Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the retrospective agricultural building for the storage of straw, fodder and feed and the housing of cattle and sheep at Swillington Organic Farm Coach Road, Wakefield Road, Swillington, Leeds LS26 8QA.

(Report attached)

Prior to the start of the item Cllr. Dobson requested that he be recused from this item. Cllr. Dobson had written in support of the application prior to him becoming a member of the Panel. However Cllr. Dobson stated for the record and for the Legal Officers attention that his role in this matter had been called into question by the objector. Cllr. Dobson said that he wanted to make it crystal clear for all parties, as an elected member he was entitled to make an opinion on a planning matter. He asked that this be recorded in case discussions strayed into a non-material area and he said that he would like the right of redress.

The Group Manager for North and East Plans Panel informed the Panel that the speakers against the application intended to play a recording of cattle noise that they had made of cattle on the adjacent farm. The advice provided by officers to the Panel was that in this particular instance it was fine for the objector to raise this as it was part of their case but in terms of the recording itself the Panel were advised that they could apply very little weight to the actual noise recording in their deliberations. It was noted that noise recordings for the purposes of planning matters and for them to carry any weight, noise recordings should be carried out by an independent source and were normally undertaken and monitored by the Council’s Environmental Health Team, using recognised equipment and using a standard methodology.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application which related to an existing barn which had been erected under agricultural permitted development rights in 2016, but from March 2017 had been used to house animals. The applicant now wished to use the barn for livestock and sought retrospective consent for this use of the structure.

The application had been referred to Panel as the structure lies close to a listed building and the applicant was leasing land from the St Aidan’s Trust, which is managed by Leeds City Council.

The application had been the subject of a site visit earlier in the day and plans, maps and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The Panel was advised that the building on site had been constructed under agricultural permitted development. The regulations under which the barn was constructed did not allow the housing of animals within 400 metres of residential dwellings. Full details of the permission was set out in the submitted report.

Members were advised that the development was within the green belt. It was explained that the barn was originally constructed under Part 6 of section 2 of the General Permitted Development Order, which allows the construction of agricultural buildings subject to certain conditions and criteria. It was noted that one of these was that the structure would not be used to house animals. The application presented was to extend the use to house animals as well as hay, fodder and equipment. 

Following an officer site visit concerns had been raised relating to noise and odour. It was reported that neighbours had reported noise levels at 80 decibels, but this had not been substantiated and would need specific monitoring.

Mr Bullock of Swillington House informed the Panel that he had lived at Swillington House all his life and had tried to assist the farm as much as possible.

Mr Bullock told the Panel that two years ago the owners had built a barn without consulting with him, only 100 yards in front of his house. He said that the barn blocked his view in the winter time and was screened by the trees in leaf in the summer.

Mr Bullock said that they had raised concerns with the Council when they had noticed that the barn was being fitted out with animal fittings. The Council came when animals were put into the barn but were told that the animals there were in quarantine to stop the spread of disease, the next time they visited they were told that the animals were being held there due to the adverse weather.

Mr Bullock was of the view that the barn had been built with the specific intention to house animals. He explained that there had been a massive increase in the amount of stock on the farm. He said that they had never complained about the noise of the animals. However, this winter it had been intolerable, saying that it starts when they are feeding them, he said that mothers and weaning calves were housed in the barn.

Mr Bullock went on to inform the Panel that he suffered from illness and that he needed his rest. However, he was unable to sleep due to the noise. Mr Bullock played a recording of cows bellowing.

Mr Bullock informed the Panel that it was not a viable option to insert double glazing to his house due to the number of windows and because his property is listed. Mr Bullock was of the view that the suggestion by the planning officer to permit permission for a 12 month period was a good idea, as this would allow monitoring to take place. He informed the Panel that he had taken readings of noise at 90 decibels, this was not in the house.

Mr Bullock raised concerns including that Cllr. Dobson had written in support of the application. Cllr. Dobson set out that it was not necessary to comment further as the comments made were unreasonable.

Members asked questions and discussed the following points:

·  The use of the building including the storing of fodder, hay, tractor and the fittings for cattle;

·  Monitoring of noise;

·  The position of a manure heap

Mr Cartwright the applicant was in attendance at the meeting, however, it was his agent Mr Warren who spoke to the Panel.

Mr Warren informed the Panel of the following points:

·  The barn was being used for the isolation of sick animals

·  The position of the barn provided good agricultural access

·  The barn had been used to house animals over winter due to adverse weather conditions

·  The barn was used for storing hay, fodder and supplementary feed.

·  The barn was used for the temporary accommodation of animals because they are sick, birthing animals, newly born or for adverse weather conditions

·  The 12 month permission was not an ideal solution for the business moving forward, the applicant was willing to accept this and thanked the case officer and the agricultural surveyor for their proposal of a 12 month temporary permission. An application would be resubmitted in 12 months’ time to request that the structure for housing animals is made permanent

·  The recording of the cows bellowing was unverified

·  The increase in cows on the farm was from 70 to 110

·  There had been some noise on the farm the previous day due to a visit from the vet

·  The ‘muck heap’ was positioned where it was due to the amount of water courses on the farm in the shape of ponds and streams. The nitrate from the ‘muck heap’ could not be allowed to seep into the water course. It was noted that the ‘muck’ was spread every year after harvest.

·  There were only a few bales of hay currently in the barn as hay making did not take place until August.

In response to Members questions and comments the Panel noted the following points:

·  No animals had been weaned in the building since 2016 as the farm preferred to use a more natural way of calves being weaned, the process was explained for the Members benefit

·  There was no specific rule as to where a ‘muck heap’ should be placed. It was noted that the applicant wished to work with the neighbour and place the ‘muck heap’ in a suitable location so long as there was no leaching into the water course. Currently the heap causes no odour but should it be removed it would cause a smell for a temporary period of time. It was noted that the moving of the ‘muck heap was not a material matter for the panel to consider.

·  ‘Hayledge’ was currently being produced for winter and is wrapped in black plastic. When the hay is made it will be stored in the barn.

·  The barn had been positioned where it is due to the siting of another barn which was already in that location. It was noted that there was also a grade1 listed wall which had been part of the original Swillington Hall. There was limited area where the barn could be placed.

The Panel heard that there was additional representation from neighbours (Bullock and Davis) noting that mitigation measures proposed are insufficient and that they recognise they live next to a farm, and had only complained at the point the impact upon them became unreasonable.

Members discussed the following points:

·  The farm was also used as a visitor centre with car parking – this was located within the green belt and Members requested an investigation as to whether the car park was in breach of planning control.

·  In the event that permanent permission is recommended to be granted, whether a condition could be imposed removing some or all of the agricultural permittee development rights.

·  Costs made by the neighbours in relation to the impact on them would not be made against the Council.

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission in accordance with the recommendation (12 month temporary permission for the use of the building for the housing of animals).

In addition Members requested that:

·  Officers investigate whether the car parking area constitutes a breach of planning control, and

·  Officers to give consideration, in the event that a permanent permission is recommended to be granted, whether a condition can be imposed removing some or all of the agricultural permitted development rights.

An application for the permanent use of the building for the housing of animals shall be reported to Panel for determination.

Under the provision on Council Procedure Rule 16.4 Councillor Collins required it to be noted that she had abstained to vote on the decision as resolved by the Plans Panel.