The use of this site for pig production has been highly contentious for a number of reasons. In part, the applicant’s failure to gain planning permission prior to the erection of the previous building and the current arks has made the issues surrounding the applications more complex but also a number of issues not directly related to the Planning Law, but often relating to the management of the site, has heightened concerns for statutory bodies, residents and their representatives. It is prudent to take into account all of the factors when coming to the decision to grant or refuse planning permission and specifically, in this case, the management of the site. The emphasis of this Request for Reconsideration from the agent relates to the merits of the three pig arks that are currently unauthorised and sited in Field 707. Impact on the appearance of the area It is considered that the pig arks (and the associated fencing) are detrimental to the appearance of the area when compared to the open state of the site that previously existed. However, the growth of hedging around the site, the trees within the site and the planting of vines across the site have reduced the visual impact of the three structures to a considerable degree. The visual impact will vary due to the rotation of the arks required by the Environment Department. However, due to the growth of vegetation on the site it is not to a degree where harm would be caused to the character or appearance of the countryside. In addition, a precedent for a pig ark has been set by the approval of application MS/2006/0592. This approval was for one ark to be rotated within Fields 103, 104, 108 and 109 on the north coast within the Green Zone, an area that has higher landscape value (less human intervention) than areas of the Countryside Zone within which Field 707 is located. On balance, it is unreasonable to maintain reason for refusal No. 3. Justification for the Structures The agent accepts that the applicant is not a bona fide farmer and therefore it is extremely difficult to justify the erection of small scale agricultural structures within Policy C15 and C16. These policies are not constructed with new entrants in mind but rather for existing farmers. It is therefore a balanced consideration between the Island Plan policies and the States approved Rural Economy Strategy that the agent states acknowledges the obvious “need for diversification in the rural economy”. In terms of the siting of the arks, the agent states that it is unrealistic to expect a site next to existing farm buildings to be available to his client, and also, that land for small holders is not readily available. This may be true to an extent however there are examples of small areas of land that may be suitable and it is unlikely that the applicant has investigated all the possible options. Notwithstanding this, if the structures do not harm the appearance of the area and no other issues are considered to warrant refusal then it would be unreasonable to deny planning consent on this issue alone. Potential Nuisance and Health Hazard Given the existence of residential properties and their bore holes in the area this is an extremely important issue and one that forms the basis of many of the concerns raised. For a development of this scale it is not considered that engineered drainage is required as was stated in the previous Officer Committee Report. It is not correct to assume, as the agent has, that the comments of Transport and Technical Services relating to the previous a scheme for an intensive unit significantly influenced the previous decision. The concern regarding nuisance and potential health hazards relates to the management of the site and the potential for waste to run off the site or be concentrated in a particular part of the site. Both scenarios could result in pollution or a health hazard. The Director of Environment states in his letter of the 22nd May 2006 that “the current regime is well managed and very unlikely to give rise to any off-site water pollution, particularly now that the site has good vegetative cover beyond the enclosures themselves”. In addition the Water Resources Section of the Environment Department has raised no objection. The Environmental Health Officer has taken a precautionary approach. Given that history of the site, its sloping topography and the proximity of residential properties this is reasonable and reflected in the current recommendation. |