For:      Mr P Chalk per Mr J Taplin, John Taplin Associates, The Orchard, Clevelode, Malvern, Worcs, WR13 6PD

Ward: Hope End

The Principal Planning Officer presented the following updates:

a copy of a letter from the applicant to the Environment Agency had been received making the following points:

·         the proposed livestock shed will not be used for intensive farming:

·         we own 18 acres and the current livestock numbers are the maximum for the holding;

·         the livestock shelter will be used for Highland cattle in extremely wet weather, first year calves for halter training for about 4 weeks and ewes during the 4 week lambing period;

·         all building and hill water runs into a separate French drain system;

·         the livestock building has a 70 mm crushed stone floor over geotextile membrane and will be strawed/hayed to absorb effluent with fresh material added daily;

·         the yard has a 70 mm crushed stone floor over geotextile membrane and will also be strawed/hayed to retain effluent;

·         the yard and shelter is a level site with a land drain on the downside end connected to the sump shown on the plan. The area has a limited percolation rate;

·         the sump overflow is a 100mm land drain which runs for 100m to an open sump which is spring fed at a rate of 4300 litres per day. The ground between the sump and open sump has a percolation rate of 156. Before drawing up the proposal we took on board the Environment Agency’s suggestion to collect any possible run off and percolate it through the ground before entering any watercourse; and

·         the applicant is asking the Environment Agency to review their comments and advise if the proposed drainage as set out in the application is acceptable.

A further letter has been received from Mr Humphries, Laburnum Cottage, Birchwood making the following additional points:

·         the original drainage system installed when the barn was constructed diverted my private water supply causing part of my land to be come water logged, fruit trees to die and concern that it is backfeeding into my septic tank;

·         the applicant installed a secondary drainage system below the barn which discharged into my (by then dry) private water supply. I now only receive run off which becomes a torrent in heavy rain and gets contaminated by livestock in the barn or yard. The Environment agency have only discussed the secondary drainage with the applicant;

·         the source of contamination is claimed to have been rectified but I remain sceptical. Livestock in or around the barn in winter will prove whether it has been rectified or not; and

·         a possible solution to all run off issues from the barn is to redirect all drainage onto the applicant’s own land below the barn. It is unreasonable for other residents to bear the impact of the serious run off issues.

The applicant has responded to these points in a letter addressed to the Environment Agency as follows:

·         we understand that the private water supply was via a pipe which was removed in the 1970’s, since then the private water supply has only been fed by a drainage sump in the road;

·         when the site of the barn and yard was excavated only one land drain was found which ran towards a different drainage sump;

·         as per our agreement we disabled the quoted secondary drainage system in April 2007;

·         we are not aware of any land drains that feed under the road to Mr Humphries land. All land drains are shown on the plan. They feed the open sump which overflows into a different drainage sump which over flows lower down the hill;

·         in the area of the barn and yard there are no land drains; and

·         the issue last winter was run off from the corral entering the secondary drainage system. To overcome the problem we moved the livestock to the barn, being enclosed, there was no run off form the barn area.

The Development Control Manager said that the advice of the Environment Agency on the applicant’s letter was awaited and that the letter from Mr Humphries had been sent to it for information. In view of the possibility that the Environment Agency may accept the applicant’s original drainage proposals as requested in the letter, he suggested the following underlined addition to the recommendation: 

Subject to the receipt of a suitably amended drainage scheme or confirmation from the Environment Agency that they accept the proposals submitted with the application, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions (as set out in the report) and any additional conditions considered necessary.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Greenway an objector spoke against the application.

The Sub-Committee discussed the details of the proposals and noted the concerns of the objector that all the drainage issues needed to be resolved before a decision could be made.  It was therefore decided to defer the matter accordingly.

RESOLVED

That consideration of the application be deferred pending the receipt of a suitably amended drainage scheme or confirmation from the Environment Agency that it accepts the proposals submitted with the application