The county council provided me with the calculations below
to justify the statement made to the Ombudsman that: "When
it was discovered that the farming practices were changing [*had
changed*], with the run down [*sale*] of the dairy herd,
after the decision to grant permission by the Planning and Rights
of Way committee, an exercise was carried out to evaluate whether
the on-going [*potential - see below*] levels of stocking
and cropping would in themselves without the dairy herd, be sufficient
to justify an additional dwelling in term of the functional test
and the financial test and the the conclusion was positive [*and
arithmetically flawed - see below*]. there was therefore no
case to consider the revocation of the decision which had been
made. It is also pertinent to state that the farm retains its
dairy quota [*it may retain ownership of the dairy quota but
it doesn't retain the ability to use it because it has been leased
out - see final calculation below*]

*Please note: I have slightly rejigged the first calculation
to make it easier to understand and my comments are in italics
throughout.*

CWMBETWS - POTENTIAL* AS BEEF UNIT

Current non dairy stocking rate analysis:

Dairy Cattle128 + 37 = 165 at 1 cow per acre

Area needed to support therefore165 acres

350 [*total acreage*] - 165 [*land formerly occupied by
dairy herd*] = 185 acres.

185 - 73 [*crops and rough land*]= 112 acres [*to support
the present 162-strong beef herd.*]

162 [*cattle*] divided by 112 [*acres*] is equivalent
to 1.44 cows/acre.

*Applying this stocking density to the whole of the area available
for grazing now that the dairy herd
is no more* (165+112 = 277 acres) x 1.44 = 398 (say 400 cattle)

* "

This stocking rate is lower than normal 1.7/1.8 cows/acre.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT 1.44 COWS/ACRE

Beef and other cattle ...400 x 16hrs per annum = 6400

Tack sheep ....................350 x 2hrs per annum= 700

Cropping/grass remain the same ........................1266

Total ..................................................................8366

Essential maintenance etc. at 15% .....................1254

Total...................................................................9620

at 2200 hours per person per annum = 4.37 labour units

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT AT 1.7 COWS/ACRE WOULD SEE CATTLE NUMBERS RISE TO 595*

Beef and other cattle............ 595 x 16 = 9520 [

NB this figure of 595 is wrong see * below]

Sheep ......................................................700

Cropping/grass......................................1266

Total.....................................................11486

Essentail maintainence at 15% ................1722

Total Labour requirement.......................13208**

Divide by 2,200 hrs equivalent to 6 full time workers***

*This is mathematically flawed because the 1.7 cattle/acre has been multiplied by the total acreage of 350 and not, as in the first example, the area available for grazing i.e 277 acres. The correct figure is 277 x 1.7 = 470 a difference of some 25%.

** This figure is also incorrect because the amount of labour to look after 470 "beef and other cattle" is 7520 hrs and not 9520.

*** This figure is also wrong because 2,200 should now be divided into 11,208 and not 13,208 giving 5 full time workers

Functional requirement for a second dwelling at either stocking rate can be achieved by a significant margin.

FINANCIAL PROJECTION

Gross Margin beef unit @ £266 acre................... £93,100*

Tack sheep at 45p per head/per week (25 wks) ....£3,937

Income from quota leasing .....................................£__3,325__

Total ..................................................................£100,362

Less fixed costs inc. labour ...................................£__80,150__

Net Profit .............................................................£20,212

N.B. the income figure does not included SFP [*Single Farm Payment*]
which will increase gross margin and net profit.

A business based on the above performance would have no difficulty
in meeting the requirements of the functional [*financial?*]
test.

**This figure is wrong because it uses the whole acreage to
calculate the gross margin from the beef unit. Clearly, as farms
will differ from each other in the total amount of "waste"
land - rough woodland etc - this is a methodologically unsound
way to proceed. In any case, as the gross margin will, of necessity,
be a function of the number of cattle on the farm, any calculation
based on cattle numbers 25% more than can be actually stocked
(see above) is clearly suspect.
And, finally, in order to justify a second dwelling on an existing
farm, there should be some change in the "scale and nature"
of the farming operation.
As the number of dwellings is to be increased, it is safe to assume
that this change in the "scale or nature" must involve
an increase in the farm's labour requirements.
According to the figures used by the council, tending a dairy
animal requires 36 hours per annum while a beef animal requires
16.
Replacing 165 dairy cattle in terms of labour needs, would require
165 x 36 divided by 16 = 371 beef animals.
Adding those 371 to the 162 already on the farm gives a total
of 533, which, divided by the acreage available for grazing (277
acres), gives a stocking density of 1.9 to the acre.
And that is just to bring the farm up to its present labour needs.
To achieve an increase in labour needs sufficient to meet the
"scale and nature" test would obviously require an even
heavier stocking density.*