My Ref: enf20071106b.htm
Your Ref; ML/LI Enf No 041015

Head of Development Control
Planning Department
Caradon District Council
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall PL14 3DZ

  

Roger Lovejoy
ELF
Harewood
Calstock
Cornwall
PL18 9SQ

6th November, 2007

ELF Trust


Dear Sue Walters

Further to my letter of 6th November submitted with my LUC aplictaion on 6th November.

I spent all that day at Luxstowe house at the invite of  Ian Darrington. The meeting he arranged with Michael Lowe didn't happen and there was no one there to help me with a planning application. I understand that Mondays and Wednesdays you do have a duty officer who may be able to help.

Although I did submit an LUC with the fees issue unresolved, I only managed to submit a draft idea of a planning application. I did subsequently talk to Mr. Lowe over the phone expressing my frustration that I didn't get the help I was expecting. Clearly your department didn't have the resources.

After spending all night till 5:14am trying to finalise the LUC I arose at 6:am to tidy the application print it off and then a couple of miles the the railway station for the 7:48 train. Whilst waiting for a connection in Plymouth, evenetually a 2 hour wait I was called by Micheal Lowe. He was very miffed that I was on my way to see him as he had no time to see me and reminded me that he had earlier said he would be busy on Tuesday.  However it was your office that made the arrangments, so I didn't expect to get a call from Micheal Lowe admonisioning me for comming in, especially whilst I was buy food for the journey. Irrespective of whethre ir was convenient for him, it definetley wasn't conveinient for me, I would expect his attitude to more reasonable and polite.

Micheal Lowe did spend some hours weeks ago and the time was very much appreciated, although subsequently he does seem to take a slightly high-hanged veiw in his communications with me. I would like to point out that Caradon is "working for south east cornwall' and unless you have a policy or bias towards unconventional people then I expect it to include me, and as such, a high handed approached is not appropriate.

On the more positive side, even though Ian Darrington did make the appointment for me to see Mr Lowe, that Mr Lowe was unhappy about, Ian Darrington's manner and attention was quite the opposite. He was not high-handed and did listen to all I had to say without interupting. He even seemed to understand what I said, as a bonus. Ian Darrington is clearly the face the public should be dealing with. I am surprised as how attentive he was. I can't clearly remember meeting anyone so able to listen. Basicaly I can't think of words to express how impressed I am with Ian Darrington's manner as I've never come across it before.

Regarding the 'evidence' for the LUC
Clearly the onus is on me to provide the evidence, although it is noted that unless you have contrary evidence to undermine my assertions then you should accept that they are substantially accurate. However what I submitted on a separate sheet was the arguments, thoughts and expressions rather than a material evidence. I see how this may not be viewed as proper material evidence.

As my evidence refers to the amount of work I have to do then I can also submit pictures of fields I have cropped, agreements with the Forestry Commission , Natural England(English Nature). I also have a summary of the last few years accounts to show that the larger part of my earned income comes from working the land.

If any of these item would help in assessing my claim that any residential element of the mixed use is linked to the  primary mixed use then I can email the information. Further if there is any other type of evidence that I could offer, please let me know.

I also accept that you may not consider the application  valid for some other reason. However if you accept is as a valid application I understand that you still may not determine the issues until any appropriate fee has been paid. Hence I accept that the eight week period for you to determine the application does not start until you are assured that a) the application is valid and b) that either no fee is necessary or the appropriate fee has been paid. I would welcome some views on the fees issue even though I am waiting instructions from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Regarding the overall issue which prompted my LUC application, namely the threat of enforcement action unless I submit a planning application, Mr Lowe said he would talk to you and email me this week. I can come to the office again next Wednesday if that is convenient.

On the matter of me being required to submit a planning application.

I did manage to fill out a single form but felt it wasn't very well done so didn't duplicate it or have it accepted as a proper application. However I hope it does elicit some directions as to how I could achieve what I want.

I do not want to pay £300 for an application for something I don't want. However I am unsure about the issue of GPDO permissions. I failed to convince your council back in 1996 there there was a viable business that would entitled me to Part 6 development, even though by 1997 the inspector noted "Undoubtedly a large part of the land adjacent the trawler  is in agricultural use and I note your proposals  to further develop this area in an organic fashion and for silviculture. Consequently I would accept that if the vessel was used solely or mainly for say, the storage of tools and/or other equipment used on the land it is likely that planning permission would not be required" [1998 J.P.L  410]

My ability to have accommodation for people who come to help on the land could be encompassed within the GPDO Part 6 if you accepted that I do benefit from such.

So my application for planning permission fro just that is a) you have had no reason to inform me that you accept I run a viable land based business that includes agriculture, silviculture and bio-diversity management and enhancement. I can see your reluctance to accept that as it would go part of the way to acknowledge that there is some primary use of the land to wish I can attach an incidental residential element.

The  residential element, whether for me on a full time basis of for others on a temporary basis although have a matter of degree are based solely on the requirement of the 'primary uses' of the land.

So I am caught in ill-founded judgements and dare I say prejudices. I have already mentioned the cavalier attitude of the County Land Agent,  the inspector clearly did not agree with him.

Am I to understand that the council has no desire or intention to look at the situation from an unbiased approach and are still hell bend on supporting the idea that a) there is now, never has been or ever will be any work actually on the land and that my being here is an unacceptable anomaly to the general trend of design local policy and that is the sole reason why I have to argue this matter again.

Is it economically sensible to have to appeal against the refusal of an LUC and any planning application or, in the event of it, an enforcement notice. It is reasonably likely that another planning inspector will come to the same conclusion as the previous, that there is considerable agriculture, silviculture and bio-diversity management and enhancement that could benefit from deemed permission under Part 6. More recently consideration has been show to an engagement in low-impact land based business that include a residential element. The case refers to the coined term 'Permaculture' meaning permanent agriculture. The concept is one of holistic integrity, where due consideration is given to the whole environment including that of the workers well being. That I have not chosen to ally myself with a recognised group as such there is nothing different in my approach and actions except that 'Permaculture' can surpisingly be applied to household gardens and any area of human influence.. I have just been trying to establish this issue of sustainable living, totaly incidental to an agricultural use of land, largely as an individual.

South Hams v. Secretary of the State for Communities and Local Government : 23rd August, 2007
" I do not accept that the absence of specific reference to permaculture in current planning guidance signifies its unimportance. This is not in itself surprising, given that it remains an uncommon and specialised practice and proposals are few and far between. For the same reason, I do not share the view that such projects should only be considered as part and parcel of the emergence of Local Development Frameworks, despite the fact that some local authorities have taken steps along that path, rather than by means of individual planning applications."
"Permaculture is now an internationally recognised means of sustainable agriculture and the subject of much academic study in recent years. Moreover, the direction of travel of emerging national policy towards ever more sustainable approaches to development and the need to address the problem of climate change is readily apparent, most recently in the consultation document Planning and Climate Change, envisaged as an eventual supplement to PPS1. Whilst little weight can be attached to the specific policies contained in this document, its publication nevertheless signals a clear step change in the governmental approach to these issues and emphasises their increasing significance, already reflected at local level to some degree in SP Policy ST1 and LDF Policy CS11."


As for what I want, outside of the LUC on grounds of a use that isn't development is the ability to provide accommodation for 2 or three people as, when and if they arrive to help me with the land.

Although I do manage alone I expect a substantially more can be achieved with help.

The planning application is to have two or three suitable structures for 2 or 3 workers accommodation. They could be tents, a caravan or some other suitable structure that does not require operational development. The reason planning permission may be necessary is that even if it were accepted that I should benefit from GPDO 1995 it is not absolutely clear that when it refers to caravans being moved after their use, that includes seasonal use. Sure if the use is a temporay one and or seasonal then as seasons return the use continues. It seems ludicrous to have to move the caravans only to repeatedly move them back. I would argue that the order to remove them aplies properly to where they are use as a one off event as in use of accomodation for construction workers, whence having completed the work there is no indication or assumption they are to return at regular or frequent periods which would again require suitable accomodation.

I cannot see why these detailed issues cannot be resolves in an informal and friendly manner. To force the matter by issuing an enfocement notice that was  resloved some 4 to 5 years ago seems as cavalier as the approach the County L:and Agent tool asses any work that was being carried out in 1996 and seems to show no desire to consider that the council may have made mistakes and I am not the undesireble blot on the landscape that you are lead to beleive and seem to want to confrim.



Yours sincerely


Roger Lovejoy



 
01822 833 398 0777 94 92 95 3 elf.calstock.org.uk