Agenda item

Erection of agricultural storage building

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of agricultural storage building on Land to the East of Hauxwell Grange, Marwood, Barnard Castle (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, elevations, site layout and photographs of the site.

Councillor R Bell, local Member had submitted a statement to be read on his behalf during the meeting.  He referred the application to Committee as he was seriously concerned about the potential use of the building to house livestock. Although a condition had been included to prohibit housing livestock, Councillor Bell considered that the Council should not take on the burden of enforcement, under the circumstances.

The site was in close proximity of Hauxwell Grange which would be dominated by the new building and Councillor Bell considered there were other more suitable locations for a machine storage facility which would not inconvenience the applicant.  He referenced the economic impact and loss of holiday cottage bookings, should the application be approved and considered this to be far greater than any detriment to the applicant should permission not be granted.

Councillor Bell confirmed that the design of the building and its materials were of a construction more suitable for livestock.  The building consisted of five opening steel gates and internal compartments which he described as bays.  In his opinion the design of the building was to segregate animals by age or gender.  He asked the Committee to reject the application it was designed to house livestock and needlessly close to residential properties.

Mr Pearson was the owner of Hauxwell Grange, a residential property with two attached holiday cottages.  He stated that the applicant had a large area of land with alternative and more suitable sites for a large building.  The applicant lived over two miles from the site and there was an existing access gate to the field which would provide a much safer entry point, on a road with much less traffic.  Mr Pearson confirmed that the close proximity of Hauxwell Grange would provide the building with additional security and associate the two properties. There were other buildings being constructed in the area which were closer to their respective farm houses, much smaller by comparison, between 50 and 200m from the road, and built using traditional local stone. He referred to the revised drawings submitted and agreed that the construction was being built to a specification for housing livestock. The existing building was currently used once a year for shearing and he considered that even with a condition attached, this building could be used in future for animals. 

If the application was approved, the house would be dominated by the new building and its visual impact could be detrimental to the success of the attached holiday cottages.  He confirmed that all of the issues raised could be avoided by repositioning the building to a more appropriate site.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application had been made on the basis that the building was not to house of livestock, a condition had been included to ensure that there was sufficient control on the future use of the building.

The Chairman referred to Councillor Bell’s interpretation of the drawings and asked for an elaboration on the design of the building.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the sections or bays referred to by Councillor Bell signified the frame of the building.  He could not confirm why the applicant had chosen to have five doors or the reason for the construction materials, however he reminded Members of the restriction, giving sufficient control against the housing of livestock.

The Chairman referred to the issues raised regarding an alternative access into the field from a different road and the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the operational needs of the farm was not questionable when considering an application and reminded Members that no Highways objection had been received.  Councillor Atkinson added that neither Planning Officers or Members of the Committee could consider alternative locations or access routes.

In response to a question from Councillor Richardson the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the dilapidated building in the adjacent field may be owned by a family member of the applicant.

Councillor Thompson queried whether the building could still be used to house livestock on a casual basis.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it was strictly prohibited by the proposed condition.

Councillor Clare referred to the objectors statements and confirmed that although they had raised some valid points, there was nothing to suggest that the application should be refused on planning grounds.  The design of the building was not a matter for the Committee, nor was the location or access.  In the absence of a highways objection, the Committee had to consider how dominating the building would be.  He confirmed that on a site visit earlier in the day, Members had marked out the foundations and he did not deem it to be excessively large.  In relation to the objections raised about the potential loss of holiday cottage bookings, Councillor Clare suggested that it would be reasonable for visitors to expect to see the presence of farm buildings in a Countryside location.  He reminded Members that the condition explicitly prohibited the housing of livestock and he therefore moved that the recommendation be approved.

In response to a question from Councillor Tinsley, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the doors were full height gated steel.

Councillor Atkinson seconded the recommendation to approve.

Resolved

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