Full Application - Erection of Mono Pitch Lean-To Building to House ...

Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 19. FULL APPLICATION – ERECTION OF MONO PITCH LEAN TO BUILDING TO HOUSEPIGGERY, WELLCROFT FARM, GRINDON (NP/1012/1007, P11387, 06/10/2012,408574/353842/LF)APPLICANT: MR LEE MACHINProposalThe application seeks planning permission for the erection of a mono pitch lean-to building for apiggery.The piggery is to be located to the east of the site and will be attached to an existing modernportal framed agricultural building.Over the past 12 months at Wellcroft the applicant has fattened 350 pigs, approximately 6 - 10pigs per week. The piggery is required to provide modern housing facilities for the pigs atWellcroft because, at present, the pigs are housed in the main agricultural buildings on site butthis has caused problems from the resulting mixed use of the buildings. The proposed buildingwill allow the breeding of high welfare commercial pigs as they will be bedded on straw, ratherthan on slates in intensive units. This method of farming will work alongside the applicant’sbutchery business.The proposal has been designed to meet animal welfare and environmental standards.Site and SurroundingsWellcroft Farm lies in a relatively remote and isolated location in open countryside approximately400m South of Grindon off Deepdale Lane. The property is set within four hectares of land andcomprises of the recently renovated farm house and newly-built steel portal framed agriculturalbuildings. Wellcroft is currently used as a base for farming operations providing cattle, sheep andpigs. Planning Permission has been recently granted to erect a large stone barn to house a meatcutting and processing building, (NP/SM/1111/1179).RECOMMENDATION:That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions / modifications:1. 3 Year Time Limit2. Approved Plans3. Landscape scheme4. Design details5. When no longer in use for agricultural purposes the building should be removed.Key IssuesWhether there is a clear agricultural justification for the proposed buildingWhether the proposed development would harm the valued characteristics of thesurrounding landscape and amenity of the area.

Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 2History2010: Demolition of brick – built outbuilding and erection of farm building, granted.2010: Extensions and alterations to dwelling house, granted.2011: Erection of lean to adjacent to existing agricultural building, granted.2011: Formation of new vehicular access and driveway, granted.2011: Change of use of redundant outbuilding to form meat cutting room, withdrawn.2011: Erection of agricultural building, granted conditionally.2011: Erection of a lean to in 2 parts. Single bay lean to and single bay end elevation and leanto, granted conditionally.2011: Erection of a stone barn to house meat cutting room and ancillary fridges / work area,granted conditionally.2012: Replacement of a 3 bay lean to building with a dual pitch steel portal framed abattoirbuilding behind the existing barn, withdrawn.2012: Erection of mono pitch leans to building to house piggery, currently undetermined.2012: Replacement of a lean to building with a dual pitch steel portal framed abattoir buildingbehind the existing barn, currently undetermined.2012: Siting of a mobile fridge, freezer and work area for a temporary period of 12 months,currently undetermined.ConsultationsStaffordshire Moorlands District Council: No response to date.Grindon Parish (Town) Council: No objection.Highways: No response to date.RepresentationsThe Authority has received 3 letters of objections to the current application. The letters raised thefollowing issues:Adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape.Has planting been considered to screen the buildings?Provision for drainage for 350 pigs.Increasing scale of the business and site.Concern about the number of proposed staff required for the farming operations on thesite.Danger to public health.

Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 3Main PoliciesRSS Codes: Policies 1, 8, 10, 26 and 31 of the East Midlands Regional PlanRelevant Core Strategy policies: GSP3, DS1, L1Relevant Local Plan policies: LC4, LC13National Planning Policy FrameworkThe National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and replaceda significant proportion of central government planning policy with immediate effect. TheGovernment’s intention is that the document should be considered to be a material considerationand carry particular weight where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are outof date. In the National Park the development plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan2009, the Authority’s Core Strategy 2011 and saved policies in the Peak District National ParkLocal Plan 2001. Policies in the Development Plan provide a clear starting point consistent withthe National Park’s statutory purposes for the determination of this application. It is consideredthat in this case there is no significant conflict between prevailing policies in the DevelopmentPlan and more recent Government guidance in the NPPF with regard to the issues that areraised.’AssessmentRSS policies 1, 2, 8, 26, and 31 seek to conserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the NationalPark landscape, and its historic built environment. Local Plan policy LC4 requires that thedetailed treatment of any proposal is of a high standard that conserves and where possibleenhances the landscape, built environment and other valued characteristics of the area. LocalPlan policy LC13 sets out criteria which new farm buildings have to meet before they are deemedto be acceptable within the National Park. Policies GSP3, DS1, and L1 in the more recent CoreStrategy reflect the pre-existing Development Plan policies and offer support for agriculturaldevelopment in the open countryside provided that development respects, conserves andenhances the valued characteristics of the site paying particular attention to impact upon thecharacter and setting of buildings and siting, landscaping and building materials.In this case an application has been submitted proposing a modern portal framed agricultural unitthat will house a piggery. It will house the applicant’s current pig stock. It is intended that eachweek approximately 8 – 10 pigs will be finished and sent to the abattoir and meat processing uniton site.The site is located in the open countryside and over the past few years has received planningpermissions granted for a range of agricultural buildings and most recently the meat cuttingroom.Officers consider that for this application, the policies that apply are LC4: Design, Layout andlandscape and LC13: Agricultural or forestry operational development taken from the Authority’sLocal Plan and GSP3 and DS1: Development Strategy and L1: Landscape character and valuedcharacteristics taken from the Authority’s Core strategy.Concern has been expressed regarding the increasing scale of agricultural buildings on site andthis has been noted by planning officers over the past few years. However, in this case, thesubmitted application is supported by a clear and comprehensive agricultural justification whichhas provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the building is reasonable and necessary forthe purposes of agriculture and proportionate to the size and scale of the needs of the holding.The building has also been clearly designed as a piggery.

Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 4In response to DS1 and L1 it is considered that the building’s siting has been well consideredand is logical in terms of the layout of the existing buildings on the holding as it is adjacent to themain group of existing buildings and is of the same scale and design. As the proposed building isto be attached to the east elevation of one of the buildings within the main group it minimises anypotential visual impact.Due to the topography of the land there is a change in level across the site. The piggery hasbeen designed around the level change and therefore the piggery will be set at a lower groundlevel from the adjacent existing agricultural building. As the change in level is existing, there willnot be any need to excavate any substantial amount of earth. Officers consider that as theproposed building will be set at a lower level it will reduce the visual impact of the building. It willalso split up the large massing of the existing agricultural building. As the proposed building is ofthe same materials, similar design and elevation treatment as the existing building which it will beadjacent to, any potential visual impact will not alter from the existing.There will be no change in view from the west as it will be screened by existing agriculturalbuildings. From the north and north east, the applicant has proposed to provide an area of treeplanting which is considered acceptable as it will reduce the massing of the proposed andexisting agricultural buildings on site. This can be required by condition.The proposed building is not visible from the edge of the village due to the settlement’s distanceaway from the site and intervening landscape features and the development does not havesignificant impact on the surrounding setting and does not intrude upon views into and out ofGrindon’s Conservation Area.There is a public footpath that lies approximately 200 meters to the east of the site but due to itsdistance away from the proposed building, the sloping topography of the site, and as the eastelevation will not be to dissimilar from the existing, it is considered that the building would bebarely visible from the path and when seen it would not cause any increased impact compared tothe existing.It is considered that the size and scale of the proposed building is sensible, suited for its purposeand proportionate to the stock numbers and storage requirements of the business. Given thecontext of the existing farm buildings the external appearance of the building does not give rise toany overriding objections. The proposed colours of the slate blue fibre cement roof sheeting andYorkshire cladding on the elevation assimilate into the existing group of buildings.In regard to issues raised in representations about waste management and drainage, theproposed building is to re-house pigs which are already kept on site; therefore the total numberof pigs would remain the same. Currently the pigs are kept on straw and the submittedapplication states that this would remain the case. Any bedding would therefore be disposed of toa muck store, as at present, without the need for any drainage or slurry storage, It is thereforeconsidered that the proposal is not likely to give rise to any significant noise or smell issues overor above the existing situation.In this case, there is no requirement for an additional access track or hard standing. As theproposal is for an extension to an existing agricultural building it is considered to be ancillary tothe existing use and buildings on the site. Therefore it is unlikely to raise any highway safetyissues.ConclusionConsequently it is considered that the proposed building is of appropriate design and scale,would not harm the amenity of the surrounding area and is located in the least damaging locationreasonable on the holding. The detailed treatment and the design of the building are consideredacceptable. Therefore, the application is considered to accord with the relevant policies in theDevelopment Plan.

Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 5Human RightsAny human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.List of Background Papers (not previously published)Nil