The Local Plan requires three tests to be met before an agricultural occupancy condition can be removed. The Council accepted that the first two were satisfied in relation to the functional need but refused the initial planning application solely because the property had not been marketed for 12 months.
Our case demonstrated that marketing would serve no meaningful purpose because:
- The discounted value of the tied dwelling would still be far beyond the reach of a typical agricultural worker.
- Mortgage repayments alone would exceed the average agricultural wage.
- More affordable dwellings suitable for agricultural workers were available in the nearby town
- The site’s position, immediately adjacent the town, meant it was highly unlikely to be suitable for any other agricultural enterprise.
The Inspector agreed, stating:
“A compelling argument pertaining to the site-specific circumstances has been made… marketing is not essential in this particular case.”
The appeal was therefore allowed, and the occupancy condition removed.
In a separate, but equally important decision, the Inspector granted a full award of costs against the Council.
The reason was clear: the Council had failed to properly consider the ‘other material considerations’ we presented, particularly around valuation and affordability. As the Inspector observed:
“There is a noticeable absence in the officer report of the material considerations presented by the applicants … This constituted unreasonable behaviour.”
The Inspector concluded that the Council’s approach had prevented or delayed development that should clearly have been permitted, justifying a full award of costs.