Report for Item 6 - Swale Borough Council

2.6 (Contd) PART 2
Visual amenities
Whilst the height, width, form and finish of the building is perhaps what one might
expect within an agricultural complex, the length of the building is extensive and this
would significantly contribute to its scale in my view. There is no doubt that there
would be some impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. However,
this must be weighted up against the positive impact that this development would
have on the rural economy. It should also be noted that the building is for a new
agricultural enterprise, a use that is wholly accepted as being part of the rural area.
On balance, I consider that any detriment caused to the visual amenities of the
surrounding area would be outweighed by the positive economic impacts in this
case. The poultry building would be visible from public vantage points at the bottom
of the valley. Its impact on the landscape will be discussed below.
The proposed silos would be of an industrial/agricultural appearance that might be
considered to be at odds with the rural appearance of the area. However, such
features are common on agricultural land. They would be located close to the
poultry building and would not therefore stand out as jarring features within the site.
Their scale and height would be set against the large poultry building. I therefore
consider that there would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the
surrounding area as a consequence of this element of the proposal. It can also be
argued that such structures could be considered to be permitted development under
Schedule 2, Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995.
The proposed mobile home would be located behind a row of existing trees. The
plans show that there would be additional trees planted within the vicinity of the
mobile home and this would limit the visual impact further in my view. I am mindful
that this element of the proposal is temporary and therefore, any impact on visual
amenities would be temporary. In any case, the mobile home would not be visible
from long-distance views due to the positioning of mature trees within the application
site. I therefore consider that the proposed mobile home would have no significant
impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
The proposed hardsurface to the turning and loading area would only have a limited
visual impact on the immediate area in my view. It would not be seen from any
public vantage points due to its location and the screening provided by buildings and
trees at the site. Such a development would be typical of an agricultural complex
and could be considered as permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in any
case.
The removal of the oak tree and hedge to the vehicular access is regrettable but this
tree is not protected and could be removed at any time. I have asked the Council’s
Tree Consultant to comment on the health and amenity value of the tree. His
response will be reported to Members at the meeting. Only a small length of the
hedge would be removed (1.5m) and I consider that this would have an insignificant
impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
Continued . . .
45