Retrospective engineering works to provide extension to slurry lagoon.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with an additional condition.

(Retrospective engineering works to provide extension to slurry lagoon.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application,

He provided additional information on the proximity and status of adjacent listed buildings, and the legislative framework and statutory obligations and case law relating to considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.  Officers had concluded by the nature of the proposal, a hole in the ground, and its location, away from and separated from the listed buildings by existing modern agricultural development, that this context and lack of any interrelationship resulted in there being no material harm or impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

He also reported that there were no recorded boreholes within close proximity of the site. There was a borehole over 800m to the west of the site.  He added that the lagoon would not have an artificial liner. Test results including soil analysis carried out on behalf of the applicants identified that the site was capable of construction without the need for one.  The Environment Agency had been consulted as part of the process and had advised that they were satisfied with the test results.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs K Greenow, Clerk to Garway Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr H Cripwell, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr E Partridge, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Chairman read out a statement on behalf of the local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

The principal points in the statement were as follows:

·        The application had raised strong feelings locally.  At a recent meeting of Garway parish council many of the Broad Oak community had attended and expressed their opposition. Balancing this, the applicants must be allowed to run their business as they had successfully been doing for many years.

·        On a site visit he had found  no evidence of the slurry lagoons having overflowed. The farm seemed to be well managed and the slurry lagoons were a fair distance from the road.

·        He had the following concerns:

·        The retrospective nature of the application.  The Council needed to consider how it could dissuade such behaviour.

·        If permission was granted, landscaping must be of the highest standard to mitigate the concerns of the local residents.

·        The issue of whether the lagoon was to be covered needed addressing

·        The long journey by road from the dairy farm in Buckholt to the lagoon in Broad Oak.

·        The Parish Council had made some sound observations and highlighted the concern that water quality may be affected in the immediate area. He noted that the applicants themselves obtained their own drinking water from a borehole on site.  He was advised that officers not identified any concerns on this point.

·        The report addressed his concerns about landscaping and he was satisfied that this should negate many of the local concerns once fully grown out.

·        Recommendation 10 in the report if adhered to in its entirety should ensure that overflow would not be an issue.

·        He questioned the Transportation Manager’s comment at paragraph 4.3 of the report that “the site ‘gains the benefit of accessing the land from the farm, therefore reducing the needs to access the highways network”.  The Buckholt site was at least 3 or 4 miles from Broad Oak and the transportation involved moving the slurry along country roads.

·        In summary the core strategy seemed quite clear about favouring economic development on such farms.  The council must however ensure mitigation for residents, that there were appropriate conditions to protect residents and that these were enforced.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        It was requested that it be ensured that the lagoon would go no nearer to residential properties.

·        In reply to a question about the landscaping proposals the Acting Development Manager highlighted paragraph 6.28 of the report and conditions 4,5,6,7 and 8 in the recommendation.

·        Having regard to criteria in policy RA6 it was observed that there was local concern about the adverse impact to the amenity of nearby residents but the report concluded this could be mitigated, farm vehicles already used the highway network and the Environment Agency was the responsible authority for water quality and had no objection to the application.

·        A concern was expressed that the lagoon would not be lined and that this created a risk of seepage. Whilst noting the conditions in the recommendation some members had reservations about the Environment Agency’s ability to discharge its responsibilities in this matter.

·        It was questioned why waste had to be transported from the Buckholt farm site rather than being contained at that site.

·        There was some disappointment at the retrospective nature of the application.

·        It was proposed that there should be an additional condition to regulate the noise of any pumping equipment.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         C01  Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         C07  Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         C95  Details of Boundary treatments

4.         C96  Landscaping scheme

5.         C97  Landscaping scheme – implementation

6.         CA1  Landscape management plan

7.         CA2  Landscape maintenance arrangements

8.         CA3  Landscape monitoring

9.         On an annual basis for the first three years from the date of this Decision Notice, a Monitoring of seepage report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include methodology and results regarding water quality and in the event of issues being identified how they are to be resolved.

            Reason: To protect adjoining land uses, the local and downstream groundwater and surface water and in the interests of human safety and the environment and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS1, SD3 and SD4.

10.       Written demonstrable evidence of the appropriate management of surface water during extreme events that could overwhelm the surface water drainage system and/or occur as a result of blockage shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority for written approval within 3 month from date of this Decision Notice. The measures shall thereafter be maintained and used as such.

            Reason: To protect adjoining land uses, the local and downstream groundwater and surface water and in the interests of human safety and the environment and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS1, SD3 and SD4.

11.       Written demonstrable evidence that appropriate pollution control measures are in place for discharge from the development hereby permitted shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority for written approval within 3 month from date of this Decision Notice. The pollution control measures shall thereafter be maintained and used as such.

            Reason: To protect local and downstream groundwater and surface water and in the interests of human safety and the environment and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS1, SD3 and SD4.

12        Prior to installation, full written details and appropriate scaled plans of any pumping equipment required to service the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The details should include details of any necessary noise attenuation measures, which shall be implemented as approved prior to first use of the pumping equipment. The pumping equipment shall thereafter be used and maintained in strict accordance with the approved details.

            Reasons: To protect the residential amenity of adjoining properties and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS1, SS6 and RA6.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         Reference to requirement to follow submitted manure plan listed under Condition 2

3.         Further guidance on ‘Slurry reception pits and in-situ or above-ground slurry stores or tanks’ (amended February 2011) is available at:

            https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290135/LIT_7783_9e2698.pdf

4.         Further advice is contained within the DEFRA Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP) for farmers, growers and land managers.

            http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13558-cogap-090202.pdf