Agenda item

Land at Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

Applicant:      Mr R Ogleby

Location:        Land At Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

Proposal:       Demolition of agricultural buildings and the erection of 3 dwellings.

 

(a)       The Planning Officer (JL) stated that:

No additional representations/ late items received for the application.

The application seeks planning permission to erect three dwellings on the site. This will replace the existing agricultural building on the site, which is currently the subject of an abatement notice with MBC’s Environmental Health.

It is proposed that access to the site will be achieved from Station Road. LCC Highways have raised no objection to the proposed development (subject to condition). MBC Environmental Health have also raised no objection, subject to the inclusion of a contamination condition (as included in the recommendation).

Whilst the location of the proposed development is not one that would usually be appropriate, it is considered that the removal of the buildings (as a result of this development ) would be of an exceptional circumstance to warrant the approval of the application.

 

The Chair asked for Members to suspend standing orders to allow a supported to speak. It was unanimously decided that standing orders would be suspended.

 

(b)       Mr Paul Osmond, a supporter, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Intolerable living with current smell and waste

•           Prefer dwellings that won’t affect quality of life

•           Residents support application

 

A Cllr asked if Mr Osmond knew the smell could be removed would he still support the houses.

 

Mr Osmond stated that the houses would not affect him at all.

 

A Cllr asked how far the agricultural buildings are from Mr Osmond’s house.

 

Mr Osmond stated they are 50m away, therefore very close and intense.

 

The Chair asked Members if they would suspend standing orders to allow a second supporter to speak. Cllr Holmes proposed to allow and was seconded by Cllr Botterill. It was unanimously decided that standing orders would be suspended.

 

(c)        Tina Mist, a supporter, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•           Home is 40m away from agricultural buildings

•           Neighbours were not consulted on application for livestock

•           No objections to building to store farm machinery

•           High hedge and low ground therefore houses not an impact

•           Currently impacts quality of life

•           No objection to three houses

 

A Cllr asked if the original application was not for livestock.

 

Ms Mist stated that neighbours were not consulted on an application for livestock as there is a highway between them.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that an application was dealt with in 2014 for agricultural buildings but this has a broad scope.

 

The Environmental Health Officer (VC) stated that the first neighbour complaint was submitted in February 2016. 58 visits to the site were taken and 64% of the time there was an odour. A nuisance notice was served in September 2016 and there have been legal circumstances since trying to resolve the matter. Mechanical ventilation had been looked at to ensure the smell would not land in neighbouring vicinity but this was deemed unlikely. 33 households have complained, 14 residents have kept diaries and 10 people have given witness statements. Supports the application as is a resolution to problem.

 

(d)       Mr Chris Dwan, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Agricultural building subject of appeal

•           Odour issues

•           106 agreement drafted and in place

•           Use of buildings with cease and will be demolished

•           Use of adjacent building will be controlled

•           Shortfall of 3 bed dwellings, meets this need

•           Carefully laid out and designed

•           Low lying and screened by hedgerow

•           No technical objections

•           Highways satisfied

•           Removes need for HGVs

•           Soft landscaping schemes adds ecological benefits

•           Removes odour issues

•           106 controls use of barn

•           Parish Council recognise benefits, 5 support letters

 

A Cllr asked was conditions were attached to the planning permission, and hoped that if permitted it would not open opportunities for others to follow suit.

 

Mr Dwan stated that no conditions were attached that the use has not fallen foul of.

 

A Cllr asked the Environmental Health Officer (VC) was percentage of pig farms over the country cause trouble with smell.

 

The Environmental Health Officer (VC) responded that there was not a specific number however there has been correspondence with other authorities around the country with about a dozen in a similar situation.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit the application.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal to permit and stated that the odour problem is in the past and there is a need for houses.

 

A Cllr had concerns that a building would still be used for lamb and sheep and these could smell. If minded to permit, need to make sure there is no livestock on holding.

 

The Chair advised that the site is a farm and it is not within the Committee’s right to stop the land being a farm.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services advised that the conditions have to relate to the matter being approved.

 

A Cllr asked if further buildings on the land could be prevented.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the Committee would have control as planning permission would be needed.

 

The Chair stated that he was happy to support the application as it is a solution to a longstanding serious problem.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application should be approved.

 

Determination: PERMIT subject to:

 

A: The completion of an agreement under s 106 for the quantities set out in the above report to secure:

(i)         Immediate cessation of the use of the buildings for the rearing of pigs following the grant of permission (unless quashed by means of judicial review)

(ii)        Prevention of the use of other buildings for the housing of livestock unless agreed in advance by MBC

 

B: Conditions, as set out in the report

 

For the following reasons:

The development site is outside the village envelope for Kirby Bellars and is considered to be limited in terms of sustainability.

However, the site can be adequately accessed and would not have an adverse impact on the countryside owning to the buildings they would replace, the low lying nature of the site and the extent of effective screening afforded by hedges. Whilst the site is not within the village, it should be noted that there are other nearby residential properties and as such the proposed dwellings would not be “isolated” countryside dwellings. As such the harm arising from the development is low and mitigated further by these factors. Balanced against this, it is considered that there is substantial benefit arising from the fact that the development would remove the existing environmental issues. There are also benefits in terms of the delivery of housing of a type for which there is an identified need in the Borough, and the removal of HGV traffic currently serving the agricultural buildings.

Given the ongoing odour issue with the existing use and the abatement notice, it is considered that there are exceptional circumstances to grant planning permission which would be contrary to the Development Plan and prevailing policies.

 

On the balance of the issues, there are very significant benefits accruing from the proposal in terms of the odour issue and when assessed  under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply and housing needs in particular.  The balancing issues are considered to be of limited harm. 

Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF, permission should be granted.