Third generation farmer appeals after council rejects adapted home plan

A third generation farmer who was left wheelchair bound after a stroke has appealed after a council decision stopped him from getting a specially adapted new house on the family farm.

Telford & Wrekin Council planners had last year refused permission for James Boffey to have a wheelchair accessible oak framed house built on land at Longdon Hall Farm, in Longdon-upon-Tern, Telford.

Now planning agents for the farming family believe that the council has got the decision wrong.

Julius Bahn on behalf of JRG Boffey & Partners wrote: “The proposed dwelling is integral to the continuity of the agricultural enterprise and to the health, safety, dignity and wellbeing of the appellant.”

The council had previously been told that the house would enable Mr Boffey, as the “most experienced member of the partnership” to “continue fulfilling a vital role in the daily operation and management of the business.”

The appellants write that policies “explicitly provide for new rural dwellings where essential agricultural need exists.”

Agents add that the council “assessed the proposal largely as if it were a generic new dwelling in open countryside.

“This is a significant policy error. The proposal is not speculative market housing; it is an agricultural worker’s dwelling supported by extensive justification.”

The agent says that the council has “failed to recognise the ongoing essential role performed by Mr Boffey in farm management.”

The agent says of Mr Boffey: “While his physical capabilities may have changed, his capacity to manage, direct and oversee operations remains central to the farm’s success.

“The tasks he undertakes – meeting contractors and agronomists, receiving deliveries, monitoring livestock health, directing cropping schedules and supervising field treatments – are all activities that require immediate, on-site presence.”

The statement adds that although Mr Boffey is now wheelchair-bound following his stroke, he remains integral to the functioning of the enterprise.

“His experience, accumulated over decades, informs every major decision.”

The agent says that housing already at the site, including a Grade II* listed farmhouse, cannot effectively be adapted.

“The proposed dwelling is therefore both medically necessary and functionally integral,” they add.

Officials had ruled in their refusal decision last November that the applicants had not demonstrated that all other possibilities for adaptation of the other properties have been sufficiently considered and justified.

Council planners had acknowledged the personal circumstances and the “pivotal role” of the applicant. They added that this was justification for the scheme.

But officials wrote that the proposal fails to comply with other policies and ruled it out.

They concluded that there is “no clear, functional need for the applicant to be readily available on the application site or nearby at most times.

“As such, the principle of the proposal on the application site is not considered acceptable.

“Whilst some justification has been provided, this is not considered sufficient.”

Officers were concerned about the size of the house and it being close to listed buildings including the Grade 1 listed Church of St Bartholomew.

“The proposal would erode the historic character and special hierarchy of the historic farmstead; furthermore, the proposal would result in a visually assertive new building within the rural setting of the listed church, resulting in detrimental harm to the tranquillity of its setting.”

The case is set to be decided by a Government planning inspector on a date to be decided following an exchange of written statements.