Planning Application No: 73/2010/11071
7 Day Notice: YES
1.
Site Description
1.1
The application site comprises an area of open agricultural land located on the
north-western side of New Lane, Silsden. New Lane is a single track road with
intermittent passing places situated in open countryside towards the edge of the
Craven District boundary. New Lane is most directly accessible via the main road
running between Kildwick and Silsden to the south-west but is also connected to
minor routes to the north-east linking with Silsden and the main road running
through to Addingham.
1.2
The site comprises part of a larger agricultural holding comprising four fields, three
of which are connected and served by an access onto New Lane (totalling 16
acres), the fourth being further to the north-east on the opposite side of the road (4
acres). The application site is located immediately to the rear of a dog-legged stone
wall on a field which rises from the roadside to the north-west. There is an
agricultural field in different ownership separating the site from the main road which
is bounded by post and wire fencing along the roadside.
1.3
The wider area is predominantly undulating agricultural grazing land which is
characterised by an open aspect with scattered farm buildings. Directly opposite the
site there is a residential property, Great Slack Farm, which is a former farmhouse
and attached barn now both in residential use and is Grade II listed. Further to the
south there is an original stone barn which has been re-roofed with metal sheeting.
Great Slack Farm lies approximately 90m from the site and the barn 120m. Both
these buildings are in separate ownership from the applicant who resides at an
address in Keighley. There are no other buildings within close proximity of the site
other than Bloomer Hill Dairy situated approximately 400m to the north.
1.4
Officer Note: Under the section headed ‘Layout’ the Design and Access statement
refers to the detached barn as being constructed under the ‘prior notice’
regulations. This is clearly an original structure which has been re-roofed and there
are no records of any applications under the prior notification procedures relating to
this particular site.
2.
Proposal
2.1
This is an outline planning application for the erection of a single storey building for
the production of free range hen’s eggs. Permission is sought for the access,
appearance, layout and scale of the proposal with landscaping reserved, although
the submitted plans detail a band of Hawthorne hedging along the eastern site
boundary (to the rear of the stone walling).
2.2
The proposed poultry unit would measure 85m x 18m with an overall ridge height of
5.17m falling to 3.048m at eaves level.
2.3
The building would be constructed from brown timber weatherboard with a slate
blue polyester coated corrugated steel roof. It is proposed to site the building
immediately to the rear of the existing stone wall on the lower part of the field where
it would be set back from the road by approximately 60m at its closest point.
2.4
In addition it is proposed to incorporate two feed bins which would be located to the
south-east of the poultry building. The overall height and dimensions of the feed
bins cannot be determined as they are shown on the ‘not to scale’ plan but the
elevational drawings indicate they would be slightly higher than the ridge of the
poultry building.
2.5
The proposals include improvements to the existing access onto New Lane
including the provision of a visibility splay/improved turning area on the north-east
side. The access would be finished with tarmac to create a 12m deep apron and
incorporate 1m high stone walling to either side with a gated access. Beyond the
access it is proposed to create a limestone surfaced track culminating in a
parking/turning area immediately adjacent to the poultry building. This partially
upgrades an existing track into the site.
2.6
In the Design and Access statement accompanying the application it is stated that
the applicant has farmed the site and adjoining land, including 4 acres adjoining
Great Slack Farm, for nearly 30 years. The application seeks to enable the
landowner to diversify into egg production by erecting a poultry building to house
12,000 birds. The building would include an associated store room and incorporate
automated feeding, egg collection and manure cleaning systems.
2.7
The application is also accompanied by a Transport and Access Statement which
outlines the traffic movements which would be generated by the proposal. These
are stated to be as follows:
2.8
Bird Delivery and Collection:
Egg Collection:
Feed Delivery:
Manure Removal:
2.9
Officer Note: The Transport and Access statement is anomalous in that it refers to
traffic movements along ‘Park Lane’ and includes a photograph showing access
along this route when there is no such road within proximity of the site. It also refers
to there being 2 staff members whereas in answer to question 19 on the planning
application form it is clearly stated that there are no proposed employees.
2.10
The Design and Access statement also provides details of the environmental
impact of the proposal with regards to odour, dust, flies, rodents, foxes, cats etc and
disposal of fallen stock.
2.11
Officer Note: The Design and Access statement under a section headed ‘fallen
stock’ states that dead birds will be collected daily and stored in a freezer until such
time as they are collected and disposed of by a licensed fellmonger. This would
suggest either; regular visits by the applicant, which are not referred to in the
transport and access statement, or, that staff would be employed. In the case of the
latter it is unclear whether it is intended to employ staff (see paragraph 2.10 above)
and if so the additional vehicle movements which staff would generate are not
recorded in the transport statement. In addition there is no record of potential visits
by vets or by rodent specialists although the Design and Access statement makes
reference to the building being baited and ‘regularly inspected for rodents’.
3.
Planning History
3.1
None.
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
National Policy:
4.2
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
4.3
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment
4.4
PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
4.5
Regional Spatial Strategy:
4.6
ENV7: Agricultural Land
8 wheeled lorry
7.5 tonne lorry
8 wheeled lorry
Tractor and trailer
2 lorries every 14 months
2 per week
1 lorry every 8 weeks
Twice per week summer
Once per week winter
4.7
E7: Rural Economy
4.8
Saved Local Plan Policy:
4.9
ENV1: Development in the Open Countryside
4.10
ENV2: Requirements for Development in Open Countryside
4.11
ENV13: New Agricultural Buildings and Structures
4.12
Other Relevant Documents:
4.13
Craven District Council Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park and Forest of
Bowland AONB Landscape Appraisal (October 2002)
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Kildwick Parish Meeting: Concern raised that another example of a poultry unit in
the area has been problematic by proving to be the catalyst for many inappropriate
planning applications since its demise. Wish success to the new poultry unit but
hope it does not bring with it other associated planning applications for dwelling
houses and other infrastructure.
5.2
Request that if enterprise fails and is vacated that planning condition be imposed to
require that the building and associated buildings be removed and the land be
allowed to return to its original state.
5.3
The Parish Meeting also point out discrepancies in the application comprising the
farm being referred to as ‘Great Stack’ as opposed to ‘Great Slack’ and the
reference to Park Lane (see Officer Note at Para. 2.10 above).
6.
Consultations
6.1
Bradford MBC: This proposal would seem to raise issues in respect of the visual
impact of the proposed building and the suitability of the proposed access/egress.
However, following a site visit concludes that the proposal would not have any
significant impact on the Bradford District. The Authority therefore has no specific
objections and is content for the application to be determined by reference to
national planning policy and the adopted policies of Craven District.
6.2
NYCC Highways: Recommend that Bradford MBC Highways are consulted
(consulted above) and that access be at least 15m north of the field boundary to
ensure adequate visibility. Subject to this the recommendation is that planning
permission should be granted subject to a condition relating to the construction of
the access and an informative ensuring protection of the public right of way.
6.3
Environment Agency: No objections subject to an informative relating to the need
for the proposed facility to comply with the Control of Pollution Regulations 2010.
6.4
CDC Environmental Health: No comments from Contaminated Land and Food and
Workplace Safety teams. The Environmental Protection team have no concerns
provided the environmental control measures in the Design and Access statement
and accompanying Environmental Report are fully complied with.
7.
Representations
7.1
One e-mail received commenting that there is no mains water on site the nearest
being approximately 1.5 miles away at Kildwick.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
Principle of development
8.2
Visual impact
8.3
Impact on amenity
8.4
Highways issues
9.
Analysis
9.1
The primary source of guidance in relation to rural development is PPS7 which
sets out some overall objectives relevant to sustainable development in rural areas
one of which is:
‘To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agricultural sectors where farming
achieves high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources,
and manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes both directly and
indirectly to rural economic diversity; is itself competitive and profitable; and
provides high quality products that the public wants’.
The above would suggest a broadly supportive approach to agricultural
development. However, under ‘Key Principles’ the PPS requires that:
‘All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping
and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and
local distinctiveness’.
9.2
9.3
The PPS acknowledges the important role of agriculture and emphasises that
planning policies should recognise this and support development proposals that
will enable farming to;

become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly;

adapt to new and changing markets;

comply with changing legislation and associated guidance;

diversify into new agricultural opportunities; or

broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce.
It is unclear from the information submitted with the application what the applicant’s
current farming operations comprise of and it is therefore difficult to gauge how the
proposed poultry unit would relate to the existing use of the farm holding.
Nevertheless, it is accepted that the proposal represents an opportunity for
diversification which would comply with the broad objectives outlined above.
Notwithstanding, it is necessary to also consider the further advice of PPS7 which
states:
‘A supportive approach to farm diversification should not result in excessive
expansion and encroachment of building development into the countryside.
Planning authorities should:
(i)
encourage the re-use or replacement of existing buildings where feasible,
and
(ii)
have regard to the amenity of any nearby residents or other rural
businesses that may be adversely affected by new types of on-farm
development.
9.4
It is considered that, on balance, although the broad principle of the development is
acceptable, the proposed siting fails to address the above criteria satisfactorily and
the proposal is therefore not fully compliant with PPS7.
9.5
The application site is located within open countryside well outside of any
development limits and must therefore be assessed against saved Local Plan
policies ENV1 and ENV2.
9.6
Policy ENV1 seeks to protect the character and quality of the open countryside from
being spoilt by sporadic development. In order to achieve this ENV1 limits
development in open countryside to:
9.7
‘small scale development appropriate for the enjoyment of the scenic qualities of
the countryside and other appropriate small scale development having a rural
character’,
9.8
The development described above is only acceptable under Policy ENV1 where it
can be demonstrated that; it would benefit the rural economy; help to maintain or
enhance landscape character; is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture
or forestry; or, is essential to the needs of the rural community.
9.9
The proposal is for a substantial building which would not fulfil the definition of small
scale development. It would moreover not help to maintain or enhance landscape
character and has not been demonstrated to be essential for the efficient operation
of agriculture or the needs of the rural community. However, it is accepted that the
poultry unit may benefit the rural economy. On balance it is considered that the
proposal is not acceptable in principle under the criteria of Saved Local Plan Policy
ENV1 as it does not fall within the scope of small scale development.
9.10
Saved Policy ENV2 is only applicable to development which is acceptable in
principle under Policy ENV1. As this proposal does not meet the criteria of ENV1 it
is not considered that Policy ENV2 is applicable to consideration of this application.
9.11
Notwithstanding the above it is also necessary to consider the proposal against
Saved Local Plan Policy ENV13 ‘New Agricultural Buildings and Structures’. Policy
ENV13 provides more specific criteria applicable to consideration of applications for
new agricultural buildings and structures. It states that consent will only be granted
for full applications and those under prior notification if:
 The building is located within or adjacent to an existing group of buildings, unless
it can be demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential to meet the
needs of the enterprise
 The building in terms of scale, materials, colour and siting is sympathetic to its
surroundings
 The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on sites of nature
conservation value, or of archaeological or historic importance
 Where necessary the proposal incorporates landscaping and planting to help
minimise its impact on its surroundings
9.12
In addition to the above further criteria apply to developments requiring planning
permission as follows:
 The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the character or setting of
local settlements or on the amenity of existing residents
 The proposal accords with all other relevant Local Plan policies
 The proposal will not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety
9.13
Considering each of the above criteria in turn:
9.14
The building is located within or adjacent to an existing group of buildings, unless it
can be demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential to meet the needs of
the enterprise
In the justification for policy ENV13 it is stated that new, modern buildings can have
a significant impact on the environment and that steps can be taken in order to
minimise that impact. To this end it is recommended that new buildings should be
in context with existing agricultural structures. The proposed poultry building would
be sited directly opposite a residential property which is in separate ownership and
would be 120m from a detached barn located on the opposite side of the road. It is
considered that the proposal would comprise a substantial building located in an
isolated position away from any existing agricultural buildings and therefore does
not accord with the first element of the first criteria of policy ENV13.
9.15
With regards to the second part of the above criteria, no specific justification for the
site has been put forward by the applicant other than by reference to two appeal
decisions and three Local Authority decisions for comparable poultry units. Whilst
the examples are noted there is no adequate explanation within the Design and
Access statement as to the direct relevance of the examples given to the
application site other than in relation to Newlands Farm, Lower Bradley. This
application falls within the Craven District boundary and is not directly comparable
to the proposed poultry unit at Great Slack Farm as this was an example of an
expansion of an established business where an additional unit was sited
immediately adjacent to an existing poultry building and other associated farm
buildings. The design and Access statement refers to this example concluding that:
‘The same factors are applicable to the current application’.
Whilst it is accepted that the overall dimensions and materials of the proposed unit
are comparable with the Bradley example it is not accepted that the same
locational factors apply. On this basis therefore it is not considered that the Bradley
decision is directly relevant to the current proposal.
9.16
The building in terms of scale, materials, colour and siting is sympathetic to its
surroundings
9.17
It is accepted that the proposed materials are appropriate to the rural setting but it
is not considered that the siting would be sympathetic to the surroundings. As
outlined above the building would not be situated adjacent to existing rural
buildings and would be in a relatively isolated position within the wider landscape.
The Design and Access statement refers to the building being located on relatively
level land and against rising ground in a position where it’s massing would be
broken up by existing walling.
The landscape is described within the Craven District Landscape Appraisal (2002)
as a ‘semi-enclosed intermediate landscape’ with a strong character comprised in
part of ‘rolling pastoral landscape with distinctive pockets of woodland and wooded
gills following the topography’. The appraisal identifies forces for change which
could affect the landscape including changes in farming practice and diversification
and ‘the addition of large agricultural structures which could have a potentially
adverse effect on the character of the pasture landscape’.
It is accepted that the proposed location would allow for some screening of the
proposed building arising from the topography of the site and the stone walling.
However, the application has not been accompanied by any landscape
assessment and there are no plans to illustrate the poultry building in context or to
show exactly how much of the building would be visible from long range views.
This is considered to be particularly important given the comments of the
Landscape Appraisal outlined above. For this reason it is difficult to adequately
assess the overall visual impact of the proposal or how prominent the poultry
building might be in the wider landscape. Consequently, it is not considered that
the proposal has been demonstrated to satisfactorily meet the above criteria of
Policy ENV13.
9.18
The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on sites of nature conservation
value, or of archaeological or historic importance
9.19
There are no sites of nature conservation value or archaeological importance
within close proximity to the site. However, Great Slack farm located opposite the
site is Grade II listed. This issue is not addressed in the application and no
assessment of the potential impact of the proposed building on the setting of the
heritage asset has been provided. It is noted that this is contrary to the advice of
Policy HE6 of PPS5 which requires applicants to provide a description of the
significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to
that significance. It is also noted that at HE6.2 there is a requirement that the
above information together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal
should be set out in the application as part of the explanation of the design
concept.
Officer Note: The PPS advises that applications for developments which impact
upon heritage assets, where the extent of that impact cannot be adequately
understood, should not be validated. In this case the application has not been
invalidated as it is considered that other relevant policy requirements have not
been satisfactorily met and addressing the PPS5 requirements alone would not be
sufficient to make the application acceptable in planning terms.
9.20
Where necessary the proposal incorporates landscaping and planting to help
minimise its impact on its surroundings
9.21
Although landscaping is a reserved matter, the submitted plans detail an area of
proposed Hawthorn planting between the building and the existing walling which
would provide some screening from the main road. It is noted that planting can be
dealt with by an appropriate condition if considered necessary and that it could
provide screening to the site. However, it is questionable whether it would be
possible to adequately screen a building of the size proposed with planting and
whether or not the planting would, in itself, be alien to the open rural aspect of the
area if used extensively. Notwithstanding, as landscaping does not form part of the
application, and the submitted hedging detail is for illustrative purposes only, it
must be concluded that it would be inappropriate to come to a firm view on this
aspect of the proposals at this stage.
9.22
The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the character or setting of
local settlements or on the amenity of existing residents
9.23
There are no local settlements within close proximity of the application site and
there can therefore be no issue in relation to this aspect of the proposal. However,
the proposed poultry building would lie directly opposite a residential property,
Great Slack Farm, which would be sited approximately 90m away. Aside from the
Grade II listing of this property there is no doubt that the proposed poultry shed
would significantly impact upon its outlook and that the character of the immediate
surroundings of the residential property would be substantially altered should the
development proceed. With regards to issues of amenity a number of effects have
been identified in the applicants Design and Access statement including;
odours/manure disposal, dust, flies, rodents and predatory animals, fallen stock
and traffic movements to and from the site. Whilst the statement attempts to justify
the proposed siting of the poultry unit, and provides information relating to each of
the issues identified above, it is not considered that the issues are dealt with in
sufficient detail to overcome concerns over the potential impacts upon the amenity
of the occupiers of Great Slack Farm. In particular the anomalies present in the
supporting information, in relation to traffic movements for example, would raise
questions over the validity of the information in assessing the impact which would
arise from the proposed development. Notwithstanding concern over the detail of
the application, it is considered that the poultry unit would potentially affect the
character and setting of the area giving rise to adverse impacts on the
neighbouring residential property by virtue of increased activity on and around the
site, problems of noise and odours, wind-bourne dust and visual impact. Given that
there are no agricultural buildings within close proximity of the site and no specific
justification for the siting of the building has been put forward the proposal is not
considered to comply with the above criteria of Policy ENV13.
9.24
The proposal accords with all other relevant Local Plan policies
9.25
For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal does not fully
accord with the criteria of Saved Policy ENV1.
9.26
The proposal will not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety.
9.27
It is noted that NYCC Highways have recommended that planning permission be
granted subject to conditions. However, they have also recommended that the
access is relocated 15m to the north of the field boundary in order to ensure
adequate visibility. This could not be achieved as the land to the north is not within
the applicant’s ownership. Having considered the supporting information, which is
somewhat contradictory, it is considered that the full extent of vehicular movements
associated with the proposed poultry unit has not been adequately detailed. As a
consequence it is uncertain whether or not the proposal would create conditions
prejudicial to highway safety. New Lane is very narrow and is for the most part
single width with limited passing places. Whilst it is accepted that the lane does not
presently have significant volumes of traffic, and that it must certainly be used
periodically for the movement of farm vehicles and delivery lorries etc., it is unclear
whether the lane would be entirely suitable for the increased traffic which would be
created by the proposed poultry unit. On balance it is considered that it has not
been adequately demonstrated that the proposal would not create conditions
prejudicial to highway safety and that the above criteria has not therefore been
met.
9.28
Summary
9.29
The proposal is not considered to be acceptable as it fails to meet the
requirements of Saved Local Plan policies ENV1 and ENV13. Specifically, the
buildings would comprise an isolated development in open countryside in a
location removed from any existing agricultural buildings. This would have a
significant visual impact and adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring
residential property. Moreover, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the
proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to road safety and no specific
justification has been given for the proposed siting of the poultry building.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
That planning permission is refused for the following reasons:
1.
Reasons for refusal
1.
The proposed poultry building would be an unsympathetic large scale
development located in an isolated position removed from any existing
agricultural buildings where it would adversely impact upon the character and
appearance of the open countryside. In particular the applicant has failed to
demonstrate the need for the building to be in the proposed location or that
there are no other more appropriate locations within his control. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policies ENV1
and ENV13 of the Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park)
Local Plan.
2.
The proposed poultry building would adversely affect the amenity of the
neighbouring residential property and would give rise to increased activity on
the site to the detriment of the wider locality. In particular the applicant has
failed to demonstrate the need for the building to be in the proposed location or
that there are no other more appropriate locations within his control. The
development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy ENV13
of the Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park) Local Plan.
3.
The proposed building would be sited adjacent to the Grade II listed building,
Great Slack Farm. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the building
would not result in an adverse impact on the setting of the heritage asset and
therefore the proposal fails to meet the requirements of policy HE6 of PPS5
‘Planning for the Historic Environment.
4.
Due to discrepancies in the application the applicant has not adequately
demonstrated that the proposal would not give rise to conditions that
would be prejudicial to road safety contrary to the requirements of Saved
Policy ENV13 of the Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National
Park) Local Plan.