TFA demands better treatment for tenants under planning rules
![© Tim Scrivener](https://stmaaprodfwsite.blob.core.windows.net/assets/sites/1/2024/05/Solar-772015-27429_C_Tim-Scrivener-1024x577.jpg)
The Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) has called on the Planning Inspectorate to have a better understanding of agricultural tenancies when handling planning appeals.
This follows a recent case where a planning application for a solar farm on an estate near Willerton, Somerset, was refused by Somerset Council.
The decision was then controversially overturned by a planning inspector.
The TFA says the initial decision to refuse the planning application was made by considering how it would impact tenant farmers and that it had been informed by case law.
See also: Legal ruling to increase rents for masts on farmland
An appeal was then lodged by developers and the planning inspector subsequently gave permission for the site’s development despite written submissions by agents representing the tenant farmers, the TFA, and the NFU.
George Dunn, TFA chief executive, said: “This is a case where Somerset Council got it right and the planning inspector got it badly wrong.
“In fact, the decision of the planning inspector was so wrong it could be dubbed a schoolboy error.”
The planning inspector acknowledged that the impact on the tenant farmer, who occupied the site, was a material consideration, and that the tenant farmer would face a notice to quit as a result.
Mr Dunn said: “Having taken that objection, including the point about the notice to quit into consideration, bizarrely the inspector then finds that the tenant farmer could instead continue to use the land for grazing and downplays the significance of the impact on the tenant farmer.
“However, if the tenant farmer no longer has access to the land, how can he continue to graze it?
“The inspector is either guilty of not understanding the basis of a notice to quit or failing to take that into consideration at all.
“Either way, it is a very serious error that undermines confidence in the role of the Planning Inspectorate.”
The TFA has since complained to the Planning Inspectorate.
It was told nothing could be done as it was a legally binding decision, and that any objector has the right to seek a judicial review.
Mr Dunn concluded: “It is my considered view that in this case the planning system has failed.
“Corrective action should be taken by the Planning Inspectorate to ensure this does not happen again.
“Planning inspectors should receive urgent training on how to handle these types of issues in the future.”