• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DECISION RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Agenda Item No meeting date: THURSDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2014 title: PLANNING APPLICATIONS submitted by: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: APPLICATION NO: 3/2014/0326/P (GRID REF: SD 370686 441240) PROPOSED NEW AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AT WITHGILL FARM, WITHGILL FOLD, WITHGILL, CLITHEROE, BB7 3LW PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council comments that this application represents a further unwelcome extension to this large scale agricultural development. Whilst the additional building is modest in the context of the existing footprint, the Parish Council are concerned that the 10% increase in the size of the milking herd will inevitably result in additional vehicle movements to transport feed and milk along narrow country lanes. However, of greater concern is the additional slurry generated, which will have to be transported even further afield to be spread on farmland across the valley, again, creating additional tractor/tanker movements travelling even further distances. The development is now far larger than anyone envisaged and we feel that it is now appropriate to cap the project at its current scale on env ironmental, quality of life, visual and transport grounds. ENVIRONMENT Comments that, in view of the percentage (10%) increase in DIRECTORATE the number of cattle on s ite, he does not consider that the (COUNTY SURVEYOR): additional traffic generated by the proposal would be so significant as to warrant a recommendation of refusal. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Environment Agency initially objected to the application as submitted on the basis that no assessment of environmental impacts had been provided. They therefore recommended that the planning application be r efused on t hat basis; and s tated that they would maintain their objection until the applicant has supplied information to demonstrate that the risks posed to the development could be satisfactorily addressed. T he Environment Agency initially considered that, in the absence of any information relating to the environmental impacts of the proposed development, they were unable to consider the proposals in relation to paragraph 109 of NPPF. As such they considered the development as originally submitted to be contrary to the requirements of saved Policy G1 of the Local Plan. 1 The Environment Agency’s concerns related to water quality, in particular any potential impact of the development upon Bashall Brook and the River Hodder. The Environment Agency also considered that, initially, insufficient information had been submitted to address the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing foul water management system at the farm. The Environment Agency therefore requested that sufficient information should be s ubmitted to enable them to consider the potential impacts of any changes to the existing foul water management system on the aquatic environment. Such additional information was submitted to the Environment Agency by the Applicant’s agent. Following the consideration of that additional information, the Environment Agency commented that whilst accepting that the farm has storage infrastructure in place to effectively cope with the 10% increase in the volume of slurry and dirty water generated, it was considered that not enough information had still been provided on how the land will be managed to prevent diffuse pollution from the spreading of effluent. What had been pr ovided, they commented, was a nutrient management spreadsheet and slurry storage calculations. Whilst this demonstrates that the proposed nutrient additions to individual fields will not exceed prescribed limits and will be tailored to crop requirement, there is inadequate risk assessment of the field operation and whether in fact there has been any field based assessment of attributes including soil character and c ondition, slope and drainage. The agricultural benefit from the addition of organic matter to the soil has been adequately demonstrated but the potential detrimental impacts have not been fully considered. The Environment Agency comments that a full Manure Management Plan is therefore required, which should include a risk map with proper consideration given to field observation and assessment. However, on the basis of the additional information that had been provided, the Environment Agency has withdrawn its objection to the application subject to the imposition of the following condition: • The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Manure Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be i mplemented as approved. 2 The reason for the condition is to ensure that the development does not pose a r isk of pollution to controlled waters. T he Environment Agency considers it preferable to approve the development subject to the condition rather than requiring the submission of the additional details before the application is determined. Their reason for this is that imposing the condition would make it easier for the Council to enforce as the applicant would have to comply with the condition. The Environment Agency has also provided an explanation regarding the information that is required in order to satisfy the condition. This will form the content of an advisory note on the planning permission should Committee be minded to grant permission. LANCASHIRE COUNTY In a det ailed report, the Estate Surveyor comments that the COUNCIL (ESTATE development is needed for the purposes of agriculture; that the SURVEYOR): design, scale and materials are suitable for the proposed use; and that the siting of the building is appropriate. T he Estate Surveyor said that there is a slight question mark over the need for the building as a trial to establish whether the milking regime can operate with increased cow numbers had not been completed at the time of the Estate Surveyors initial comments. At that time the system was being run with an a dditional 160 milking cows, and it was proposed to bring a further 90 cows into the system. If the trail had failed, there would be no requirement for the additional livestock building as proposed in the application. However, the Estate Surveyor has subsequently confirmed that as the trials were underway, the present cow accommodation was compromised such that the provision of additional cubicle housing was required and, in order to satisfactorily complete the trial, the additional building was necessary. In terms of the overall assessment of the building, the Estate Surveyor therefore concluded that it is feasible. ADDITIONAL One letter has been received from a near by resident who REPRESENTATIONS: states that he has ‘no specific issue with the building of the proposed agricultural building’. His main concern is to ensure that proper scrutiny of the manure Management Plan calculations are carried out in order to prevent detrimental effects upon the local water systems. A total of 16 l etters have been r eceived from various angling clubs and r iver conservation bodies. The objections made in those letters are summarised as follows: 1. Withgill, already with 2000 cattle, has a history of harmful and repeated slurry pollution from spills and ov er spreading and have been prosecuted on two occasions. 3 Discharge is already above the capacity of the land and surrounding waters. An increase of 270 cattle would exacerbate an existing problem. 2. Streams and brooks in the locality are already polluted with slurry leading to the main river being polluted. This is a health matter and c ould lead to someone becoming seriously ill from playing in the river. 3. Bashall Brook is polluted. This is a spawning stream for Salmon and S ea Trout. Salmon are an endang ered species. 4. Although the Manure Management Plan says how the manure will be managed, it does not take into account some of the wider real or potential impacts of this Manure Management. For example, where the manure is being spread, there is no i ndication of the existing nutrient levels in the soil, and whether additional manure spreading will cause leaking of nutrients into watercourses. 5. Pollutions are likely to kill all invertebrate life in the watercourses and even without further pollution, can take years to replace. Surveys carried out on some of the nearby watercourses have already shown severely depleted number of invertebrates. 6. The loss of invertebrate life will affect other fish and animals in the food chain including Grayling, Sea Trout and Salmon. 7. These waters have been purchased at great expense or leased from local landowners by angling clubs. The reduced number of fish due to pollution will render these facilities unattractive affecting the income of local people by reduced levels of rent. 8. The activity of slurry spreading will affect all road users both locally and further afield as the search for more land on which to spread becomes wider. 9. Pollution of local streams eventually ends up polluting our beaches. 10. The submitted details show other farms where Withgill has permission to spread slurry, many of which already have herds and s pread on their own land. Is this being taken into account? 4 11. A permission cannot be granted until an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out. 12. The application must be refused due to the impact that it will have on local watercourses and fish stocks. Proposal Permission is sought for a bui lding with dimensions of 67m x 28.8m with an eaves height of 3.5m and a ridge height of 6.5m. It is a portal frame building with concrete block and Yorkshire boarding to the east and west elevations to include access gates. The roof would be clad with dark blue fibre cement roof sheets, incorporating roof lights. T he northern and s outhern elevations of the building would be open fronted and provided with a feed face.

Load more

  197

Copy Link