## 

# Supporting Statement In Relation To A Full Planning Application For The Erection Of An Agricultural Building On Land

## 

# At

 
 
PICTOR FARM 
WARDLOW 
NR BUXTON 
SK17 8RP 

# On Behalf Of

 

# Mr Jb & Lb Jackson

 
Report produced by:- Bagshaws LLP Vine House Ashbourne DE6 1AE Tel: 01335 342201 Craig.barks@bagshaws.com 

## 1.0 Introduction

 
This Report has been produced to support a Full Planning Application to the Peak District National 
Park Authority in relation to a proposal to an agricultural building on the land at Pictor Farm to house livestock and store fodder.  
 
 
The applicants run a substantial agricultural business across two farms, Pictor Farm and Meadow Farm, both located in Wardlow. 
 
In total, the applicants farm approximately 197 hectares (486 acres), which is summarized as 
follows: 
 Pictor Farm - 38 hectares owned, 28 hectares rented  Meadow Farm - 1.1 hectares  Natural England Land -130 hectares rented, controlled grazing restrictions apply, zero 
during autumn and winter.  
 
 
The applicants run a livestock business comprising approximately 200 head of cattle and 200 breeding ewes. The proposed building will allow the cattle to be housed in more suitable groups according age, size, sex and type. In addition, the additional space will allow room for expansion. 
 
Meadow Farm was the original farmstead prior to the purchase of Pictor Farm buildings and land. Meadow Farm has a substantial range of buildings with a very limited land holding. Any expansion of this farm unit would inevitably result in the loss of key grazing pasture immediately adjacent to 
the livestock buildings. The paddocks at Meadow Farm are important to the farming operations as they provide a secure turnout paddock for ewes post lambing and cows which have new born calves. 
 
The majority of the owned grazing pasture is located immediately around Pictor Farm, thus it is practical to locate livestock buildings adjacent to this land to avoid unnecessary movement of stock. This is a particular issue when considering disease control measures such as Bovine Tuberculosis etc. 
 
Any further development at Meadow Farm is problematic as this would result in the loss of key pasture and secondly result in unsustainable development due to the proximity of the majority of the grazing pasture.  

## 2. Siting Options

 
Various siting options have been considered at a pre-application site meeting with the Authority. 
The Authorities preference was that any development would retain the traditional and historic field pattern which is a key feature of the area whilst minimizing the wider landscape and visual impact. 
 
The previous scheme proposed an extension to the existing building range. Whilst the scheme proposed did not involve the removal of any boundary, the historic evidence clearly showed that this boundary did exist in some form, albeit probably removed by a previous owner.    
 
 
Therefore, alternative siting options were explored within the constraints of the existing field pattern giving consideration to the landscape and visual impact. 
 
An alternative location was agreed in principle. 

## 3.0 Proposed Livestock And Fodder Storage Building

 
 
The proposed building will be used mainly to house livestock in individual pens. Each pen will have access to the front feed fence. 
 
When not in full use for livestock, the building will be used to store fodder and straw.   
 
 
The proposed site utilizes the topography of the land, allowing the building to sit lower on the lower land level, below the top yard and buildings. In addition, the building has been kept to a minimal height for modern agricultural purposes.  The external finishes of the building reduce the visual impact. 
 
As illustrated on the section plan, minimal excavation will be required to implement the scheme. Any excess spoil will be disposed of in a suitable location on the wider landholding.  
 

## 4.0 Landscaping

 
Landscaping options have been discussed with the Authority at the pre-application site meeting to 
explore suitable landscaping options to mitigate this scheme. 
 
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the wider landscape management which the applicants carry out on their entire landholding. This includes large amounts of dry stone walling to retain the traditional field patterns which are character to the area. 
 
In addition, the business manages sensitive environmental areas through controlled grazing, 
therefore the wider environmental benefits that this business provides should be given weight in decision making.  
 
 
The proposed landscaping specifically at Pictor Farm can be summarized as follows- 
 Reinstatement of the section of dry stone wall which forms the historic field pattern, 
immediately South of the existing building range between the existing gateway and highway (running East / West), 
 New planting area immediately to the North of the existing yard area (South East of Hall 
Farm).  
 Formation of a new boundary and new planting belt to the East and North East of the 
proposed buildings 
 The creation of a minimal yard area.  
 
 
Full details of the proposed planting and landscaping scheme are provided on the site plan C10034- 023 P5. 
 
Whilst the officer requested a planting area immediately adjacent to the building between the top yard and building, this is not achievable in this scheme. Firstly, having a hedgerow at a higher level to the proposed building will create management problems including leaves blocking guttering, affect ventilation and create future management issues. In addition, a new hedgerow in this location is difficult to establish as there is no soil as the yard area is made up of hardcore material. 
 
It is considered that the amended location alleviates officer's previous concerns in relation to the historic boundaries and provides extensive landscaping measures to minimize the impact of a further building in the location.