|
NO CARBUNCLES IN THE BOTTOM !!
|
|
Last update - 08 August 2006
|
|
LATEST
The last decision to be made on this application by elected representatives are some reserved matters , the materials the barn is to be constructed from and the 'landscaping' of the farmhouse, which comprises 4 saplings to be planted in front of the building and a few more along the drive.
This is scheduled for the planning committee of 8th August. A complaint made on July 3rd questioning the behaviour of the Chairman and another member of the planning committee at the time the original outline permission was granted last year is due to be decided on ... you guessed it - 8th August. Will the Chairman be ruled out of order ?? Will this be before or after the 4 saplings have the support of the Members on the planning committee? Check out latest email to SDC here
This page has been hastily put together to inform interested parties of the siltation following the granting of outline planning permission in October 2005 for a new farm complex in Tyley Bottom and the subsequent submission in June 2006 of the landscaping proposals - the planting of 14 saplings - otherwise known as landscaping - the only reserved matters (the bits that would otherwise have made the original Outline Application a Full Application) The planning reference is S.03/0499/OUT 25038
We have reached the stage of outline permission being granted although many of us have been caught on the hop since the Outline Application was effectively a Full Application. Whether this was done deliberately to mislead is up to you to decide.It didn't take me long to form my view.
The decision to permit the application was made by the October 2005 Development Control Committee on the casting vote of the chairman. It is understood that a complaint has been lodged with the Chief Executive Officer of Stroud District Council related to the failure of named council members to adhere to the committee protocol when addressing this application.
It is hoped that details of this complaint will be available from this web site in the very near future ... watch this space!
A further complaint has been lodged with Stroud District Council that because of the shoddy manner in which they addressed the application they have failed to meet their obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act and that their decision to permit the development is perverse.
Some of the details of how we got to where we're at now can be read below the menu .... (please forgive any non-functioning links in the historic section ... this has been retrieved from archive in a hurry !)
|
 |
The text of the complaint
|
|
The planning officer's letter explaining the committee's reason to permit
|
|
The independent consultant's report to SDC
|
|
The reasons for rejecting alternative sites
|
|
The reply from SDC Chief Executive David Hagg to the complaint
|
|
The response to David Hagg's investigation
|
|
What the development might look like
|
|
email to SDC Chief Exec and Planning Committee legal officer .... Latest
|
|
response from legal officer about behaviour of committee membersLatest
|
THE PROPOSALS (this section has been recovered from archive and gives a general background - some information has been superseded
|
|
The applicant states that to meet future welfare standards for livestock housing he needs to develop his farming activity and that the buildings at Frogend Farm in Combe near Wotton-u-Edge are unsuitable.
The applicant proposes a 1200 sq. metre beef unit further up Tyley Bottom on the 'shelf' which lies just below the ridge with an access along an existing track which is roughly one third of the way between the BT Tower and the road leading to Newark Park. Click here for OS map(apologies for adverts which will inevitably accompany it). The site is at the point of the arrow superimposed on the central grid square.
|
|
The application also seeks permission for a new farmhouse to house the manager of the stock. Click here for artists impression of proposal. This will also be built on the 'shelf' and will overlook the valley, Combe and Wotton. The application claims that the development will be largely invisible. Click here for location plan.
Although the application is for outline permission only, fairly detailed plans are included for a very large 4 bedroomed modern design of house and 2 car garage. There are proposals to manage existing hedgerows and tree planting to provide additional screening of the development. There is also an indication of future intention to seek permission for a second barn of 1200 sq. metres.Click here for site plan
|
JUSTIFICATION
|
|
There are a number of barns around the existing farmhouse for which permission has already been obtained for change of use to dwellings etc. There appears to be a derelict barn in the centre of the existing complex. Access to and from the existing farm gives rise to a stated 10 or 17 traffic movements each day (both figures are given in the application documentation) to the main road B 4058 Rushmire Hill, is difficult. Access to associated farming locations in Ozleworth is also very difficult and via the very steep Blackquar Hill. It is further argued that permission to develop the new farm complex and converting the existing barns (for which planning permission has already been granted) would overcome the access/traffic problems and would also allow the removal of the dilapidated barn thereby re-establishing appropriate surroundings for the curtilage of the Grade II listed farmhouse. The new farmhouse is justified "for reasons of animal welfare, supervision of stock and security."
|
COMMENT
|
|
Its not easy to know where to start with this proposal. There are a number of issues which are not addressed in the application, others are circumvented and some addressed unsatisfactorily. Clearly the countryside is the place where one expects to find agricultural development. It is equally the case that the most beautiful parts of the countryside should not be made less beautiful by development, whether that development is residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural. One question which has to be asked is whether this development at this location is necessary for the continuing and developing viability of Frog End Farm.
Until now Tyley Bottom has been farmed and at the same time preserved as an undeveloped, unspoilt, serene place with a sense of remoteness which, at night, is totally dark; certainly an unusual characteristic nowadays.
Should this not be protected?
|
Wotton-under-Edge Town Council
The Town Council have objected to the proposal because of the impact it would have on the unspoilt landscape of Tyley Bottom and for other reasons. Click here for the full text of their objection.
|
LANDSCAPE
|
|
The Cotswold AONB Partnership whose members comprise representatives from the many District Councils within the Cotswold AONB, farmers, local people, local authorities, tourist bodies and wildlife and heritage groups have commissioned a landscape character assessment for the AONB. This assessment specifically identifies the incised valleys of which Tyley Bottom is an example within one of the character types. It states that ...
" The upper valley sections represent quiet rural landscapes with strong associations of peace, tranquility and a sense of remoteness. Landscape character is strong and these sections of the valleys are highly sensitive to developments that may compromise these characteristics. Of similar sensitivity are the highly visible landscapes on the upper slopes of the valleys and spurs of land separating the valleys……Care should be taken to avoid siting new development on highly visible valley sides."
|
|
The landscape survey which accompanies the application says that the "buildings planned are screened from sight to the south, west and north by existing trees and woodland" and that more trees will be planted. This is partly true but, of course, for the best part of the year there are no leaves on deciduous trees so they will provide little screening. Conifers would be out of place in the landscape.
The application also fails to mention the light pollution, screening or not, that will result from the development. Whilst the first 1200 sq metre barn, being sited in a slight hollow just below the ridge, may generally be out of site, the security and working lights which it will require will make the top end of the valley appear like Mount Vesuvius from Wotton-u-Edge and Combe.
|
|
Planning permission for a second barn of 1200 sq metres is not sought in this application although it is referred to as being used for lambing and housing the food, bedding and machinery. Clearly they will need to be housed somewhere. There is no hint as to the possible location of the second barn. It is hard to believe that this could be 'invisible'.
Planning permission for a similar 1500 sq metres livestock building in the Cotswold AONB at Westonbirt to hold 200 head of stock was refused recently by North Wilts District Council. The Westonbirt site is arguably in a less sensitive area than Tyley Bottom but the Westonbirt proposal was refused ....
"by reason of its scale and siting [which] would have a very significant and unacceptable detrimental effect upon the rural amenity and character of the area" ...contrary to NWDC policies.
and
"the erection of a new large building on the site would establish a focus for additional agricultural buildings and associated development. This would further erode the character of the rural area within the Cotswolds AONB ..."
The supporting documents include a photograph of a similarly prominent building across the valley to the west by way of justification. This building was, of course, built before designation of the area. It is to prevent the loss of the natural beauty and sense of remoteness that legislation to limit such development was introduced.
With reference to the house referred to in the application both local and national policies address the provision of housing for agricultural workers......
|
Stroud District Local Plan
|
|
POLICY H17
Outside the defined settlement boundaries, residential development will not be permitted
unless it is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry.
and
POLICY H18
Permission will not be granted for the erection of a permanent dwelling for an agricultural or
forestry worker, outside a defined settlement boundary, unless all the following criteria are
met:
1. the dwelling, and its proposed siting on an agricultural or forestry holding, is essential
for the efficient running of the enterprise;
2. the need is for accommodation for a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed in agriculture;
3. the unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been established for at least
three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound,
and have a clear prospect of remaining so;
4. the functional need cannot be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the holding, or any existing accommodation in the area;
5. the necessary accommodation cannot be provided by the conversion of a building on
the holding;
6. the dwelling is to be sited satisfactorily within the holding preferably within an existing group of buildings;
and
7. the new dwelling should be of an appropriate size for the needs of the enterprise.
There are also some important footnotes to Policy 18. See para 2 of 5.16.4 in particular.
The full text of Policy 18 is available here
POLICY H19
Temporary permission will not be granted for the siting of a caravan or other form of
temporary accommodation for an agricultural or forestry worker, outside a defined settlement
boundary, unless all the following criteria are met:
1. such a dwelling, and its proposed siting on an agricultural or forestry holding, are
essential for the efficient running of the enterprise;
2. the need is for accommodation for a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed in
agriculture;
3. there is clear evidence that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis, and that there is a firm intention and
ability to develop it;
4. the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the holding, or any existing accommodation in the area;
5. the necessary accommodation cannot be provided by the conversion of an appropriate building on the holding;
6. the dwelling is to be sited satisfactorily within the holding, preferably within an existing group of buildings.
|
PPG7 Annex I
|
|
(PPG7 is shortly to be replaced by PPS7 the draft of which contains very similar restrictions.)
I3 Despite planning policies that impose strict controls on new residential development in the open countryside, and the substantial reduction in agricultural employment, the demand for such development remains high. Some of this demand may be justified by the genuine needs of farming and forestry, but much is speculative and stems from applicants seeking to exploit the physical or financial advantages of a new house in the countryside. It is, therefore, essential that all applications for planning permission for new agricultural or forestry dwellings are scrutinised thoroughly with the aim of detecting attempts to abuse the concession that the planning system makes for such dwellings.
I11 Agricultural dwellings should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. Dwellings which are unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit, or unusually expensive to construct in relation to the income it can sustain in the long-term, should not normally be permitted. It is the requirements of the enterprise rather than of the owner or occupier which are relevant to determining the size of dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding.
The full text of PPG7 Annex I is available here
|
|
|
|
|