CORNWALL Council have issued a refusal for a lawful development certificate for a dwelling near Holsworthy.

The dwelling, known as Barcotta and located in Bridgerule, near Holsworthy has extant permission for its occupation by an agricultural worker, with the applicant seeking to have this removed.

Ms J Allighan, the applicant had recently obtained the estate after the passing away of her parents who had occupied the dwelling.

To obtain a lawful development certificate, the applicant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the usage without planning permission had been in place for ten or more years.

In this instance, her situation was described by Cornwall Council’s planners in an appraisal accompanying the refusal as thus: “The Statutory Declaration of Ms J Allighan explains that the property was purchased by her parents Mr and Mrs Allighan on the 11th of March 2002 and that they continually occupied the property from March 2002 until they passed away. Mrs Allighan died in November 2008 and Mr Allighan died in August 2023.

“Following the grant of probate Ms J Allighan is the executor of the estate. Ms J Allighan goes on to explain that during the period 2001 - 2011 her father sought to establish the position regarding the Agricultural Occupancy condition and evidence submitted with this application confirms this to be the case.

“Within the Supporting Statement the Agent explains that the original planning decision for the property could not be located. The Council were unable to locate a copy of the Permission. This was following the transfer of documents when North Cornwall District Council was formed back in 1974.

“However, whilst the original decision notice has been lost it is confirmed by evidence provided that planning application ref E/65/15012 was subject to an Agricultural Occupancy Condition as follows: -"The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined in section 221(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, or in forestry or an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid".

“The Agent goes on to explain that Mr Allighan worked as an electrical engineer until his retirement in 1986 and Mrs Allighan worked as a data entry clerk and that following both their retirements Mr and Mrs Allighan purchased a property called Elm Park. The Agent explains that they ran a bed and breakfast and at times Mr Allighan also worked as a taxi driver.

“Following the sale of Elm Park in 1995 Mr and Mrs Allighan rented and owned various other properties living off savings, pensions and investments before purchasing Barcotta in March 2002. Turning to the statutory declaration of Ms J Allighan it is explained that during Mr and Mrs Allighan's time at Elm Park a small number of cows and chickens were kept as a hobby and eggs were also sold at the side of the road.

“However, accounts have also been provided for the period between 1987 and 1995. These accounts are in the name of G Allighan and describe various agricultural expenses ranging from 'feedstuffs, straw & fertiliser' to 'veterinary expenses' to 'contracting and haulage'.

“On this evidence, it is clear that Mr Allighan's 'latest employment' prior to purchasing Barcotta was in agriculture. Whilst he worked as an electrical engineer prior to 1986, he generated an income from agricultural until 1995. As such, Mr Allighan's occupancy of Barcotta was in compliance with the condition. A solicitor's letter from Finn and Busby submitted as evidence with this application also indicates that at the time of purchasing Barcotta in 2002, Mr Allighan was last employed in agriculture and met the terms of the agricultural restriction.

Having assessed all the information submitted I do not consider the Agent or Applicant has demonstrated that the dwelling house known as Barcotta has been occupied in breach of the agricultural occupancy condition for a continuous period in excess of 10 years. In conclusion, the submitted information is not considered sufficient proof to support the grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness.”