The inspector noted that the national planning policy framework did not state that a new business requiring a dwelling in the countryside should be assessed against whether the enterprise was likely to succeed. Nonetheless, in his opinion it was reasonable to assess whether the proposed business was genuine and was likely to be commercially viable. The appellant had submitted a business plan and significant investment had been made in terms of buying the land. This would be increased through construction of the kennels. A dog training and grooming facility would add to the overall profitability of the business and on this basis temporary permission was granted for a dwelling lasting a maximum of three years. A further condition was imposed requiring the boarding kennels to be brought into use before the occupation of the dwelling.
A partial award of costs was made in favour of the appellant for having to employ an agricultural consultant to address whether, in the absence of a permission for dog kennels, there was a need for a temporary dwelling. The council should have assessed it on the basis that permission was sought for both the kennels and dwellinghouse in parallel. If it had concluded that the kennels were acceptable in principle it could then have made an assessment as to whether temporary permission for the dwelling was appropriate and this could have been addressed via a condition granting temporary permission and preventing occupation until the kennels had been built.
Inspector Ian Radcliffe; Hearing