Agenda item

Retention of storage container, erection of cabin, shed and two polytunnels

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the retention of storage container, erection of cabin, shed and two polytunnels (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Henderson, the Chairman of Witton-le-Wear Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents of the village. In making his representations he referred to the number of objections to the application and hoped that Members had received reports from the Council’s Environmental Health and Highways Sections.

Witton-le-Wear was an extremely attractive and unspoilt village, and residents wanted to keep it that way. He questioned whether this was a retrospective application as a storage container and polytunnel were already on the site.

The railway platform which was part of Weardale Heritage Railway was located directly below the field and he believed that the smell would discourage visitors from stopping at this halt. The railway path was unusable at times because of water run-off from the field.

Councillor Henderson continued that the proposal for two pigs would be acceptable and sought an assurance that the Applicant would not keep any more than this. Each pig produced 13lbs of waste and breeding pigs could produce large litters of around 11 piglets.

The village had severe traffic problems and the Parish Council and residents disputed the Applicant’s claim to a right of access to the rear of Railway Terrace. He was also surprised to learn that the Applicant had an alternative access to the field at the allotment site.

If the application was approved he considered that the value of surrounding properties would be significantly affected.

In conclusion Councillor Henderson stated that if residents could be assured that the number of pigs would be restricted to two, their concerns would be allayed, and he asked if the application could be adjourned to seek assurances from the Applicant.

Mrs Parkinson, local resident spoke against the application. She stated that residents were concerned about the access to the site which was shared by both allotment holders and residents, and noted that the report did not include the views of the Highways Section. Paragraph 47 in the report stated that the proposal did not involve the formation of a new access, however residents considered that this was a new access to the field as it had never been used before.

Mrs Parkinson was also concerned that the land may be used for business purposes and stated that the allotments already had problems with rats which would be exacerbated by this proposal.

The application was contrary to Local Plan Policy and Policies in the emerging County Durham Plan. The proposals would have a detrimental impact on the landscape, and would have a visual impact on the entrance and exit into the village. There was no adequate parking and she felt that there had been no regard for surrounding residents.

Residents did not have issue with the other proposed uses of the site but were concerned about the keeping of pigs, and Mrs Parkinson asked if the number of animals could be limited to two.

Mrs Parkinson concluded by asking if the log cabin was a separate proposal as this did not appear to have been included in the public notice.

Mrs Coulter, local resident stated that her main concerns related to the access. The application site did not have a right of access to the rear of Railway Terrace and at the time the land was acquired by the Applicant there had been a fence at the bottom of the lane which had now been replaced by a gate. Whilst she acknowledged that a right of access was a private matter she asked the Committee to consider the application within this context.

The Applicant, Mr Charles, addressed Members. He commenced by explaining his proposals for the land. The northernmost section of the paddock would be developed for food production, the middle section would be retained for grazing and the bottom section would be used for willow production.   For the food production element of the scheme, the pigs would serve as a natural method of clearing the land without having to use machinery, and the intention was to purchase them as weaners and sell them in six months.

Whilst the issue of access was a private matter he was happy to discuss the situation with residents. On the purchase of the paddock he had received a Statutory Declaration which permitted access through both Railway Terrace and the allotments.

In response to a question from Councillor Davidson, Mr Charles advised that he did not intend to breed the pigs. The breed of pig chosen was small and was useful for cultivating the ground. As the pigs would be kept outdoors he did not envisage that there would be any odour, and there would be no slurry waste.

In discussing the application the Chairman, Councillor Dixon, advised that the Committee could only give consideration to matters that were material planning considerations. The keeping of pigs on the site did not come under planning control, and the right of access was a private matter and not a material planning consideration which could be given any weight in the determination of the application.

L Renaudon, Solicitor (Planning Development) explained that the keeping of pigs was an agricultural use of the land which did not require planning permission. The application was for buildings and a container which would not be used to house the pigs. Access was a real issue between the applicant and residents but essentially this was a private matter.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Principal Planning Officer stated that the suggested conditions from Environment, Health and Consumer Protection, as set out in the report, could only be imposed if the application was for animal housing. However a condition was proposed which would ensure that no pigs would be housed or reared within the buildings or container.

Councillor Clare, in acknowledging that the right of access was a private matter, asked if the application would have been recommended for approval without vehicular access. The Principal Planning Officer responded that the application was not for change of use of the land, and the proposed structures did not require vehicular access.

Councillor Davidson made the comment that he understood that a paddock of this size could accommodate around 32 pigs without planning permission. Setting aside the issues of access and the residents’ concerns about the keeping of pigs, he was of the view that the proposed structures were acceptable in planning terms.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.