Mr P Brimble Steppes, White Cross, Zeals, Warminster, Wiltshire BA1 2 6pH

1't April 2010 The Planning Officer Wiltshire Council 61 Wyndham Road Salisbury Wiltshire

Dear Sir,

!9^: er9q9sed Agricultural Building, Park Hedges, White Cross, Zeals,Wiltshire. s/2010/0379

I would refer you to the above application for full planning permission and set out below my representations.

With respect the application appears to be flawed and should not have been validated and registered because there are anomalies as far as the answers to the various questions on the planning form are concerned.

Firstly I would refer to question 5, the question is "Has assisfance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this apptication?" The answer is yes.

Underneath the next question is "/f yes, please complete the fottowing information". No details whatsoever are given. lf pre-application advice was sought I need to know what that advice was so that I can properly set out my representations.

Moving on to question g, I note that this is not answered. Again I need to know whether the applicant is related to any member of stiaff or elected member of the council.

Questions 10 deals with materials, information is provided but no drawing reference is set out as required.

Towards the bottom of this question is the following, "Are you supptying additional information on submitted plans, drawings, design and access statement?" That question is not answered. When I first looked at this application on your Council's website, no design and access statement was shown, Subsequently it appears to have been added.

Moving on to question 13, there is no answer to the question "How will surface water be disposed of?"

Next I refer to question 19, the question is "Does your proposal involve fhe /oss, gain or change of use of non-residential floor space?" The answer is no. As it appears that it is proposed to erect a building the answer to this should have been yes and details given underneath. Question 20 is related to employment. A line is put through this with the letters N/A.

on the supplementary form relating to development for agricultural purposes however it is stated that four part time staff will be employed.

Question 22 asks what the site area is this is not answered and needs to be.

I now.refer to the agricultural holding certificate. A line is put through Certificate A. lf there is no agricultural tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act then this Certificate should have been signed and dated.

Certificate B is appropriate only where there is an agricultural tenant and this answer is incorrect.

Question 26 requires various boxes to be ticked. I note that none are.

Question 28 appears to be not answered arrd needs to be.

I reserve the right to make further representations once the application form is properly completed and re-submitted and the consultation period is re-started.

I now make representations regarding the design and access statement.

1.1 The land owned by the applicant and eclged in blue on the plan that accompanied the application extends to 2.92 hectares (7.21 acres). This area however includes Park Hedges and its residential curtilage, This is shown on the plan to a scale of 1:2500 which appears to be a copy of the extraot from the Salisbury District Local Plan lnset 1 10 for White Cross. The residential curtilage there is quite clear and extends to 0.153 hectares (0.38 acres).

It is noted however on looking at the site that the residential curtilage of Park Hedges has been significantly extended since the property was purchased in 2005. Please find attached a Google map that shows evidence of that residential curtilage extension which is of course a material change of use requiring planning permission. As far as I am aware no such applicationr has been made and approved. Your Authority has applied a consistent policy to such residential curtilage extensions, particularly in Areas of Outstanding Natrrral Beauty where all such applications that I am aware of have been refused. Before determining this application I trust that you will investigate this issue and if necessary institute enforcement proceedings so that the residential curtilage is reverted to its original size.

Within that residential curtilage there are buildings and structures that are not referred to by the applicant in his application. lf it is considered that a modest building is required for ewes that have lambed in inclement weather or for the storage of a small amount of concentrated food, then I would suggest the buildings already in existence are sufficient.

1 .4 Black welsh mountain sheep are not a rare breed. They are kept by numerous farmers throughout the country, lt is stated that the initialflock of 11 ewes and 1 ram have been increased to 35 breeding ewes.

I calculate that the actual area of grazinl; available adjacent to Park Hedges as a matter of fact extends to 2.56 hectares (6.33 acres) and this very limited area cannot

2 sustain the number of sheep referred to in the design and access statement under paragraph 1.4.

Hobby farming is of course quite acceptable and I am in no doubt that is what is carried out at Park Hedges.

Sheep need to be moved from field to field on a regular basis in order to reduce the effect of worms dropped by the sheep on to the pasture. lt is considered that no more than 20 ewes should be kept on this veny limited area in accordance with good agricultural practice and animal husbandry. lt is not possible for 35 ewes and 7 other sheep to be kept on such a limited area. if the sheep are going to be kept permanently on such a small area of pasture the number of ewLs will need to be sig nificantly red uced.

1.5 The building, the subject of this application has a floor area of approximately 200 sqm or more than twice the floor area of an average house. There can be no justification for a building of this size in connection with the overstated hobby farming enterprise.

I estimate that the cost of putting up such a building will be in the region of f80,000 hardly commensurate with any insignificant profit that might theoretiially be achieved from the number of animals that can rearistically be kept bn this land.

I would suggest that a small mobile shelter can be kept within the original residential curtilage of Park Hedges which would not constitute development and which would be sufficient for the applicants stated purposes.

It appears that buildings or structures have been placed on the unauthorised extended residential curlilage of the dwelling all adding to the visual impact that the unauthorised development has already had within the AONB.

It is also noted that it is intended that the building should be constructed of natural stone, rendered block work, with a slate roof. The building would lend itself to be used for several other purposes which raises further doubt as to why it is required.

I understand that the applicant is the Proprietor of a second-hand car business at Gillingham and the building would be suitable for the storage, repair and renovation of motor vehicles.

1.6 As already stated there are buildings within the curtilage of Park Hedges that would be suitable for the very limited amount of sheep that can be kept on the land.

1.7 With respect PPST does not encourage small scale agricultural enterprises. Paragraph 1, (iv) states "New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements or outside arei:ls allocated for development in the Development Plan should be strictly controlled: - the Governments overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all."

Government Policy in paragraph 15 makes it quite clear that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to any areas that have been statutorily designated for their landscape, where greater priority should be given to restraint of potentially damaging development. The application site is of course within the West Wiltshire Downs and Cranborne Chase AONB. Paragraph 21 deals with Nationally Designated Areas, including AONB's. Such an area has been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservati6n of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and Development Control decisions in these are-as.

Paragraph 27 deals with agricultural development and it is accepted that Government recognises the important and varied roles of agriculture, including in the maintenance and management of the countryside and most of our valued landscap-es.

There is, however, no policy giving any encouragement to the erection of agricultural buildings that are not essential and where the si2e and type of building is n5t commensurate with an established viable farming enterprise.

The applicant makes reference to various policies contained within the Salisbury District Local Plan.

Policy C1 states "The Distiict Council will endeavour to protect, restore and improve the natural beauty and amenity of the District.',

The erection of this propoqed building will do the opposite. lt will introduce an incongruous, substantial building in to an open field, immediately adjacent to a County Road which is not related to the bungalow park Hedges.

The field owned by the applicant is at its highest point adjacent to the County Road where it is intended to erect the new building. The whole of the field is extremely piominent for numerous public vantage points, including from the road itself. The hedge immediately adjacent is about 1.8m in height above the flevel of the County Road and the building has a height to eaves of 25m and to ridge of 4.8 metres.

The building would be immediately apparent to anyone either walking or driving along the County Road.

Further, the field, the subject of this application, is crossed by public footpaths and anyone walking along those footpaths would be bound to see the building in an isolated position unrelated to any other buildings. lt will be seen as an alien feature and without doubt would cause considerable harm to the visual quality of the landscape and to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Further because of the prominence of this ridge the building would be seen from public vantage points on the far side of the valley and attached are photographs demonstrating that to be the case. There are many ancient monuments on the far side of the valley and the building would be prominent from those features. This in turn would adversely impact on the setting of those ancient monuments.

The applicant refers to Policy C2 which makes it clear that development in the countryside will be strictly limited and will not be permitted unless it would benefit the local economy and maintain or enhance the environment.

The applicant states that the building being applied for is necessary for a small hobby farming enterprise and I have already provicled facts as to why the limited amount of land will not sustain the number of animals referred to nor will it benefit the local economv. Without doubt the building would not maintain or enhance the environment but would sig nificantly detract.

The applicant makes no mention of Policy C4 which makes it clear that within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB development will not be permitted if it would harm the natural beauty of the landscape, which this building would,

The applicant does mention Policy C5 which states that within the AONB small scate development will only be permitted where they are in accordance with the policies of this Local Plan.

There are no policies within the Local Plan giving encouragement in the erection of unnecessary buildings that are not justified by an established agricultural enterprise and which are not necessary.

In any event Criterion 1 of Policy C5 requires the siting and scale of development to be sympathetic with the landscape of the AONB in general and of the particular locality. The building most cerlainly does not conform with that criterion.

The applicant quite rightly refers to Policy C20. This policy however is only supportive of development which is essential to meet the needs of agriculture. I have already set out cogent and demonstrable reasons why this building is most certainly not essential.

The building proposed is in conflict with the relevant policies contained within the Local Plan.

Ghapter two of the design and access statement is headed "Design Considerations".

I have already explained and demonstrated why a building is not necessary and most cedainly not a building of the scale and permanence of the one the subject of this application.

I have already suggested that the building could be put to other uses.

Paragraph 2.5 states that the scale of the proposed barn is in proportion to the size of the agricultural holding and the level of agricultural activity on it and only provides the minimum amount of space required.

This statement cannot be substantiated, The very small area of land owned cannot sustain the amount of animals set out in the appraisal. Sheep are extremely hardy animals and a permanent shelter for them iri not required. The amount of food sheep require is extremely limited and is only needed during short periods of the year,

A tractor and other farm machinery is not required to maintain such a small area of land. It is not as though crops of silage or hay carr be taken from the land because according to the applicant's proposal the land is seriously overstocked.

There is no viable agricultural enterprise. The keeping of this very limited amount of sheep would not derive any significant income and there is no viable enterprise where efficiency is important.

I trust that you agree the application before you at the present time should not have been validated for the reasons given. Would you please provide a substantive reply to this letter at the earliest opporlunity regarding the procedural matters? In any event I trust that you will give due weight to the representations on the merits of the scheme as set out and I would respectfully request that the application be refused.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Brimble.

Mr Peter Brimble.

Enc. Google map - to follow Photographs - to follow