Item No:


Application No. Site No. Site Address

S.11/1421/VAR PP-01552670 Pigeon House Farm, The Ham, Coaley, Dursley


Coaley Parish Council

Grid Reference


Application Type

Variation of Condition Inc Renewals


Variation of condition 4 of planning appeal permission APP/C1625/A/08/2073593/NWF to allow the accommodation of livestock within the buildings between 1st September to 30th April and for temporary emergency livestock accommodation during the rest of the year.

Applicant’s Details

Mr Richard Carter Twyning Ash , Uley Lane, Coaley, Dursley, Gloucestershire GL11 5AW

Agent’s Details

Mr Richard Brogden Bruton Knowles, Bisley House, Greeen Farm Business Park, Gloucester, GL2 4LY

Case Officer

John Chaplin




RECOMMENDATION Recommended Decision For the following reasons:



Due to the close proximity, the proposed use of the buildings to accommodate livestock would cause noise, smell, disturbance and unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent non-related residential dwelling, The Old Pigeon House, contrary to Policy GE1 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005.

CONSULTEES Comments Received Not Yet Received

Environmental Health (E) Parish / Town

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection

Letters of Support

Letters of Comment

D F Legal Solicitors On Behalf Of Mr And Mrs Goring, Old Pigeon House Farm, The Ham R Plumb, 1 Spring Tyning , Tricks Hill S John Steel, Ham Farm Coaley , Dursley E C Billett, Upper Orchard, Silver St, Coaley L Gazzard, Treetops, The Ham D Harvey, The Leigh, Ham Lane F Porter, Withywind, Ham Lane

G Sargent, Knapp Lane Farm, Coaley, M J A And A Best, Smithaven, Knapp Lane Sn Kiral, Knapp Lane Farm Cottage, Knapp Lane C Bevan, Hodgecombe Farm, Uley Ce Sealy Msc MRICS, Regional Surveyor, Coun, CLA, Hartham Park, Corsham, Wiltshire,

P Ashmead, The Old Barn, The Ham, Coaley, D J Harvey, The Leigh, The Ham Mrs D Tunnacliffe, New Pigeon House, Ticks Hill

OFFICER’S REPORT This application was considered at the 11 October meeting when it was deferred for a viewing by the site inspection panel. That visit will take place on 1 November, allowing reconsideration at this November DCC meeting. The report to the October meeting is below: SITE The application site is located along The Ham within Coaley. The farm yard contains a number of buildings of varying age, sizes and designs. The older buildings on the

site are located adjacent to the lane in the south corner of the land. This includes two corrugated iron Dutch barns with other steel frame blockwork lean-to structure and corrugated links. Two larger modern steel frame building with concrete panels, timber boarding and profile sheeting are located to the rear of the older buildings. A poly tunnel is also located to the rear. Open agricultural land is located beyond the buildings. Adjacent to the site is located a Grade II listed building the Old Pigeon House. This property was originally the farmhouse associated with the site but is now in separate ownership. A low wall separates the dwelling from the farm yard. The front garden of the Old Pigeon House has a row of tall trees. A block wall with fence on top is located along the rear boundary. The site of the building is not within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but the boundary is located on the opposite side of the road. PROPOSAL The proposal is to vary condition 4 of the planning appeal permission (ref: PP/C1625/A/08/2073593/NWF) to allow the accommodation of livestock within the buildings between 1st September to 30th April and for temporary emergency livestock accommodation during the rest of the year. REVISED DETAILS None RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Appeal to S.07/1271/FUL and enforcement notice ref: PP/C1625/A/08/2073593/NWF S.07/1271/FUL Retention of agricultural building and erection of additional agricultural building. (Revised Plans 27.07.2007). App S.03/864 Erection of new agricultural building for general storage (to replace existing building). Revised plans received 24/7/2003. APP CONSULTATION RESPONSES Coaley Parish Council: Not yet received Environmental Protection Manager: Recommends refusal – highly likely potential for detriment to residential amenity Local Residents: 8 Objections received – Impact on residential amenities – noise, smells, flies and rodents, the proposal has already been considered in 2007 application and appeal. Environmental Health have objected. Close proximity of residential properties, GPDO recommends 400 metres between Livestock unit and dwelling. Previous conditions have not been adhered to. There is a misunderstanding of TB restrictions. Inappropriate so close to dwellings. Applicant has other farm where he could put up buildings. Planning should not have been allowed in the first place. Over stocked for the acreage he owns. Increase in traffic on a busy lane not designed for heavy vehicles. 6 Support comments received – The Farm is an essential part of the farming operation. Need all the help they can get to produce food for UK. Planning Policy supports rural economic growth and supports agriculture and its role in landscape management. Correct way forward for the business.

2 Comments received – See no reason to object. Never heard or smelled anything. Planting and painting has been done. Business case for approval. It is a waste of time and money considering normal farming practices. An active farm has been on site for a long time. ARTICLE 31 STATEMENT – REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION For the purposes of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010, the following reasons for the Council's decision are summarised below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES Policy GE1 of the Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005 prevents an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or an overbearing effect. PPS1 stresses the importance of quality design, and paragraphs 1, 5, 33-39 are especially relevant. Policy GE5 maintains highway safety including public rights of way. PPS 7 applies to rural areas. It highlights the need to protect landscape character, maintain rural housing and also promotes a thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities. It supports Local Plan Policy NE8, which places priority on the protection of the AONB, whilst Policy NE10 conserves the distinct landscape types in the District. PPS5 applies within listed buildings and their setting. Local Plan Policy BE12 is also relevant. These seek to protect the historic environment and require the preservation of the setting of listed buildings. BACKGROUND The modern barn on the site was built under the 2007 permission and the following appeal. The appeal imposed a condition that restricted the use to general agricultural purposes and not for any form of livestock husbandry outside the provision Class D3 (a) and (b) of Schedule 2, Part 6 of the GPDO. This allows animals to be accommodated where there are no other suitable buildings more than 400 metres from a protected building (non related dwelling) and the accommodation is required because of quarantine requirements, in emergency situations, temporary accommodation because the animals are sick, giving birth or newly born or in extreme weather conditions. This application seeks to vary this condition to allow the accommodation of livestock in the buildings between 1st September to 30th April and for temporary emergency livestock accommodation during the rest of the year. Over the last 2 winters the building has been used to house cattle due to TB movement restrictions. It has been questioned whether TB restrictions comply with the GPDO provisions of quarantine. This application does not seek to address this issue, however, the agent has clarified that the farm is currently clear of TB but would require further tests to be able to sell stock. The applicant is seeking to use the building to accommodate livestock between September and April for business reasons and not due to TB restrictions. He is intending to overwinter this year’s calves in order to achieve the best price in the strong spring and early summer store cattle market. It is agued that this would be the

optimum age and it would be detrimental to the viability of the business if they had to be sold prematurely. The farm enterprise was set out in the Inspectors report based on the applicant’s written statement. The farm has two separate herds, one pedigree and the other suckler cattle. The Knapp Lane buildings are used for the pedigree herd with Twyning Ash having the sucklers and calves. It is intended to use Pigeon House Farm to house/overwinter store cattle from both herds before they are sold in the following spring/summer. The agent suggests that due to the limited amount of farm buildings, the only alternative would be to utilise buildings at the other farmyard and use this building for emergencies and calving only. This reorganisation of the farm would involve more movements to monitor animals etc and more movements in the initial organising. The animals require housing indoors for 2 main reasons. With the general heavy nature of the soil, the movement of animals and feed tractors on the pasture, particular in wet conditions, could churn up the soil (poached soil) especially around feeders and entrances. This would be to the detriment of animal welfare and the quality of the pasture. The second reason is the nature of the animals not being a hardy traditional breed that can be kept outside in cold conditions. These continental breeds do not have the same hardiness as native breeds and would quickly lose condition and suffer hardship. This would be bad husbandry and run counter to current animal welfare requirements. This has been confirmed by an independent rural consultant that there is good agricultural practice behind winter housing of the animals. The animal husbandry of the applicant is not questioned but this could alter should the ownership change. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY Local residents have raised concern over noise and smells and the proposal would have a significant impact on residential amenity. Other comments and support from local residential have also been submitted suggesting that there would not be adverse affects and the business should be supported. The Environmental Protection Manager considers that as the building is located in very close proximity to a dwelling, the accommodation of livestock within the buildings for 8 months of the year and potentially emergency use during the other 4 months has a highly likely potential to cause detriment to residential amenity. As the Appeal Inspector highlighted, there are good reasons why the GPDO generally prohibits the use of new farm buildings for the housing of livestock within 400 metres of the curtilage of a protected building. As noise and smells can easily result in untenable living conditions beyond that which would normally be expected when living in a rural countryside location. The Inspector considered that the restrictive condition and GPDO exceptions struck the right balance between protecting the residential amenities of the neighbour and allowing the successful operation of this rural business. Animals can be accommodated outside without the restrictions. Whilst this is beyond the control of this application and for the reasons above is not what is required on the holding it is not considered to carry a sufficient weight to approve this variation. Animals kept indoors have a greater potential to cause disturbance.

As in the previous appeal, it is recognised that the applicant could keep animals in the older buildings to the front of the site. However, this is not considered a good reason to allow the additional use of the modern buildings. PPS7 and the Local Plan seek to encourage rural areas and businesses, however, having considered both the supporting and opposing submitted details, on balance, it is considered that with the close proximity of an unrelated residential property, this proposal would cause significant noise and smells that go beyond what would normally be expected in a rural setting. Whilst we would normally want to support the viability of an agricultural business, this proposal would be to the detriment of the residential amenities of nearby residents particularly the Old Pigeon House and can not be supported. IMPACT ON SETTING OF LISTED BUILDING & SURROUNDING AREA Old Pigeon House is a grade II listed building. The Old Pigeon House was originally part of the farmyard but was separated and sold for non-farm occupation. The modern barns have a standard functional design and are already present on the site along with old corrugated structures. The previous applications and appeal have considered the impact of the built form on the setting of the building and the wider countryside and AONB. The planning inspectorate concluded that there would be no material impact on the listed building and with some planting and painting of the side panels the landscape impact could be mitigated. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set out in this report, the application is recommended for refusal. HUMAN RIGHTS In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.