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.
