Meeting documents

Application proposal: Alterations to include demolition of building, conversion of outbuilding to form 2 No. dwellings, the erection of a single story extension and the erection of a detached garage.

Prior to consideration of the application, Cllr. Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in the item as the applicant and some of the supporters and objectors were known to her.

The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report and outlined the key considerations.  There were no updates to the report.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by members.  Members were informed of the following:

·         There was no requirement for a Travel Plan to be produced for two dwellings;

·         It would be appropriate to impose a condition through a legal agreement for the re-siting of the cattle;

·         The Environment Agency had not made a visit to the site as the water supply was outside of their remit;

·         The existing barns were used for farm storage and partly for livestock;  

·         With reference to whether there was an acceptable minimum distance between the proposed dwellings and a working farmyard, members were advised by the Environmental Protection Officer that there was no legally stated distance and it was down to reasonableness and judgement.

The Committee noted the comments of Mr Chris Baranowski representing Allowenshay and Kingstone Parish Meeting.  He commented that the Parish Council were against the proposal for the five reasons outlined in the agenda report.  He asked members to support the Planning Officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Comments raised by Peta Inglesent, Susan Gibson, Carmel Wilkinson and Gillian Brierley in objection to the application were noted by the Committee.  Points mentioned included the following:

·         Concerns about the current water supply for the village;

·         Over the past 5 years, there had been several interruptions to the water supply;

·         Concern over the unknown impact on the existing borehole by the proposed new borehole;

·         The application should be considered in the context of the whole village;

·         The water supply has previously exceeded limits in the regulations for iron and manganese;

·         There were already ongoing issues with the pressure and quality of the water supply.

The Committee was then addressed by Nick Rutter and Livia Lewendon in support of the application.  Points mentioned included the following:

·         The benefits of housing the calves in the buildings;

·         In the past the land had been heavily cultivated but was far better managed as grass and would be a huge loss to the area if reverted back to cultivation;

·         The application had been submitted with a new borehole because of the issues with the existing private water supply;

·         The application would allow young people to remain in the community and to be able to purchase an affordable property;

·         Farm practices needed to thrive and the proximity of animals to the barns was a personal choice for anyone purchasing the barns to consider.

The Applicant’s Agent, James Fox commented that he was unaware that the water supply was such a problem.  If the milking parlour had remained in operation water use would be far greater than by the proposed development.  The Environment Health Officer had been consulted and he understood the problem was resolved.  He believed that the issue of flies was part of living in the countryside.  He concluded that the applicant already had locally interested people in the dwellings.

Ward Member, Cllr. Sue Osborne indicated that one of the supporters who spoke was well known to her and therefore declared a prejudicial interest in the application.  She made a short statement and then left the room for the remainder of the item.  She commented that if the application were to be approved she would wish to see a legal agreement to ensure that only cattle and equestrian were housed in the farm buildings furthest from the site with the rest of the buildings used for storage only.

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer clarified the position with regard to the water supply, which was provided mainly by a spring.  She informed members that the existing village was supplied by a private water supply and that the proposed development would be supplied by a new borehole.  The Hydrogeological Assessment had been requested to demonstrate whether a new borehole would have an impact on the existing water supply.  The Environment Protection Team was trying to work to resolve the issues of the existing water supply.

With regard to the existing water supply, the Principal Legal Executive reminded members that the Council could assist in resolving issues within its regulatory function but it would be advisable for residents to ascertain their rights with the owner of the private water supply.

The Planning Officer commented that it would be difficult to justify refusal of the application on the grounds of the water supply on the basis that both the Environment Agency and Environment Protection Team have examined the Hydrogeological Assessment and raised no objection to the proposal.

In response to a number of member comments, the Principal Environment Protection Officer advised that:

·         The majority of the village water supply came from a spring;

·         Water from the new borehole would be taken from the same aquifer used by the existing borehole;

·         The main problem with the existing water supply was in relation to the infrastructure and pipework;

·         The new borehole would have a new infrastructure.  The Hydrogeological Assessment made reference to there being enough water available and this was considered acceptable;

·         The Environmental Health Team was duty bound to investigate complaints of noise and odour etc. and take action as necessary and that the farm could find themselves having to put right any statutory nuisance, should one be found to exist.

In response to a member question, the Planning Officer confirmed that apart from the issue of the proximity of the dwellings to the remaining farm, all other aspects of the application were considered acceptable.

During discussion, Members raised a number of issues, which included the following:

·         It was difficult to decide if the water supply was a material consideration;

·         It was felt that the Council should carry out its own assessment on the water supply;

·         It was not the Council’s responsibility to undertake an assessment, it should be supplied by the applicant;

·         The Environment Agency and Environmental Protection Team had both examined the assessment and were content with the evidence submitted;

·         It would be difficult to defend refusal on the grounds of water supply;

·         Concern that in future the houses would be sold on the open market;

·         The water consumption from two dwellings would be less than the dairy farm;

·         The proximity of the dwellings and the existing farm was perfectly reasonable; 

·         Flies could come from anywhere;

·         Concerns over the noise generated from the working farm.

The Area Lead West advised that members needed to consider whether to put their trust in the expert’s report.

The Principal Legal Executive reiterated that based on the expert evidence provided within the Hydrogeological Assessment, it was not advisable to refuse the application on the grounds of water supply unless the Council were to obtain its own report which would be fairly costly and he presumed would be funded from the Area West budget.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 7 in favour and 2 against.