Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 2His<strong>to</strong>ry2010: Demolition <strong>of</strong> brick – built outbuilding and erection <strong>of</strong> farm building, granted.2010: Extensions and alterations <strong>to</strong> dwelling house, granted.2011: <strong>Erection</strong> <strong>of</strong> lean <strong>to</strong> adjacent <strong>to</strong> existing agricultural building, granted.2011: Formation <strong>of</strong> new vehicular access and driveway, granted.2011: Change <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> redundant outbuilding <strong>to</strong> form meat cutting room, withdrawn.2011: <strong>Erection</strong> <strong>of</strong> agricultural building, granted conditionally.2011: <strong>Erection</strong> <strong>of</strong> a lean <strong>to</strong> in 2 parts. Single bay lean <strong>to</strong> and single bay end elevation and lean<strong>to</strong>, granted conditionally.2011: <strong>Erection</strong> <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>to</strong>ne barn <strong>to</strong> house meat cutting room and ancillary fridges / work area,granted conditionally.2012: Replacement <strong>of</strong> a 3 bay lean <strong>to</strong> building with a dual pitch steel portal framed abat<strong>to</strong>irbuilding behind the existing barn, withdrawn.2012: <strong>Erection</strong> <strong>of</strong> mono pitch leans <strong>to</strong> building <strong>to</strong> house piggery, currently undetermined.2012: Replacement <strong>of</strong> a lean <strong>to</strong> building with a dual pitch steel portal framed abat<strong>to</strong>ir buildingbehind the existing barn, currently undetermined.2012: Siting <strong>of</strong> a mobile fridge, freezer and work area for a temporary period <strong>of</strong> 12 months,currently undetermined.ConsultationsStaffordshire Moorlands District Council: No response <strong>to</strong> date.Grindon Parish (<strong>To</strong>wn) Council: No objection.Highways: No response <strong>to</strong> date.RepresentationsThe Authority has received 3 letters <strong>of</strong> objections <strong>to</strong> the current application. The letters raised thefollowing issues:Adverse impacts on the character and appearance <strong>of</strong> the site and surrounding landscape.Has planting been considered <strong>to</strong> screen the buildings?Provision for drainage for 350 pigs.Increasing scale <strong>of</strong> the business and site.Concern about the number <strong>of</strong> proposed staff required for the farming operations on thesite.Danger <strong>to</strong> public health.
Planning Committee – Part A8 February 2013Item 9Page 3Main PoliciesRSS Codes: Policies 1, 8, 10, 26 and 31 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> central government planning policy with immediate effect. TheGovernment’s intention is that the document should be considered <strong>to</strong> be a material considerationand carry particular weight where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out<strong>of</strong> 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 statu<strong>to</strong>ry purposes for the determination <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> the issues that areraised.’AssessmentRSS policies 1, 2, 8, 26, and 31 seek <strong>to</strong> conserve and enhance the scenic beauty <strong>of</strong> the NationalPark landscape, and its his<strong>to</strong>ric built environment. Local Plan policy LC4 requires that thedetailed treatment <strong>of</strong> any proposal is <strong>of</strong> a high standard that conserves and where possibleenhances the landscape, built environment and other valued characteristics <strong>of</strong> the area. LocalPlan policy LC13 sets out criteria which new farm buildings have <strong>to</strong> meet before they are deemed<strong>to</strong> be acceptable within the National Park. Policies GSP3, DS1, and L1 in the more recent CoreStrategy reflect the pre-existing Development Plan policies and <strong>of</strong>fer support for agriculturaldevelopment in the open countryside provided that development respects, conserves andenhances the valued characteristics <strong>of</strong> the site paying particular attention <strong>to</strong> impact upon thecharacter and setting <strong>of</strong> 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 s<strong>to</strong>ck. It is intended that eachweek approximately 8 – 10 pigs will be finished and sent <strong>to</strong> the abat<strong>to</strong>ir and meat processing uni<strong>to</strong>n site.The site is located in the open countryside and over the past few years has received planningpermissions granted for a range <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> agricultural buildings on site andthis has been noted by planning <strong>of</strong>ficers over the past few years. However, in this case, thesubmitted application is supported by a clear and comprehensive agricultural justification whichhas provided sufficient evidence <strong>to</strong> demonstrate that the building is reasonable and necessary forthe purposes <strong>of</strong> agriculture and proportionate <strong>to</strong> the size and scale <strong>of</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> the holding.The building has also been clearly designed as a piggery.