Erection of a cattle shed, 1 bay extension to an existing general purpose agricultural storage building and landscaping. 

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

(Erection of a cattle shed, 1 bay extension to an existing general purpose agricultural storage building and landscaping.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr P Kemble made a submission by audio recording in objection to the scheme on behalf of The Golden Valley Action Group.  Mr I Pick, the applicant’s agent, submitted a written submission in support of the application that was read to the meeting by the legal adviser to the Committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Hewitt, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        In weighing the benefits of the scheme against the adverse impacts, the benefits appeared to be solely to the applicant. The adverse impacts included the effect on air and water quality and the visual impact on the landscape and therefore on the sustainability of the community.

·        She questioned the statement in the officer report that the proposed buildings fell under any trigger sizes that would require an assessment for air pollution emissions.  Regard should be had to the combined increase in floorspace the proposal entailed, given that the barns were going to be contiguous with each other.

·        Account should be taken of the wider and cumulative activity on the farm given the sensitivity of the site, sitting in the valley bottom, source of the River Dore.

·        A slurry management programme should have been submitted.  She was concerned that the increase in livestock numbers would have an adverse effect on the SSSI and River Dore.

·        The officer report cited policy SD3: sustainable water management and water resources.  The development considerably increased the roof surface area but there was no calculation of this and the consequences of the rainwater run-off.  There was no water management programme.

·        Heavy rain had eroded and badly damaged the road surface of Scar Lane making it impassable to traffic. The Bage Farm sat alongside Scar Lane below the source of the River Dore which ran around the perimeter of the farmyard.  On a visit, she had seen large piles of uncovered manure in the field opposite the farm on the other side of Scar Lane which was next to the river

·        Natural England’s MAGIC website providing data on the natural environment identified the area in which the Bage Farmstead sits as a high priority area for catchment sensitive farming.  It was in a water quality priority area.  High priority issues at the site were identified as: surface water nitrates, sediment issues, phosphate issues, and flood risk management.  It also identified a high level of groundwater vulnerability to a pollutant discharged at ground level on the hydrological, geological, hydrogeological and soil properties.

·        The proposal appeared contrary to policy SD4: development should not undermine the achievement of water quality targets for rivers within the county.

·        Residents did not understand why previous planning infringements had gone unchallenged. Basing the application on the current situation, as created by one infringement – allowing the line of the farmstead to be eroded, seemed to reward the infringement

·        The visual impact of increased roof space would lead to an industrial feel to the farmyard seen from Merbach Hill or from Arthur’s Stone.

·        The council should seek to promote sustainable farming.

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

·        The proposal represented a substantial development out of keeping with the setting.  The site had reached capacity.

·        There were concerns about the detrimental effect on the landscape of the Golden Valley and the Black Mountains.

·        Consideration should be given to water quality issues.

·        The Committee should defer consideration of the application pending a site visit.

·        Several members expressed the view that the addition of farm buildings of the size proposed to an existing farm in a farming area was acceptable.

In response to questions the SPO commented:

·        In relation to air and water quality issues the Conservation Manager (Ecology) had made no objection to the proposal.  The new building and the increase in the footprint of the building to be extended did not exceed any of the thresholds required for a Habitat Regulations Assessment.  The new cattle building would not be contiguous with the existing storage building which would remain as a storage building.  All manure will be solid with no slurry given that the cattle would be on straw.

·        The impact on the line of the former Golden Valley Railway had not been considered because it was not a designated heritage asset.

·        Roofing materials were governed by a proposed condition.

·        The height increase in the new building in comparison with the other buildings had been considered acceptable in landscape terms and appropriate for a building to house cattle.

·        No external lighting was proposed.

·        It would not be customary to commission a full surface water drainaage strategy for an agricultural building.  The proposal was a realtively modest increase in the footprint.  Thie could be conditioned if the Committee wished.  There was no known flood risk from surface water run off at the site.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application was for a relatively modest development.  The key issue was visual impact as referred to in previous appeal decisions on the site.  The proposal was contained within the building complex.  A new landscape barrier would enhance the setting of new and existing buildings.  There were no objections from statutory or internal consultees.  The Parish Council supported the proposal. There had been letters of objection.  He suggested the Committee might wish to consider additional conditions to require a surface water management plan and no external lighting unless agreed by the local planning authority.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that she would like consideration be deferred pending a site visit to assess the visual impact of the proposal.  A hedge limiting further development to the west of the farm was welcome but it did not screen the development. The proposed surface water management plan was also welcome.  She remained concerned that the development was not being assessed as one building, reiterating concern about water quality.

Councillor Rone proposed and Councillor Johnson seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation with additional conditions requiring a surface water management plan and no external lighting unless approved by the local planning authority.  The motion was carried with 13 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions below and two additional conditions for a surface water management plan and no external lighting unless agreed by the local planning authority and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         Samples of external materials

4.         Prior to the first use of the buildings hereby approved all planting, seeding or turf laying shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme (JM/04A – received 12 January 2020 and planting specification – received: 7 November 2019). Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become severely damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting will be replaced in accordance with the Landscape and Maintenance and Management Plan – received: 7 November 2019. The landscaping barrier shall remain in perpetuity.

            Reason: To ensure implementation of the landscape scheme approved by local planning authority in order to conform with policies SS6, LD1 and LD3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy, Policy ENV 1 of the Dorstone Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.