DC/2011/00978
SITE ADDRESS: Five Fields Farm, Pill Street Redwick Magor NP26 3DE
DEVELOPMENT: Agricultural Storage Building
Unitary Development Plan Policies
C3 Special Landscape Areas
ENV1 General Development Considerations
DES1 General Design Considerations
RE3 New agricultural and forestry buildings
Recent History
DC/2008/00283 - Proposed erection of stable (retrospective) and haystore. Approved 18/07/2008
DC/2011/00712 - Storage shed for agricultural machinery. Further details required 18/08/2011
Consultation Responses
Magor with Undy Community Council – Refuse
There is a lack of detail for the proposed access in order to assess any impact on drainage and the
SSSI
Consultation should take place with the relevant bodies dealing with drainage and wildlife matters
The Local Planning Authority should consider the size of the proposal and its siting
If the application were to be approved, no residential development can take place on Five Field Farm
at any time in the future.
Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal
Other responses
Agricultural Appraisal by Richard Anstis – The application does not include an assessment of why this
size of building is required for the machinery and equipment needed for a holding of this size and
without it, there is no proven agricultural need shown for the proposal (which to be clear is the
amended set of plans for the smaller building). It can be accepted that a machinery store is needed,
but more evidence is required to show why such a store needs to be of the size proposed.
Evaluation
Policy RE3 of the Unitary Development Plan advises that any new agricultural building which is
reasonably required will be permitted. In order to limit the visual impact of agricultural buildings,
they should be normally be located to or within existing group and particular care needs to be taken
to ensure that they blend into the landscape.
The site is rural in character and farm buildings are common part of the rural landscape. There are
existing agricultural buildings within close proximity of the site (Pill Farm and Lower Grange). Both
Pill Farm and Lower Grange are established farms and their farm buildings are mainly concentrated
in a cluster. However, these farms were once small holdings like Five Fields Farm.
The owner of Five Fields Farm is hoping to develop this site into a profitable business. He
demonstrated in writing that he has heavily invested on the holding, financially, since 2007. He feels
that he is now able to invest further on the holding; to build an agricultural building to store his farm
related tools and equipment.
This application seeks full planning approval for the erection of an agricultural building and
associated track. The initial proposal comprises three sections: the core, enclosed building in the
middle which is measured some 18.3m in length, 13.72m in width and 8m to the ridge, and a lean-to
canopy either side of the core building. Each of the lean-to canopies is measured some 18.3m in
length, 5.5m in width and 6.1m to the higher ridge. The lower walls of the building will be
constructed with blockworks with green steel sheetings above. A set of amended plans have been
submitted subsequently to the Delegation Panel site meeting; removing one of the lean-to
extensions and a reduction in the overall ridge and eves heights. The result is a building of 18.29 by
19.22, being 351.53m2, with an eaves height of 3m and ridge of 6m.
In terms of the proposed track, it was proposed that a width of 3m is likely to be required. The track
will consist of approximately 8" of graded hardcore, then graded in with type 1 limestone.
The current holding comprises 5.26 ha of land, owned by the applicant. A further 11.33 ha is also
occupied, quite some way from the holding and under annual licence. The applicant owns 30 ewes
and 3 rams, lambed in the field shelter, with 10 chickens and 5 family horses. No formal accounts are
held and the applicant has other employment. Most of the work required on the holding is carried
out by local farmers/contractors. However, over the years the applicants have acquired various
agricultural tools and equipment and the aim of the proposal is to erect an agricultural storage
building for the maintenance of the land; the list is titled Tools and Equipment.
The owner purchased the land in October of the year 2007. This is a small holding and it is his
intention to develop the site into a profitable business for the foreseeable future. He further
explains that since 2007, he has been using local farmers/contractors to carry out certain agricultural
tasks; by doing so, it enables him to integrate into the local farming community.
There is no objection from the Environment Agency with regard to drainage. There is a reen running
across the site and the access to the agricultural building is via an existing bridge over the reen. No
detailed distances have been provided in relation to a buffer strip along the reen and the proposed
track, it is considered that such information could be adequately and acceptably dealt with via
planning conditions.
A response to the Magor with Undy Community Council
There is no objection from the Environment Agency regarding drainage and the site has enough
space to provide a buffer zone between the reen and the proposed building.
The Magor with Undy Community Council consider that the relevant wildlife bodies such as the
Countryside Council for Wales should be contacted. This is an application for an agricultural building
and the Local Planning Authority’s duty is to consider its siting and appearance only. In addition, the
proposed siting is at least 10m away from the boundary of the site. Also, it is not within the normal
required buffer zone of the reen and no tree is required to be removed.
The Community Council requested that if the application were to be approved, no residential
development can take place on Five Fields Farm at any time in the future. Each case will be treated
on its merits and this application is for the erection of an agricultural building and an access track
only.
Delegation Panel
The members of the Delegation Panel have visited the site and they were minded to refuse the
application as they do not considered that there is sufficient agricultural justification for the scale of
the proposal to serve the holding of this size, and they have requested this application to be
assessed by an independent planning consultant. Mr Richard Anstis was then employed to examine
the agricultural need for the proposal in accordance with relevant planning policy and guidance to
inform a planning decision. The applicant was aware of the members’ concern about the overall size
of the proposed building. Therefore, a set of an amended drawings have been submitted replacing
the earlier version, removing one of the lean-to extensions and a reduction in the overall ridge and
eves heights. The result is a building of 18.29 by 19.22, being 351.53m2, with an eaves height of 3m
and ridge of 6m. The appraisal was assessed based on the amended plans. The proposed building is
purely for the storage of machinery required to run the holding.
The principle question of the appraisal is whether there is sufficient need on the holding for the size
of the proposed building. The Consultant found that the list of machinery on the application
submission does not appear to be excessive for the holding. However, it is considered that the size
of the enclosed section alone would appear to be generous enough for the machinery and
equipment required for managing the extent of land and livestock evident here.
Mr Anstis concluded that the application does not include an assessment of why this size of building
is required for the machinery and equipment needed for a holding of this size and without it, there is
no proven agricultural need shown for the proposal (which to be clear is the amended set of plans
for the smaller building). It can be accepted that a machinery store is needed, but more evidence is
required to show why such a store needs to be of the size proposed.
In response to the agricultural appraisal, an internal layout plan was further submitted by the
applicant to demonstrate how much space each of the tools required. The finding of the Consultant
and the layout plan was presented to the Delegation Panel for further consideration. Although the
applicant had reduced the size of the proposed building, the Delegation Panel do not considered
that the proposed building is reasonably required for agricultural purposes.
With regard to the proposed location, it would be sensible to build the agricultural building closer to
the existing buildings, on the south side of the reen. However, the site along the highway is heavily
screened by existing vegetation and the proposed location is set well back away from the highway.
In addition, by erecting the proposed building away from the reen will minimise the risk of damaging
the reen or contaminate the water quality of the reen. Therefore, if there was proven agricultural
need for the proposal, the proposed location would be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
The proposed agricultural building by virtue of its excessive size contrary to Criterion (a) of Policy
RE3 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.
Plan:
Plans of proposed building (Revised)
Revised layout plan
Tools and equipment
Possible Conditions for Planning Appeal
 Standard 5 years

A 7 meter strip of land shall be left clear between the top of bank and any building or
obstruction, along both banks of any IDB watercourse unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. This is necessary so that a watercourse can be maintained with
heavy machinery.