Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — by N Kempton BAHons, PGDip, MA, IHBC, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2025

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, York YO42 4LE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Clappison against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 24/03071/VAR. • The application sought planning permission for change of use of a vacant farm building into a dwelling without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref Q.3956(B), dated 10th December 1990.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, York YO42 4LE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Clappison against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 24/03071/VAR. • The application sought planning permission for change of use of a vacant farm building into a dwelling without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref Q.3956(B), dated 10th December 1990.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, York YO42 4LE • The condition in dispute is No 5 which states that: The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely, or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him (but including a widow or widower of such a person), because the site is in a rural area where it is the policy of the local planning authority, in the interest of safeguarding the rural character and appearance of the area, not to permit development unless it is required to meet a local agricultural need. • The reason given for the condition is: In the interest of safeguarding the rural character and appearance of the area and to meet a local agricultural need.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3363358 5. The main issue is whether the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to the effect on the rural character and appearance of the area and to meet a local agricultural need. Reasons 6. The appeal site is a former farm building, which has been converted to a dwelling. It is situated in an isolated rural area, beyond any settlement development limits and is quite some distance from the nearest settlement. For the purposes of the LP is it in open countryside. 7. The wording of the disputed condition states that the occupancy restriction was imposed to safeguard the rural character and appearance of the area and to meet a local agricultural need. Had that not been the case, the wording of the condition also indicates that the policy of the local planning authority was not to permit the development. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. To promote sustainable development, the Framework requires that housing is located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. Paragraph 84 of the Framework makes it clear that isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless specified circumstances apply. One of these is that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. 9. Policy S4 of the LP aligns with the Framework. It limits development in the countryside to certain specified forms in order to balance development needs with the preservation of the character and appearance of the countryside. Development is restricted to that which is justified in a rural location. 10. As such, housing in the countryside is supported by exception, as set out in Policy S4 of the LP. Rural worker need is one of the exceptions to justify new housing. Hence, the disputed condition continues to ensure compliance with the local and national policy approach to rural housing in this respect. 11. The appellant asserts that because the development was a building conversion rather than a new build, the condition was unnecessary when assessed against the planning policies in force in 1990. Furthermore, had the submission been made afresh today, it would fall within permitted exceptions in local and national policies.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. However, applications under section 73(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act restrict my consideration only to the question of conditions. Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph:031 Reference ID: 21a-031-20180615) confirms that it is not a complete reconsideration of the original application. Given that the development was implemented, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to reassess it afresh against current planning policies as that does not reflect the circumstances. 12. Moreover, given the considerable passage of time, it is not demonstrated that the original proposal would definitely have met all the relevant criteria in historic planning policies pertaining to permitted conversions. These included for example, showing that the agricultural building was genuinely redundant and that it was structurally suitable. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3363358 13. There is also now provision for residential conversion of agricultural buildings, in certain circumstances, under permitted development rights without requiring restrictive occupancy conditions. Be that as it may, it is not shown they would apply to the circumstances of the appeal building, and those rights do not apply retrospectively. 14. The appellant contends that the original planning consent was subject to the disputed condition due to concerns regarding amenity and the proximity of the converted dwelling to an agricultural building, rather than seeking to ensure the availability of a dwelling as an agricultural workers dwelling in perpetuity. Notwithstanding historic correspondence that would lend some support to this, it is not clear that this represents the entirety of the Council’s reasoning in 1990. Moreover, this is at odds with the stated reason given in the wording of the disputed condition. Neither is this a reason given by the Council for rejecting the present application. Hence, I give greater weight to the wording on the decision notice which is a formal record of the Council’s decision in 1990. 15.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. It follows that solutions put forward to address potential concerns about the living conditions of residential occupants by demolishing the agricultural building have little bearing on the central tests of necessity and reasonableness of the disputed condition. 16. The supporting text to Policy S4 of the LP states at paragraph 4.51, that existing agricultural/ forestry occupancy conditions will only be removed where it can be demonstrated that the property is no longer required for the purposes of accommodating an agricultural/forestry worker. The policy’s supporting guidance also states that applicants would be expected to market the property for at least 12 months using specialist agricultural land and property agents and media. It requires advertisement of the property to refer to the existence of the agricultural occupancy condition and for the property to be priced accordingly. Whilst this is not part of the wording of Policy S4, it gives a strong indication of the Council’s expectations where applicants seek to show such occupancy conditions are no longer necessary or reasonable. Given its relevance to the present circumstances, I give it considerable weight. 17.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. The evidence submitted by the appellant includes an independent report, which outlines the market costs and financial implications arising from the occupancy restriction. This report outlines issues regarding the viability of Manor Farm. Ultimately this amounts to an informed opinion on the market rather than a test of it in line with the process advocated in the supporting text. Given the volatility of property markets and the dynamic nature of agricultural operations, I do not consider it a sufficient substitute to dispense with a 12 month marketing exercise. Hence, I find there is a lack of substantive evidence to demonstrate that there is no longer an agricultural need in the locality, beyond the holding at Manor Farm. To remove the disputed condition in these circumstances would be likely to lead to pressure for further new build rural workers dwellings in the locality. Such an approach would run counter to getting the right balance between development and protecting intrinsic character of the countryside which underpins local and national policy. 18.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — occupancy, would not change the existing use but would allow greater flexibility. Accordingly, the evidence presented does not lead me to find that the disputed condition fails any of the tests for planning conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3363358 Conclusion 19. I conclude therefore, that the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of safeguarding the intrinsic rural character and appearance of the area and to meet a local agricultural need. It still serves a useful purpose having regard to current local and national planning policies relating to rural housing. 20. The appeal is dismissed and the original permission remains extant and unaltered.

Manor Farm, Bull Lane, Harswell, YORK, YO42 4LE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — N Kempton INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4