Agenda item

Field OS 0044 Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

 

Applicant: Mr Andy Gibson

Location: Field OS 0044 Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Proposed livestock barn (total floor

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of an

agricultural livestock barn, to an isolated parcel of land being field OS 0044 which sits adjacent to the Main A607 Leicester Road served by an existing access on Great Lane Hill, Frisby on the Wreake.

 

The parcel of land to which the application relates, is the result of field having

recently been subdivided by a post and rail fence.

The application presents a balance of competing objectives, as proposals for

agricultural buildings are generally supported in terms by policy within the NPPF, OS2 and C3 of the Local Plan Whereby local planning authorities should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, subject to the more detailed criteria within those policies, thus being reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

Concerns therefore remain that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed building is deemed to be sustainable and reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and therefore an unjustified intrusion within the open countryside.

The balancing issues are considered to be primarily if the proposal is reasonably necessary to this isolated parcel of land, not being central to any core farm holding, the applicants own dwelling or contracts, which are remote from the site.

As such the application is recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

The Chair read out the applicant's speech and stated that:

Our business was established in 1995 on a four acre tenanted farm base and has sustained itself and a growing family until 2016. After 22years of contract calf rearing, cattle and sheep breeding, were given notice to move, through no fault of our own, due to a change in ownership.

In having to relocate we had the opportunity to buy land at Frisby with the

intention of making it our farm base. Our overall holding size has never

diminished and we still rent around 80 acres of grass land in the area on tenancy agreements which have been submitted.

We have made a considerable investment in purchasing the land and desperately need a building for the sake of the welfare of our animals and to safeguard our farming way of life for the future. Our daughter has just completed a Level 3 Extended Diploma in Agriculture at BMC with a triple Distinction star and this building will enable her to pursue a career in agriculture. We have provided substantial evidence to support our farming business, but we urge you to support us in ensuring that it can continue to grow, provide employment and sustain our business.

The officer considers that the building is too big for the site, but in discussions in the early stages of the application dismissed our suggestion of a reduction.

Please note that the building in agricultural terms is minor development and

considerably less than the normal acceptable amount allowed under an

agricultural general permitted development order. The manure will not be stored

for long periods and will be disposed of on our own land and other farmers land.

The land to the North, West and South is agricultural and equestrian land and the isolated land that she refers to is situated adjacent to the Buena Vista Kennels and the building is similar to other agricultural buildings in the area. It is hard to understand why the officer recommends refusal, but states that the building will not have an undue adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and is acceptable under policy C3 and also has no objections from highways, the parish council, ecology and neighbours.

Without the support of this committee our family future is in serious jeopardy.

Councillor Greenow has declared his interest due to his involvement with Melton Mowbray livestock market. He knows first-hand that we buy and sell regularly through the market and have done so for many years.

Our vet supporting this application has verified the strain and losses this has had on our livelihood through the winter as a result of not having an appropriate building on the site. On welfare grounds we had to seek alternative options, which resulted in increased labour and costs. Due to the nature and high demands of calving and lambing, it is vital that we can provide a suitable building to house our livestock. We need to maintain good husbandry and welfare standards and prevent the losses that are impacting our business and has made us unable to enter into calf rearing contracts and the longevity and uncertainty of this application has left the future of our breeding stock in jeopardy.

We breed sheep and Charolais Cattle and over the years have improved the

quality and ultimately the value of the livestock we produce.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak this evening. I am very grateful to those in the farming community that have supported our application.

 

Cllr Chandler sought clarification whether the land rented was under farm business territory

 

The Applicant confirmed that it was.

 

Cllr Holmes sought clarification whether there was a holding number.

 

The Applicant confirmed there was.

 

A Member sought clarification why an agricultural building needed planning

permission and why it needed to come to Committee.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the application was recommended refusal however seven letters of support were received.

 

The Head of Regulatory services explained that in the same way six objection letters moves an application to Committee, six support letters does the same. He stated that the application does not qualify for permitted development rights as it is too close to houses and because of its proximity to the road.

A Member asked if there was room to move the proposal on the site so it fits in with requirements.

The Head of Regulatory Services explained that repositioning the site could mitigate the reasons for refusal.

 

A Member noted that there was concerns on evidence and asked what further

evidence was needed.

 

The Planning Officer stated that certificates, supporting information, justification on the need for an agricultural building, and the location that serves the enterprise is remote from the site itself.

 

A Member asked when the FBT’s expire.

 

The Planning Officer stated that he did not have that information.

A Member had concerns that there was no housing to hold livestock, cattle of cows calving on site. It is unsuitable for winter months.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to defer the application until there was more information.

 

The Chair agreed and stated that FBT is integral information to make a decision.

 

Cllr Posnett seconded the proposal to defer.

 

A Member asked if a small pole barn would need planning. Concerns on calf rearing as it would need a building.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that any building within 400m of housing would need planning permission.

 

A vote was taken. 10 Members voted in favour of deferment. 1 Member voted

against.

 

The Chair asked for the application to be brought back soon.

A Member suggested that training be undertaken on FBT's as some Members were not aware of how they work.

 

DETERMINATION: DEFER to seek information on the background to the

application and the means of operation, in order to consider pollution issues.

 

 

Cllr Greenow returned to the meeting at 6.33pm.