NO CARBUNCLES ON THE BOTTOM !!

1. Complaints

The following five complaints relate to outline planning application S.05/1043/OUT, development of a new farm complex at Tyley Bottom, and should be read in conjunction with covering letter dated 3rd July 2006. The complaints are as follows:

        1.1. That Stroud District Council (SDC) failed to meet its obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act when approving S.05/1043/OUT

        1.2. That the decision of SDC Development Control Committee on S.05/1043/OUT was perverse because of inaccurate information provided to the committee.

        1.3. That the failure of SDC Development Control Committee fully to consider all of the criteria of central government planning policy PPS7 in respect of S.05/1043/OUT resulted in a perverse decision.

        1.4. That the failure fully to consider alternative locations for the development proposed in S.05/1043/OUT constitutes a failure to apply Local Policies N6 and H18.

        1.5. That SDC Development Control Committee were not fully aware of the relevant facts and criteria when deciding application S.05/1043/OUT

2. Summary

        2.1. The proposed development to which this complaint relates is for a new farm complex, including farmhouse, on the upper slopes of an undeveloped valley in the Cotswold AONB. The proposals were presented to the September 2005 Development Control Committee, with a recommendation to permit, as application S.05/1043/OUT. The committee permitted the application on the casting vote of the chairman.

        2.2. SDC is required by Section 70 of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to apply policies detailed in its Local Plan when considering development proposals.

        2.3. SDC Local Plan Policy N6 is a commitment to give priority " to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape over other considerations."

        2.4. SDC Local Plan H18, derived from central government's planning policy PPS7, requires that the size of new agricultural accommodation should be determined by the needs of the proposed enterprise.

        2.5. It is demonstrated that, whilst SDC accept that the size of the farmhouse will affect the impact of the development on the landscape:

                2.5.1. no case has been made by the applicant to support the size of the building,

                2.5.2. no consideration of the size was given in SDC's planning officer report to the Development Control Committee. and

                2.5.3. that the size of the proposed farmhouse is not supported by SDC's independent consultant.

        2.6. It is further demonstrated that SDC's planning officer's reason to recommend permission for the development is based upon a number of misquotations and/or misunderstandings.

        2.7. It is also argued that SDC failed adequately to investigate the suitability of alternative locations rejected by the applicant.

        2.8. It is submitted that these omissions and misinformation constitute a failure to apply the relevant sections of SDC Local Plan Policies N6 and H18 as required by Section 70 of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. Supporting documents

In addition to documents associated with central government advice, SDC Local Plan and other documentation in the application file the following documents are specifically referred to in this complaint:

        3.1. Letter to complainant dated 2/12/2005 from SDC Principal Planning Officer John Longmuir explaining the Rationale behind the Committee's decision to permit the development (included).

        3.2. SDC's Independent Advisor's appraisal of application S.05/1043/OUT dated June 2005 (included).

        3.3. Letter from applicant's agent B R Knight of Humberts dated 3rd August 2005 (included).

        3.4. SDC Development Control Committee - Planning Schedule - 13/09/2005 - Item 6 (not included)

4. Size and location of the dwelling

        4.1. The application is for a "New farm complex including agricultural building, dwelling, garage and access" on the upper slopes of an undeveloped valley in the Cotswold AONB. The planning policies relevant to the dwelling are H18 and N6 of the Stroud Local Plan and central government's PPS7.

        4.2. SDC recognise that the impact of the development on the natural beauty of the valley will be influenced by the size of the building1.

        4.3. SDC Local Policy H18 paragraph 7 states that " the dwelling should be of an appropriate size for the needs of the enterprise," and central government's PPS7 makes it clear that "the personal needs of the applicant" are not relevant. In fact Para 9 of PPS7 goes on to say that "it is the requirements of the enterprise, rather than those of the owner or occupier, that are relevant in determining the size of dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding."

5. PPS7

       5.1. In connection with the provision of new agricultural dwellings, Central government's planning policy statement PPS7 Annex A paragraph 6. which gives reasons for not permitting development states :"…Nor can agricultural needs justify the provision of isolated new dwellings as retirement homes for farmers."

       5.2. The applicant is understood to be in his seventies, a point which should have been established and brought to the attention of the committee. The information provided to the committee was therefore inadequate for them to have assessed all of the relevant issues associated with the application.

       5.3. The letter from SDC explaining the rationale behind the Development Control Committee's decision to grant outline permission 1 says: "the overriding reason for the consideration of the size of the proposed dwelling is to ensure that the holding can functionally and financially support the dwelling, this is explicit in guidance in PPS7." This is wrong. Para 8 of Annex A to PPS7 refers to the need to provide evidence of the size of dwelling which the unit can sustain. The guidance in PPS7 does not mention this as an 'overriding' consideration, neither explicitly as the committee believed, nor implicitly. In fact Para 9 goes on to say, explicitly, that: "it is the requirements of the enterprise, rather than those of the owner or occupier, that are relevant in determining the size of dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding."

As SDC's independent advisor concludes, the size of dwelling appropriate for this business is that for one worker, not for two families.

       5.4. It is submitted that section above further demonstrates that the rationale behind the committees decision associated with the guidance of PPS7 was based on a lack of relevant information and misunderstanding.

6. Alternative sites

       6.1. SDC have failed to consider all of the alternative sites available to the applicant. They have accepted, apparently without question and certainly without comment, statements made by the applicant's consultant 3.

       6.2. Existing farm site.

The applicant claims that expansion of the existing farm complex is unsuitable because it is Grade II curtilage listed, in a residential area, and next to a Severn Trent water pumping station. No reasons are given why these facts make it less suitable for development than the highly obtrusive site high on the valley sides: there is no statement from Severn Trent giving their reasons for not developing here and the existing farm is not "in a residential area", it is on the edge of the small hamlet of Coombe. No question appears to have been asked nor reported to the committee about this. On the contrary, an additional unsubstantiated, unsourced concern about water pollution seems to have been added

       6.3. Opposite Warren Farm

The applicant's agent displays some extremely muddled thinking in respect of this alternative site. One reason given by the applicant for discounting this site is the poor access via Black Quarries Hill and yet it is a condition of the permitted development that passing bays are constructed on Black Quarries Hill to improve access to the new farm complex.

       6.4. Site adjoining Nissan hut on top of Black Quarries Hill. Rejected by the applicant because of:

              6.4.1. Poor water supply. The applicant's agent refers to a conversation with an employee of 'Pipeline Services' who apparently confirmed that supplying water to the top of the hill was "uneconomic" due to the height and the "undulating valley side." This alternative site lies between the 220 and 230 metre contour; the site for which outline permission has been granted is less than 200 metres away and between the 210 and 220 metre contour. The existing, farm from which water will be supplied, is on the 90 metre contour and 1500 metres away. There is no documentation from Pipeline Services and no question appears to have been asked by the planning officer nor explanation offered to Councillors about why 200 metres horizontally and just 10 - 15 metres vertically make so much difference.

              6.4.2. Exposed site. According to the applicant's agent the existing woodland screening of the alternative site suffers 'wind blow' which would render all of the buildings visible; presumably if all of the trees were blown away. The site for which outline permission has been granted is more exposed and faces directly into the prevailing southwesterly wind. The highly prominent dwelling associated with the development requires screening with trees, which are yet to be planted, and which will be exposed not only to wind blow but, being high on the valley sides, from wind funnel, caused by the tapering valley sides, and wind lift due to the topography of the ground immediately to the south west of the building. The site for which permission has been granted is therefore unsuitable on the same grounds identified by the applicant's agent for the Nissan hut site. No question appears to have been asked nor explanation given for this omission.

              6.5. It is submitted that the unquestioned acceptance by SDC of the applicant's unsupported case described above for rejecting the alternative sites constitutes a failure to give priority to the "conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape over other considerations," in accordance with Local Plan Policy N6 (now NE8).

7. Conclusion

It is submitted that the above evidence supports the complaints made in Section 1 above.