Couple win struggle to save lots of their farmhouse regardless of residing there illegally for many years

A couple has won a fight to save their farmhouse home despite having lived there illegally for 28 years.

Richard Evans, 63, and his wife Diane, 61, have spent decades happily living in their farmhouse at Dreenhill in Pembrokeshire.

The couple was allowed to live at the house under the condition that they worked on the land. 

The condition was made by planners in 1994 when they applied to build the home.

However, officials were tipped off that the couple had not worked as farmers for 28 years.

The application made to build the house at the time said ‘clients need to be on site in order to supervise and control their farming enterprise’.

However, it said due to health reasons, they were not able to live in a caravan so they required a farmhouse to live in.

At the time, the scheme was recommended to be refused by council officers based on concerns about the farm’s viability, but was nonetheless approved by the planning committee.

Richard Evans, 63, and his wife Diane, 61, have spent decades living illegally in their farmhouse at Dreenhill in Pembrokeshire

At a recent planning meeting, it was heard that neither of the couple had been employed in farming since 1998 and both made their money from construction jobs.

Instead, self-employed builder Mr Evans’ income had mainly come from his involvement in a number of local construction firms

Mrs Evans managed another construction firm from 1997 until 2018.

It said within two years of moving into Summerhill Farm Lodge, Mrs Evans sold the last of the farm’s suckler cows and closed the poly tunnel she had used to grow salad crops.

The couple asked Pembrokeshire Council to allow them to continue living at their secluded home despite having not worked on the land and breaching the planning laws. 

The couple applied for a ‘lawful development certificate’ – because no one had ever complained about them. 

An application for a certificate of lawfulness allows an applicant to stay at a development if they can provide proof of occupancy without any enforcement challenge over a prolonged period. 

And as no one had complained, the committee granted their application.

The council concluded: ‘Based on the evidence available it is considered, on the balance of probability, that the dwelling known as Redwood House has been occupied in breach of the agricultural occupancy condition for a continuous period in excess of ten years.’