Hardington Mandeville

The Minutes of the previous meeting (November 2008)

PRESENT

Peter Bysouth, Malcolm White, Rob Lloyd, David Beckley. Bill Turner.

IN ATTENDANCE

Jane Woodcock (Clerk), Hannah Lefeuvre (District Councillor)

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Robin Carpenter, Kevin Margetts, and Lesley Boucher. 
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
   No declarations of interest were made.
3. PLANNING MATTERS
   1. 08/04480/FUL The retention of a temporary Agricultural workers dwelling and the erection of a 15m high wind turbine.

      Peter Bysouth began by reading out a statement from Mr Nigel Salmon, Mr Richard’s Agent, who was unable to attend the meeting

      “(i) Wild Boar Shed (reference 08/04482)

      The Applicant has already specialised in rearing and fattening rare breeds – elks and buffalos to produce high value meat. This is an extension of that farming policy. To fulfil this aim, the Applicant requires a new livestock building and fence enclosed foraging ground that needs to be physically separated from the other farm buildings. The building has a low eaves and ridge height of 3.6m and 4.9m respectively. It will be clad with timber hit and miss boarding under a shallow pitch, dark green cement fibre profile sheeted roof. The building runs parallel to the site’s contours to reduce the amount of cut and fill on the sloping ground. The building is below any line of sight from the lane to the south. From the A30 and near lanes to the north the steep topography of the valley slope and tree cover will effectively screen the building from this and any other public viewpoints. It is therefore requested that permanent planning permission is granted for this building.

      (ii) Retention of temporary agricultural workers dwelling and erection of wind turbine (reference 08/04480)

      The original three year, temporary planning permission has expired. An application to renew in 2006 failed because at that time, the Applicant’s farm business was in cattle rearing that produced low levels of profitability. Since 2006 the Applicant has invested heavily in the production of elk and bison herds that produce high quality and high value meat. Subject of gaining planning permission for the new livestock shed, the Applicant will introduce a semi-intensive wild boar herd. This represents a material change in circumstances that should warrant the Applicant being given a second, three year trial period to demonstrate the essential need to live on the farm. The Applicant has commissioned an Agricultural Appraisal report that indicates the profitability, labour requirement and need for the livestock to be supervised by a stockman living on the farm by the end of the three year trial period. It is therefore requested that a further three year temporary planning permission is granted to retain the existing agricultural accommodation.

      The wind turbine relates to the above development only insofar as the Applicant is keen to promote environmental sustainability. The turbine will help meet the farm’s electricity needs with surplus exported onto the National Grid. The turbine is 15 m high located within the existing farm building group. It is 250 m distant from any housing. It will be partially visible from the A30 but it will be seen in the context of the much taller telecommunications mast and not have a significant harming effect on the landscape.

      Permanent planning permission for the wind turbine is requested. A condition requiring its removal if it no longer generates electricity would be acceptable. “

      David Beckley asked about the history of planning applications from this applicant. He noted in previous minutes that the house on this site is not compliant with planning regulations. The applicant has a history of repeated applications. Hannah Lefeuvre advised that we could note such comments but that the applicant’s planning history is not of material concern and we have to take the application at face value. Malcolm White wondered about the question of noise from the wind turbine. Peter noted that this issue was addressed in the Design Statement submitted with the application. It was a type of turbine without gears with a lower noise value than some other types and, as no other residences were thought to be near enough to be able to hear the turbine, it was of no concern. Peter Bysouth proposed that there be no objection to the proposed wind turbine so long as strict conditions were placed in the planning permission so that it did not set a precedent for further wind turbines on that site or others and that it was to be removed if it was no longer generating energy. The members then accepted this proposal.

      The council then discussed the application of retention of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling. Members wondered why Planning permission had been refused before. Members also believed that people were living on site now but without planning permission. They also understood that there was a pending court case concerning Mr Richards and allegations regarding animal welfare in relation to the stock on the farm.  There was worry about wild boar escaping and becoming feral which was a problem in other areas. If there was a building there then someone could be on site but the track record shows that if there are people they’re still not looking after the animals.

      The Council agreed that they would object to the retention of a temporary agricultural dwelling for the following reasons:

      1. In 2006 District Council officers rejected this application and members feel the reasons are still valid. The application should be refused again
      2. The viability of the wild boar needs to be established before a decision on the log cabin can be made. The Councillors object because of concerns about the management of the wild boar. They are dangerous animals near a populated area. There is also a public footpath nearby and councillors are uncertain they can be kept under such circumstances. They are not convinced about the business plan as they are aware of another local wild boar producer who has stopped trading recently.
      3. There is a National Nature Reserve nearby and believe Natural England should be consulted about this matter because of the potential damage to this site if the boar escaped.
      4. There is concern for animal welfare as councillors understand there is a court case pending with allegations relating to livestock welfare against the Mr Richards. The Councillors believe the decision on these matters should be adjourned until the court case is resolved.
       
   2. 08/05060/FUL the erection of a first floor extension at Finials, Rectory Lane for Mr White.
      The councillors examined the plans. There were no objections.
   3. 08/05099/LBC The erection of a single storey extension to Brookmead, Moor Lane for Mrs Mazey.
      This is permitted development but the building has listed buildings status. The councillors examined the plans. There were no objections.
   4. 08/03195/FUL The Stables, Partway Lane Hardington Mandeville for Mr and Mrs Small.

      A reply had been received from Simon Gale (Head of Development and Building Control) in response to our letter about the way this application had been dealt with. All were happy with the letter Peter Bysouth had drafted to Mr Gale regarding problems the Council had experienced with planning applications generally. As an example, Peter showed the meeting an unsigned, undated, handwritten post-it note which had been sent by the District Council in response to a request for more information. Councillors agreed this was not satisfactory. It was agreed that Peter Bysouth should send this letter, subject to any amendments he felt necessary, and that Simon Gale should be invited to a Parish Council meeting to discuss these problems.

      Hannah Lefeuvre had asked that this application be put to Planning Committee for a decision. Her request was submitted on the 4/12/08, and she has heard that it has reached the Section Officer but nothing more. Councillors felt that the District Council saw this application as a straight forward planning matter. However, because it involves the use of special Gypsy Planning law, the Parish Council considered that the procedures and the examination of the issues need to be seen as clear and open.

   5. There were no further planning applications and the meeting finished at 8.40pm