Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth, Cheltenham

Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of an agricultural building for the housing of dairy cattle at Manor Farm Chedworth Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL54 3LJ

 

Case Officer

Amy Hill

 

Ward Member

Councillor Paul Hodgkinson

 

Recommendation

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Proposal

The proposal concerned the erection of an agricultural building for the housing of dairy cattle at Manor Farm Chedworth Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL54 3LJ.

 

Case Officer: Amy Hill

Ward Member: Councillor Paul Hodgkinson

 

Original recommendation:

The recommendation was to refuse the proposal as it was considered contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policies EN2, EN4 and

EN5, and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 187 and 189.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the case, which involved the erection of a building to shelter cattle measuring just over 100 metres long, 30 metres wide and 9 metres high.

 

  1. There were no additional updates to the report included in the agenda.
  2. Various maps and photos of the site were shared to outline the existing landscape and the location of the proposed construction.
  3. Key issues mentioned were:

(a)  Size and orientation of the proposed building which was perceived as being oversize for the generally flat location.

(b)  Public Right-of-Way: Concerns about how the building's positioning impacts views from the public right-of-way.

(c)   Character and appearance: Concerns about how the building's positioning impacts the character and appearance of the landscape.

(d)  Future development impact: general concern was expressed about how the proposed building would affect the overall landscape and aesthetics of the area.

(e)  Agricultural Landscape: The flat, agricultural landscape poses concerns about how the proposed building integrates into the environment, potentially limiting views and affecting the natural setting.

 

Public Speaker 1

Rob Darvill introduced himself as the farm vet and made the following points in support of the application:

  1. The need for a first biodiverse grassland near the north-western side of Chedworth village was introduced, emphasizing its environmental significance.
  2. He explained that the attempt to run a New Zealand-style system, with cattle outside year-round, had resulted in welfare issues, including increased deaths and a rise in diseases. He highlighted that the current dairy system was unsustainable without a suitable cattle building, pointing out the lack of adequate shelter to protect cattle from harsh weather and disease.
  3. The lack of a building had led to severe outbreaks of TB, with 87 cows culled as TB reactors since October 2024. Together with spiralling costs, this meant that without a building for shelter, farming would not be viable.
  4. The supporter noted that the rejection of planning permission was based on the size, type, and location of the proposed cattle building, which did, however, meet welfare regulations for farmed animals regarding ground area and height for ventilation.
  5. The suggestion to break the building into smaller units would create significant management challenges around observation, feeding, slurry management, and balanced group dynamics.
  6. Dairy cattle buildings should ideally be located close to milking parlours to reduce stress and danger for cows moving between locations, as greater distances were linked to increased mastitis and lameness.
  7. Lastly, he argued that the flat nature of the site was considered beneficial for a dairy building, as sloped areas could lead to cattle injuring themselves.

 

 

Public Speaker 2

Seb Clark, the applicant, addressed the Committee:

  1. Manor Farm was described as an organic regenerative family farm in Chedworth that produced over one million litres of milk annually. The farm was home to Kingstone Dairy, whose Ashcombe cheese was named supreme champion at the British Cheese Awards.
  2. The development was seen as critical to the survival of the farm, which had not made a profit in five years. £135,000 in milk income had been lost during the five months of wintering cattle outside and it was noted that without the proposed shed, the farm would not survive.
  3. It was stated that the size, shape, and orientation of the proposed building followed industry standards to ensure functionality. The location of the proposed building near the milking parlour was intended to minimize stress on cattle and integrate with existing slurry systems to meet environmental compliance.
  4. Addressing community and environmental impact, Manor Farm was described as a vital part of the community, contributing to local employment, cultural heritage, and wildlife through organic practices. The farm's shop served over 800 villagers and the cheese business employed 12 people.
  5. Decision-makers were urged to approve the development to secure the farm’s future and prevent it from becoming another statistic in the ongoing decline of UK dairy farms.

 

Ward Member Comments

The Member explained that it was the size of the proposed development that had brought the application forward for the Committee to determine. He noted that unlike other contentious applications, such as the Rencombe Airfield case, this one had not polarized the local community in Chedworth.

 

He reported that the site was outside the Chedworth conservation area and distant from other houses. He highlighted the immense pressures faced by farmers over the past decade, emphasizing their essential contribution to society.

 

The Member described the farm as an established operation with over 100 years of history, practising organic and regenerative farming. He commended the applicant for engaging with the local community and business and noted the positive feedback received.

 

The Member reiterated the necessity of the building to improve winter conditions for cattle and noted that the shed’s size and location were dictated by practical and operational requirements.

 

While no formal objections were lodged, he acknowledged concerns from some residents about the size and visibility of the building and scepticism about future potential housing development on the site.

 

He concluded by stating that the Committee must decide whether the perceived harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) caused by the large structure was outweighed by the clear agricultural and economic benefits presented.

 

Members Questions

 

Members thanked the speakers and asked the Case Officer if the arguments put forward by supporters regarding the size of the building argument were accurate.  The Case Officer confirmed that they were but pointed out that the application had not been subject to the pre-application process.

 

Members asked if alternative locations or designs had been discussed with the applicant, noting their insistence on the proposed placement. The Case Officer explained that no such discussions had occurred due to the absence of a pre-application.

 

Members commended the clarity of the report and presentations. And asked if the Case Officer was aware of similar large agricultural buildings in the Cotswolds, as mentioned by the applicant's vet. The Case Officer responded that they were unaware of comparable buildings within the national landscape but acknowledged examples outside it.

 

Members asked if it was acceptable for landscaping to take years to fully shield the building, or whether the Council viewed such delay as problematic. The Case Officer replied that landscaping should soften rather than hide a building, as planted trees could later be removed and expressed concerns about the amount of planting required to conceal a 100-meter-long building in a relatively open landscape.

 

The Vice-Chair referenced government consultations on planning reforms and asked senior officers if requiring pre-application processes for major developments might be a beneficial reform, citing frequent issues caused by their absence. The Case Officer acknowledged the value of pre-application discussions and reiterated that the recommendation for refusal was based on the size of the building and inadequate consideration of the national landscape’s character.

 

Members requested clarification regarding conflicting statements within the report about the site’s suitability for great crested newts and whether a modified building design, such as an L or T shape, might make the proposal more acceptable. The Case Officer explained that while the site was in a high-potential zone for newts, a Biodiversity Officer’s assessment deemed it unlikely to be a suitable habitat.

 

Members Comments

Councillor Fowles remarked that serving on the Committee had rarely allowed him to deliberate on such a clearly defined decision. He praised the Case Officer’s thorough and well-articulated report and acknowledged the clarity of policies like EC1 and EC3. Councillor Fowles emphasised the historical and practical context, noting the farm’s 100-year legacy and its ongoing operation by the next generation. He highlighted the unique flatness of the area, making any building prominent, and noted the agricultural context justified the structure’s size. Councillor Fowles expressed support for the application, citing evidence from the applicant, vet, and ward member that the business’s survival depended on it. While he disliked the idea of a large building in the landscape, he believed the farm’s viability outweighed policy considerations. He concluded by proposing a counter-motion to permit the development against the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

 

Members discussed the option of a counter proposal and the conditions which officers would be asked to incorporate;

 

The proposal was changed by common agreement to read:

Recommendation to approve planning permission subject to conditions:

  • Limited to agricultural use.
  • Three years to commence works
  • Approval of construction materials.
  • A landscaping scheme would be required to soften the building’s appearance.
  • Implementation of appropriate lighting.
  • Adequate drainage provisions
  • Sustainable waste management system.
  • Assessment and provision for bats.
  • Pre-commencement approval required from the Environment Agency:
  • Biodiversity Net Gain a statutory requirement, would be addressed in parallel.
  • Planning officers to have delegated authority to approve final conditions, with consultation if necessary.

 

New Recommendation

The recommendation was to APPROVE planning permission with conditions and give delegated authority to planning officers to approve final conditions, with consultation if necessary.

 

Proposed by Councillor Fowles and seconded by Councillor Harris

Recommendation APPROVED.

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages