Appeal 6000604

The appeal is dismissed.

The application as described in the banner heading above does not include other works to demolish buildings, a new covered access, and loading bay. However, these are shown on the plans and would therefore not be excluded from the overall scope of the permission sought.

Matters of highway safety and living conditions form reasons for refusal that require separate main issue consideration. As the Council’s locational policies also require criteria-based compliance with these topics, I have dealt with the suitability of the appeal site’s location later in the decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • the effect on the living conditions of nearby residents with particular regard to the disposal of hazardous substances, odour and air quality; and • whether the site is in a suitable location having regard to local policy.

The appeal site is accessed via a private lane serving a small number of properties. During my site visit, I observed a reasonable number of passing places along this lane. While there are several routes available within the wider highway network, the surrounding rural lanes are characteristically narrow and winding, with passing places occurring only occasionally rather than frequently. As a result, it is likely that some reversing may be necessary if drivers of vehicles are confronted with lorries or less manoeuvrable vehicles such as those with trailers.

There would be some increase in traffic movements from the appeal site over and above those linked with the existing farm businesses. In this respect, the appellant’s case is somewhat contradictory: on the one hand, it is said that it is not proposed that large lorries will be coming to and from the site as a result of the application, yet submissions clarify that refrigerated lorries would make collections twice a week. Moreover, the waste water tanker would visit once a week. Furthermore, it is claimed the existing haulage business generates movements of 2 arctics and 3 rigid lorries a day, with an intention to reduce this in the event this scheme was to be permitted. Elsewhere it is noted that there are up to 6 rigid cattle delivery truck movements per day. In any case, it is not clear how such reductions on an existing business could be enforced.

The arrival of carcasses on rigid trucks or towed trailers is said to generate up to 5 vehicle movements a day. It is accepted that the movements would vary as they are based on injury or ailment to cattle, which is rather unpredictable. That said, it is suggested that collection journeys only make commercial sense through multiple pick-ups which would apply to the majority of cases, rather than individual trips. Evidence surrounding viability is however limited and it is conceivable that smaller numbers of carcasses could be transported on a far more regular basis than suggested. This adds further concern that overall traffic implications of the development have not been fully explored.

Accordingly, while a potentially more intensive abattoir use could be controlled, the appellant’s suggested conditions to attempt to satisfy highway authority requirements would do little to tackle existing and potential new movements onto the highway network. Additionally, the suggested annual limit within condition 4 would not effectively manage short-term fluctuations in activity and would be very difficult to monitor or enforce. This would mean that it would be unlikely to pass the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The access from the appeal site to the highway would be unlikely to cause significant disruption and it has not been convincingly shown that there would be conflict with LP Policy DM05 in this respect. However, while the junction onto the public highway may be suitable for farm and livestock haulage traffic, the evidence does not provide the necessary certainties that cumulative impacts on the surrounding road network would not be severe.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the development would have a harmful effect on highway safety. As such, there would be conflict with policies ST10 and DM15 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (LP) which, together, and amongst other things, say that proposals should meet local community needs by protecting and enhancing the function and safety of the road network, avoiding unacceptable increases in traffic on approach roads or detriment to the safety of users of the public highway. The Council cites conflict with LP Policy DM14 in this regard, though I will come onto this later.

Hazardous substances - It is proposed to store animal by-products in wheelie bins within what is shown on the plans to be a separated area of the [name] (WPF). These, along with waste water would be removed by a company that has confirmed the process will be undertaken by them and dealt with properly. Existing waste would be disposed of using a septic tank and drainage field, and there is no compelling reason to demonstrate this could not continue to operate effectively.

I have paid careful regard to the representations made in these respects, including the categorisation of waste and extracts of presented relevant legislation. However, the Environment Agency (EA) does not object to a planning condition imposed to control waste disposal, and in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I find no reason to disagree. There would therefore be no unacceptable risk to public health and safety due to the storage of a hazardous substance, which aligns with LP Policy DM02.

Odour and air quality- The nearest properties are within the appellant’s control and linked to family enterprises. These buildings are tied by agricultural occupancy conditions which means any occupant would be expecting to live alongside increased levels of odour and variable air quality associated with the farming industry. The distance of the nearest property is not agreed, with submissions noting it is somewhere between 21m and 50m from the proposed WPF. Additionally, at my visit, I noticed a caravan close by that could accommodate a farm worker.

The ‘goods in’ entrance would be at the far side of the WPF within a privacy loading bay. This is a fair distance from the nearest property and is separated from it by the existing cattle shed. The storage wheelie bins would be contained within the WPF building behind a sectional door, which would be likely to have a containing effect on emanating odours, when closed. The property known as Stoneleigh is further away still at about 160m from the WPF. Whilst there is no definition of ‘vicinity’ in LP Policy DM15, it is still reasonable to conclude these properties fall within this categorisation.

Although the EA refers to an abattoir in its response, there is no substantive evidence the proposal would not generate similar odours, and it is this issue the agency often deals with. In that context, the appellant suggests that a planning condition could be applied to their home and Stoneleigh, linking ownership to the proposed WPF. However, in the absence of any air quality or odour assessment to measure such impacts, it is simply not known what the actual effects on nearest occupiers might be, even with the distances involved. Given the long distances between the WPF and other 3rd party properties, it is unlikely odour, air quality, or noise would present as a harmful effect. Nevertheless, in these particular circumstances, it would not be appropriate to attempt to deal with the matter using a planning condition or obligation without first understanding the baseline position.

Drawing these issues together, while hazardous waste could be effectively controlled, there remain uncertainties in relation to odour and air quality. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would harmfully affect the living conditions of nearby residents with particular regard to odour and air quality. As such, there would be conflict with LP policies DM01, DM02, and DM15, which, together in this respect aim to avoid unacceptable impacts on the occupiers of accommodation in the vicinity to atmospheric pollution, including smell.

The appeal site is in a notably rural part of the countryside set within and surrounded by farmland. In such areas, Policy ST07 of the LP limits development to that which meets local economic needs, rural building reuse, and that necessarily restricted to a countryside location. LP Policy ST11 provides overarching support for the delivery of employment in the district, including existing sectors in rural areas where proposals do not conflict with other LP policies. LP policies DM14 and DM15 are identified as being of relevance in the supporting text.

It is uncontested that the proposal would not meet the LP definition of ‘small scale’. It would therefore not be possible for it to comply with LP Policy DM14 which, amongst other things, deals with new small scale economic development in the countryside. References to this policy in the Council’s reasons for refusal have not been shown to apply. The policy does however encourage building conversions and uses that have a strong functional link to agriculture, which would be achieved, albeit at a different scale. The supporting text to this policy highlights that proposals relating to farm diversification will be considered against LP Policy DM15.

The main objective of DM15 is to control the scale and impact of development, limiting it to that necessary for business and food production purposes. Support is subject to a number of criteria including (a), where the scale is justified by the operational needs of the enterprise, reinforcing the viability of the existing farm business. Criteria (b) and (c) promote the reuse of buildings and development that assimilates into the landscape. Criterion (d) requires that the development will not detract unreasonably from amenities of occupiers in the vicinity, and (e) resists increases in traffic.

In that context, the proposed WPF would make use of existing buildings set amongst the wider operation of the farm enterprises. These include a livestock haulage business where other farming stock is brought onsite before distribution to slaughterhouses. Given the similarities between existing and proposed activities, and regardless of its defined use class, the scheme would most closely represent an ancillary expansion of agricultural enterprises. Furthermore, even if the covered roof were marginally increased in height, its physical presence in the immediate and surrounding area would go largely unnoticed. Jobs would be likely to be taken up by existing employees, though even if up to 5 new roles were created, this would still be very modest and appropriate for this particular rural setting.

The Council refers to the absence of pre-application discussions and is concerned that a farm diversification plan was not provided in accordance with the supporting text to DM15. While the supporting text is useful it does not have the force of policy. With that in mind, even if I were to set aside the late evidence provided in this respect, it is clear from the submissions that the scheme would deliver an additional income stream to assist the farming and haulage business. It would also provide a beneficial service for additional food supply with enhanced security. For the reasons given, there would therefore be compliance with criteria (a) to (c) of DM15.

Despite the good deal of weight that can be attributed to these benefits, I have already concluded above that the scheme has not been shown to have acceptable effects on the local highway network or living conditions of occupiers in the vicinity. Therefore, notwithstanding overarching support given by LP Policy ST07, the development would not accord with LP policies ST11 or DM15 given the conflict with criteria (d) and (e). This harm would not be outweighed by the aforementioned benefits to the rural economy. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the site is not a suitable location.

For the reasons above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.