Author: Prof Russell
Couthy Butts: CPRE Report From the Planning Committee
Thursday, 26th June, 2008 at 11:15 am, Isle of Wight
It was with great dismay that we heard on Tuesday evening that the Planning Committee refused the application for conversion and continued use of cottages as shepherd’s accommodation at Couthy Butts, Downcourt Farm, Godshill. As our readers will be aware, these are the last remaining examples of Georgian workers cottage on the Wight and now the planning officers have their wish, it is likely that the owners will be required to demolish the 200 years+ buildings.
As we were unable to attend the committee meeting, we’re grateful to Professor Russell from the CPRE for allowing us to publish his report below. If you don’t have time to read through all the details, skip to the Councillor’s Discussion at the bottom for the guts. Ed
This application came up at the Planning Committee meeting of Tuesday 24 June 2008 with a 15-page officers’ recommendation for refusal.
The application had been accompanied by a 23-page Historical Report commissioned by the applicant (mentioned as a bullet point in 1.4 of the officers’ report), but which is referred to only briefly in one paragraph in 5.1.1 by the Council’s Conservation & Design Team Leader, though he does say at the end of that paragraph “I…suggest that a more detailed analysis of the remaining stonework…could enable the historic remains to be identified… This would require further investigation.”
Involvement of National agencies
There is no reference to English Heritage in the officer report, and they seem not to have been consulted. However, the response of national agencies to requests for opinions concerning Island planning applications is in general disappointing, and in some cases the neglect is scandalous. None of these agencies has any Island presence, and the response of English Heritage, Natural England, Environment Agency is several recent cases has been effectively to say “Sorry, we haven’t got the resources to send anyone down to look at your site, and we’re too busy to look at even the paperwork in any detail; just trust your LPA to interpret the national Policy Planning Statements as they apply to the application.”
Agricultural Report
The LPA also commissioned a report from its own agricultural consultant which seemed to be aimed at reinforcing its own pre-determined view that a shepherd was not needed on this site, and which suggested that it was perfectly satisfactory practice to transport pregnant ewes over several miles for lambing and after-care (see paragraph 5.2.2 of the officer report).
It seems probable that this consultant did not have any knowledge of the facts on the ground: the new purpose-built barn nearby at Couthy Butt provides better facilities for sheep than at Sunnyside Farm, the vehicle tracks and narrow poorly-maintained roadways would be traumatic in respect of animal welfare, and in any biosecurity alert it would be essential to have local secure supervision without transportation. The move towards organic certification of the Couthy Butt flock could also be compromised by the transport suggested.
A Member of the Planning Committee with 60 years in farming queried the conclusions of the agricultural report and asked whether it was done by an Island-based consultant, but he was ruled out of order.
What does seem extraodinary is that the LPA is prepared to spend a lot of money on an external consultant in order to try to bolster their own case, and even to demand a long list of additional information from the applicant at the very last moment. This is included in the additional paper (attached) which was circulated at the meeting.
AONB
CPRE and the AONB Unit did not agree about this application. The full submission of the AONB Unit appears in 5.2.1 of the officer report. Officers can’t bring themselves to mention CPRE specifically, and our detailed submissions are subsumed within the bullet points in 5.4.1 where the representations from 44 letters of support are briefly summarised. Although I knew the broad principles of the AONB Unit objections, time constraints prevented discussion by the AONB Planning Workgroup (of which I am a member), and so after an exchange of emails, we just had to agree to differ.
Officer’s Presentation
At the Planning Committee meeting, the senior planning officers present were Andrew Pegram, Phil Salmon and Steve Cornwell, and Cornwell presented the Couthy Butt report.
There were only nine Members present - the current committee total is 13, with 2 vacancies. I do not know what a quorum is, nor why the vacancies haven’t been filled. There were no public objectors speaking, but three supporters each got one minute, namely:
Prof Dennis Russell (CPRE)
Col David Langford (CLA, former High Sheriff)
Mrs Johanna Jones (IW Nat History & Archaeological Soc - author and speaker, and widow of Jack Jones, former Curator of Carisbrooke Castle).
Councillor’s Discussions
The three male councillors present (apart from the Chairman) immediately began to query the tenor of the report.
William Burt (a long-time Island farmer) knew plenty about sheep welfare and needs, and criticised the agricultural advice supplied to planning officers - there was in his opinion ample justification for a shepherd in permanent residence on this site.
Brian Mosdell seemed to be the only councillor who had read the Historical Report, and was horrified at the potential cultural vandalism of obliterating a part of Island history. He also questioned the validity of the AONB objection, when these cottages had already been part of the landscape when the AONB was designated, and gave a spirited defence of the farming community.
Charles Chapman was also disturbed about both the historical and farming issues, but in the end abstained.
The Chairman (as is usual) didn’t express an opinion, but when it came to a vote, he probably would vote with planning officers in principle.
By contrast, the only female councillor who understood the issues was Sally Pigot. The rest seemed to go along with the contentions of planning officers that it was a new build in the AONB outside development boundaries, and that there was no agricultural justification.
The local Ward Member, Wendy Arnold, was one of these - she had failed to respond to an email of mine early in the consultation process, and had refused to meet the farmer Brian Harvey.
The only councillor who said nothing the whole time was Gill Kennett.
Voting
There was a motion for Refusal in line with officer recommendation, with detailed vote 4-3-2 as follows:
Voting for refusal (4):
Muriel Miller (East Cowes South)
Susan Scoccia (Ventnor West)
Gill Kennett (Freshwater Afton)
Ivan Bulwer, Chairman (Binstead).
Voting for approval (3):
William Burt (Shalfleet & Yarmouth)
Brian Mosdell (Newchurch)
Sarah Pigot (Bembridge North)
Abstentions (2):
Wendy Arnold (Chale, Niton & Whitwell)
Charles Chapman (Ryde South East)
Absent (4):
Henry Adams (Ryde North East)
George Cameron (Totland)
Mike Cunningham (Newport South)
John Hobart (Gurnard).
It is too early to speculate what the next move in this saga might be.
In addition, if you want to read the brief history of how the planning department got involved, the owners have created a web page explaining all.
Architecture, Conservation, Godshill
Email This Story To A Friend
June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“The only councillor who said nothing the whole time was Gill Kennett” - So she said nothing and gave no reason for her negative vote. Why did she even turn up?
I find it difficult to comprehend how this group of councillors can make these types of decisions. Members of the public given one minute to voice their opinion? Sounds like something from the Dark Ages.
Our planning department on the Island is in disarray - it’s well documented as of late; it is in need of knocking down and rebuilding!
It would be great to see these buildings restored and I really hope there is a positive outcome to this saga. Apologies for the rant!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Any chance that Susan might come on here and give us her justification for refusal ‘In line with officer recommendation’? No, I don’t think so either!
June 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
If you look at the photograph at the beginning of this report, the proposal is to restore the cottages using best-available advice, rebuilding any parts as necessary with the indigenous stone, and then to restore the thatched roof. It would appear in the landscape much as travellers doing IW Rural Rides might have seen them in the 1830s. If the planners want to expunge something from the AONB, good candidates would be Isle of Wight Pearl and Needles Pleasure Park, not pick on a site whose occupation credentials exist as early as 1650.
– Dennis.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
As one of the foremost critics of the planning department and the officers within it, it is a very rare circumstance which would bring me to defend them.
However, given the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding this application, defend them I must.
The following are facts which cannot be refuted.
The cottages were in use until the 1950s.
They have been completely derelict since 1971.
The present owner made unauthorised alterations to them in 2001.
In December 2005 an application for retention as use for storage of chemicals was submitted, using a local agent.
There were 17 comments, one of which was in support.
It was refused, then appealed, but the appeal was withdrawn.
In February 2006 an application for continued use as agricultural storage was made, refused, appealed, then the appeal withdrawn again.
Of 5 comments, one was in favour.
In February 2008 this application for continued use as a shepherds accomodation was made, this time using a big name agent from the mainland.
This has yet again been refused by the DCC.
So, in just over two years, there have been 3 applications, with 3 different proposals for the use. Chemicals, Agricultural, and now a shepherds accomodation.
I suspect that another appeal will be made and withdrawn.
Odd, don’t you think?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sorry Bertie, what’s your point?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Like Bertie, my normal reaction to planners is one of deep skepticism, but I notice that the application is for “continued use of cottages as shepherd’s accommodation”. How is it continued use if they are presently derelict? That sounds like deliberate spin, although I hasten to add that demolition seems a rather extreme alternative!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
@ Bertie: I won’t answer all your points as I’m sure Brian and Sabrie will want to do that, but for reference, the amendments that were carried out in 2001 were as a direct result of the Health and Safety executive saying ‘Make the cottages safe or someone will sue and we will support them even though they would be tresspassing’.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It is easy to be wise with hindsight, but the intervention by the HSE, should have resulted in a letter from the owners to Planning asking how best they could comply with the HSE edict.
The reconstructions made without consent gave the impression of trying to bring the buildings back into use and I suspect that by giving 3 different proposals in 3 separate applications, that was the view taken by the DCC.
If I am wrong, then I apologise and as you know, will stand foursquare behind the owners.
Like James I agree that demolition is rather extreme, but would have thought that some compromise could be reached to keep the buildings as a museum funded by an amenity group. But it would appear that the reluctance, once again, of amenity groups to put up or shut up will result in demolition.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Dear all, sorry I’ve not been able to visit lately, I have been too busy moving sheep, repairing fences, feeding bottle fed lambs and taking care of the sick ewes, but I’m here now!!
Bertie: - When one gets instruction from the Health & Safety executive, there is no debate, you just do what you are told!
We did speak to Mr Barker, planning enforcement officer, with regard to why we were making the building safe and he was quite happy for us to continue.
Yes!! on hindsight we should have got somthing in writing, but who new it was going to be such a contentious issue.
December 2005 planning application was to use it as a ‘Farm Store’, we listed most of the items to be stored, which included chemicals. The council advertised it as ‘A Chemical Store’ strange choice of words used by the council don’t you think?
There are 5 supporting letters in various terms.
It was refused on a delagated basis. On advise from our local agent it was agreed that we would re-submit without the chemical element (this is what the locals objected to) the second application was again quickly refused on a delagted basis, we appealed, both applications were combined, but sadly lost, they were never withdrawn. We put such a poor case that the inspector had little choice but to side with the planning officers.
We were ill advised and let down.
Before complying with the order, and after many phone calls of support, we thought we would seek the advise of an expert historical architect. The rest, as they say, is history.
Sorry Bertie, I’m a bit vague now.. what does DCC stand for?
Is it because we reported a certain officer for mal-practice 2004, why we are getting so much grief now… one wonders!!
I wish now we had just knocked the building down, but, wait a minute… we were told at the time you need planning permission to do that!?!?!?
Hoping for your continued support.
A very unhappy Sabrie.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“We did speak to Mr Barker, planning enforcement officer, with regard to why we were making the building safe and he was quite happy for us to continue.”
Unfortunately, planning officers often say things which they later deny (I should know) and you should have got it in writing.
I have looked at the Inspectors decision and it is very long and very critical, especially at paras 8 and 21.
Para 8 says: “I have little doubt that the appeal building has been the subject of an extensive rebuilding operation.”
Indeed, if you read the whole of para 8, it is clear that a lot more work had taken place in addition to making the building safe.
Para 21 is even more condemnatory containing such phrases as: “However it should be remembered that until very recently this land had a range of available farm buildings but these were sold off and some have been converted into holiday accomodation.”
The DCC (Development Control Committee) may have taken the view that that was the intention.
I certainly don’t think that your reporting any officer would have had a bearing on Councillors decisons.
Speaking from experience, I can assure you that most Councillors are as critical of planning officers as we are, but on this occasion, I still believe that they were correct. Sorry.
I think you now have to sadly bite the bullet and knock it down.
Unless of course an amenity group comes to the rescue, but I would not hold your breath.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bertie, can i ask one question?
Have you been to Couthy Butts?
Looked inside and seen it personally?
The inspectors report went along with what the planners were saying, he had nothing else to go on, we’ve already admitted that.
It would be interesting to know what his decision would have been had Judith Norris been working for us at the time, at least he would have had our side of the story as well.
Have you read Judith Norris’s report?
101 signatures, 44 letters of support plus various experts in historical buildings can not all be wrong.
The quote “I have little doubt that the appeal building has been the subject of an extensive rebuilding operation.” is a matter of opinion, the historical experts and myself and Brian, who actually did the work, do not agree, it took approx 2 weeks in total, in-between normal farming work, to do.
I also fail to see how the officer came up with that opinion in the first place as he had not, repeat not, even been to look at the site, never mind inside, until the day before the appeal, a year later, when he went and looked outside, most anoyed that he had to walk from the gate, on the day of the appeal he looked inside.
The quote “However it should be remembered that until very recently this land had a range of available farm buildings but these were sold off and some have been converted into holiday accomodation.”
I am not going to go into why they were sold off here, but none have been converted into holiday accommodation, they do however have planning permission to do so! some are listed grade 2 buildings which, The Ministry of Agriculture (or whatever they called themselves then)stated were no longer any use for modern agriculture, but because of their listing could not be demolished.
Interestingly we had 4 enforcement notices against us shortly after reporting the officer, 3 have already proved to be false, the 4th we’re still fighting. Hell of a coincidence don’t you think?!?!
I do not know if the councillors knew we had reported one of the officers and I am sure they are as critical of the officers as you say, but on this occasion they believed the spin, unfortunately we had to just sit there and listen and say absolutely nothing!!
If you have not seen inside Bertie, get in touch I will gladly show you around.
Sabrie
July 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Well! Bertie took up our offer to come and see Couthy Butts for himself!!!
I can now claim we have a convert (not such a bad chap afterall)?!?
Sabrie