PAPER A1

 

REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

 

Tuesday 20th April 2004

 

Prestwood Grange Farm, off Smallbrook Lane, Ryde

 

REPORT OF HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

 

 

SUMMARY

 

To consider a specific option available to this Committee in connection with a dairy operation at the abovementioned farm which is causing disamenity to a number of residential occupiers in the immediate locality.

 

ACTION REQUIRED BY COMMITTEE

 

To give due regard to the merits of serving a Discontinuance Notice (see Appendix), under Section 102 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, on the owners of Prestwood Grange Farm in connection with the dairy operation currently taking place on site.

 

A Discontinuance Notice, or a Discontinuance Order if confirmed, would enable the Council to require the present operation to cease subject to the payment of financial compensation.  The Council needs to be satisfied that such action is expedient in the interest of the amenities of the area. 

 

The possible service of a Discontinuance Notice would need to be assessed against a background of various options that have been considered by this Council since the Local Government Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice in December 1999.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Discontinuance Notice is served under Section 102 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 on the owners of Prestwood Grange Farm, requiring the use of the farmholding as a dairy operation to discontinue subject to the payment of financial compensation.

 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

1.      Prestwood Grange Farm, or Prestwood Farm, is a long-established agricultural holding situated in open countryside adjacent to a low-density residential area that was largely developed during the mid twentieth century.

 

  1. In August 1995 an application was submitted seeking planning permission for a substantial number of agricultural buildings on the site in order to establish a dairy operation, in addition to an agricultural workers dwelling.

 

  1. The application was approved by the former Planning & Countryside Committee in November 1995.  This was a conditional approval, including one condition which required the applicant to submit full details of the nature and location of slurry and waste water holding facilities and means of disposal, before any development took place on site.

 

  1. Twelve months later planning permission was granted under the delegated procedure for a straw barn, additional silage bay, cattle pens and store.  This was also a conditional permission, including a condition identical to the one referred to in (3).

 

  1. The provision of these facilities in a position that was not agreed by the Council, resulted in enforcement action and the rejection of details of an alternative scheme in the latter part of 1997.

 

  1. An appeal that was the subject of a local Inquiry held in late December 1998.  The Inspector took the view that the appellant’s proposals, together with the changes in farming operations already implemented, would minimise the harm caused by the slurry storage area and dirty water facilities on the living conditions of nearby residents.  He allowed the appeal and approved the details of a slurry storage area and dirty water pond previously rejected by the Council.

 

  1. Running parallel with the planning appeal was a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman that resulted in an investigation with the Obmudsman finding maladministration causing injustice to local residents.  He recommended that the Council pay financial compensation to those who had suffered a loss of amenity.

 

  1. The matter was initially discussed by the Planning & Countryside (Policy) Committee, where Members agreed to submit a recommendation to the Policy Committee that consideration should be given to the wider issues involved in the matter, on the basis that compensation alone would not resolve the problem and that the Ombudsman should be advised accordingly.

 

  1. In November 2000, the Executive agreed to look at the possibility of seeking approval of the Secretary of State for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire the farm.  The objective would be to remove the offending dairy operation and then place the farm on the open market with appropriate covenants to ensure there were no further detrimental effects on the immediate locality.  At that time it was thought that compulsory acquisition was the most cost effective, long-term solution to the problem and it was decided to seek external advice on valuation, carry out a risk analysis and obtain a view on the impact of acquisition on the finances of the Council.

 

10.  In February 2002 the Executive was updated on the progress of negotiations with the landowner and his representatives and advised that part compensation had been paid to the local residents and estimates had been put forward regarding the cost of bringing the milking operation on the farm to an end.  It was decided that a CPO be made in respect of the land under Section 226(1)(b) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

 

11.  Advice was taken from Counsel in connection with the proposed CPO and it was at this point that he advised that, in his view, a possible preferred alternative course of action for the Council was to make a Discontinuance Order under Section 102 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.  Subsequently, a decision was taken by Executive in August 2002 requiring the Development Control Committee to consider the making of a Discontinuance Order as opposed to a Compulsory Purchase Order.

 

 

12.  Throughout the period that the matter was initially considered, following the outcome of the appeal and the Ombudsman’s decision, there have been extensive negotiations and discussions with the owner of the farm, or his agents, conducted by the Head of Planning Services, as well as extensive monitoring of the situation by the Environmental Health Manager.

 

 

13.  The present situation can be best summarised in the following terms:-

 

·         In accordance with the recommendation of the Ombudsman, partial compensation has been paid to local residents.  While full payment remains an option, it has been previously agreed that simply complying with the recommendation of the Ombudsman will not resolve the problem and local people will continue to suffer a loss of amenity, particularly during the summer months.

 

·         The Environmental Health Manager and consultants continue to monitor, investigate and collect evidence in respect of the impact of the dairy operation on the adjacent residential area.

 

·         Notwithstanding the efforts of the Head of Property Services, the matter is unlikely to be resolved by a negotiated settlement in the present circumstances.

 

·         An outline planning application submitted by prospective purchasers of the (part) farm to develop a substantial part of the site for residential purposes which, if successful, may have helped to resolve the situation, was refused permission primarily because the land is outside the development envelope boundary.  There was no appeal.  Approval would have been contrary to the Unitary Development Plan and would have to have been treated as a departure.

 

·         If the Council were to serve a Discontinuance Notice, the legal view is that there are reasonable prospects of success.

 

·         A considerable period of time has now elapsed since the appeal decision and the publication of the findings of the Ombudsman and further delay would not be in the best interests for the landowners or the local residents.

 

14.  The Council will give evidence on the level of disamenity suffered by local residents to support the proposed order.  At this moment in time it would not be appropriate to reveal the full details of that evidence, however, I am able to confirm that consultants, acting on behalf of the Environmental Health Manager, have prepared a report based on the correlation of perceived odour with wind direction at Prestwood Farm.

 

      15.The Executive Summary of this report states that observations from Environmental Health staff in 2003 indicate odour emissions from the facility to be intermittent, and on occasions the odour emissions to be strong.  An appraisal of their meteorological data obtained from the two measurement sources suggests that there is a correlation between the perceived odour on Great Preston Road and Smallbrook Lane with wind direction.  From the odour observations it was found that most odours were perceived during periods of low windspeed. 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

It is important that Council now progress the matter and it is apparent that the most appropriate route seems to be the service of a Discontinuance Notice that, if confirmed, will address the specific problem and compensate the landowner for the discontinuation of an authorised operation without the Council having to purchase the land.

 

It is worth reiterating that the reason why the Council has deferred full payment of compensation to local residents is because this would not provide a solution to the problem.  The Council has pursued this goal by investigating all potential options that would likely to produce a outcome that would cause a cessation of the use of this part of the holding for dairy purposes.  Members may agree that the payment of full compensation to residents would only become appropriate when all other options have been exhausted.

 

If, for whatever reason, Members were unable to support the recommendation to serve a Discontinuance Notice, then, in my view, there should be no further prevarication and unnecessary delay and the full compensation award should be made to local residents in accordance with arrangements already agreed by the Head of Property Services with the District Valuer.

 

CONTACT DETAILS

 

                    

Chris Hougham – Development Control Manager

Tel: (01983) 853565

E-mail: [email protected]          

 

 

Andrew Ashcroft

Head of Planning Services