to you in my letter dated 13th of September. Whether or not I intend to appeal, the matters, which I have raised, remain unanswered and I would prefer to continue to attempt to resolve them with the relevant authority rather than presume prematurely that we are at an impassable disagreement.

Firstly, as requested, below are details of the use to which each field is put at Trevalon

Trevalon, Holding number 070680052, 7.39Ha

Field number 9945, Midsummer Meadow, 1.88Ha, permanent pasture, grazing by two working horses.

Field number 1264, Great Meadow, 2.20Ha, vegetable plots of which 1/3 are fertility building clover leys which are also used for grazing the two working horses.

Field number 8956, South Park, 2.14Ha, barn and yard area plus vegetable plots of which 1/3 are fertility building clover leys which are also used for grazing by two working horses. This field also includes the reinstated field of Three Corners, 0.2Ha used for grazing by two working horses.

Field number 0258, Small field, 0.95Ha, 0.35Ha are used for polytunnels and fruit production, 0.35Ha the are under fertility building clover leys and 0.25Ha are not yet included in the cropping cycle but will be planted with fruit trees this winter.

Field number 0258, Small Field Woodland, 0.2Ha

Spring, 0.02Ha

From the above it is clear that the area of land being used for an agricultural trade or business is currently about 6.92Ha and within the next few months this will rise to 7.17Ha, the remaining areas being woodland and the non-cropping area of the spring. I hope this resolves the issue of the extent of the agricultural enterprise. As far as I am aware, the assessment of the county land agent is the established means of judging the extent of an agricultural enterprise. I would like to draw your attention to the assessment made by the County Land Agent for planning application number 07/00175/Ful where he stated that 2Ha of vegetables were being grown. Also when he made an assessment for planning application number 06/00622/FUL he stated that 5Ha of land were being farmed, this assessment was made before the two working horses where also grazing the land.

It was in attempt to understand why you consider my agricultural enterprise to be less than 5 ha that I asked for your methods of assessment, which you have not provided. Please can you provide these along with full references to the case law referred to by Mr Mutton when he made his assessments.

Secondly, you responded to my question regarding how I am to establish a need for packing facilities, by stating that “this is what planning applications are for [as you did in your previously refused application]”. You seem to imply that establishing a need for packing facilities is related to the unsuccessful application for residential use. During this application, the County Land Agent assessed a business plan for Trevalon. This was considered to meet the financial test but not the functional test. His opinion regarding the functional need for my residential use of the land (on which the application was refused) seems to me irrelevant when considering whether I have established a need for vegetable packing facilities.

In your letter dated 9th September 2007 you acknowledged that vegetable packing facilities, office and rest-room are necessary for the maintenance of my business. In the same letter you have also acknowledged the pole barn is still under construction. When submitting applications for barns and polytunnels in 2006 I also submitted a detailed business plan, which was assessed by the County Land Agent as being justification for the machinery barn and polytunnels. These structures were given planning permission in November 2006 and are presently under construction. During that application process I was asked to remove plans for a vegetable packing barn. The business plan that was submitted was considered to be sound but it was stated that I had not actually established my business to a point where I was able to demonstrate a need for a vegetable packing barn. I would appreciate, as stated in my last letter, if you could briefly outline the process you anticipated me taking to establish my business to a point where I could demonstrate a need for permanent packing facilities without first making use of a temporary structure at a time when there were no other suitable structures present on the land.

Thank you for also for acknowledging that I am able to discuss the temporary provision of packing facilities with Development Control. Development Control have been aware of the shipping container, that is used for packing vegetables since it first arrived at Trevalon, when Mr Mutton visited Trevalon in February he stated that he would investigate whether it required planning permission since then I have not had a reply from him. This was also the position when at my request I had a meeting with Jonathan Luker of Caradon Enforcement Team who visited Trevalon in July 2007. After some discussion he said that he would talk to my planning case officer, Dean Mutton, and arrange a meeting in order to discuss submitting an amended application for residential use. He also said he would look into whether I needed to submit a planning application for the shipping container that was being used for packing vegetables. Instead of making arrangements for this meeting or inviting me to submit a planning application, I received enforcement documents. I have, since then, requested a meeting with my case officer and Susan Walters, so far no suggestion for a meeting date has been forthcoming. I therefore would like to request again, with whoever is appropriate, a meeting to discuss planning matters at Trevalon.

To the matter of permitted development rights, I have copied below the relevant section of the GDPO and would like to draw your attention to (Part 6, Class A, section A paragraph (b)). Please could you explain to me how this section excludes excavations from permitted development rights.

A. The carrying out on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more in area of—
(a) works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building; or
(b) any excavation or engineering operations,
which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

I would also like to draw your attention to section A.2 (2) paragraph(c).

A.2 (2) Subject to paragraph (3), development consisting of—

(a) the erection, extension or alteration of a building;
(b) the formation or alteration of a private way;
(c) the carrying out of excavations or the deposit of waste material (where the relevant area, as defined in paragraph D.4 below, exceeds 0.5 hectare); or
(d) the placing or assembly of a tank in any waters,
is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions—

I repeat that I would like you to review the decisions relating to Permitted Development Rights at Trevalon.

So far I have been told that I need to develop the business to a point where I can demonstrate a need for permanent packing facilities but have been served with an enforcement order when attempting to do this using temporary structures. I have been told that I need planning permission for a pond because the agricultural enterprise is not greater than 5ha but have been given no reasoning behind the decision to ignore the County Land Agents assessment on the matter. It seems that you are now arguing that a pond is not covered by permitted development rights at all. You have suggested that packing facilities could be housed in the barn with no regard to the successful planning application for construction of this barn for other agreed uses. You have previously stated that I have not convinced you of a functional need, despite not requesting this information, and you serve an enforcement order despite my social consequences statement making it clear that my business would close down if the enforcement was carried out. You have also failed to agree to further meetings since the decision to enforce. You have used planning laws and case history referring to caravan sites and supermarkets but have ignored legislation relevant to farms. A planning application for an agricultural barn on a farm was considered controversial and was put before the planning committee. An application for a dwelling in the open countryside was surprisingly not considered controversial and was refused without proper consideration and debate despite other similar applications being successful in the recent past. As you can see, it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than that you are trying to make it as difficult as possible for me to carry out my business of organic vegetable production at Trevalon regardless of the information I provide. If I do not receive satisfactory answers to these repeated questions I will be taking the matter up with the local government ombudsman.

Unfortunately your last letter also overlooked my request for full references to the case law relating to the shipping container and residential use of mobile home. Please can you provide full references for all case law used so that I can pass these on to my solicitor.

Yours Sincerely




Mark Simon