Agenda item

Comments from Members included;

(summarised)

Comments from members of the Public included;

(summarised)

·       Langley Marsh was mostly surrounded by fields laid to pasture or crops. Our nearest farms are approximately 650 metres away: A mixture of sheep and some beef cows;

·       The animals make some noise during the daytime but settle at night. This is because they are kept mostly on the fields, not contained in barns. This is a crucial difference to the planning application in question;

·       We are well used to living with the daily noise from agriculture. Cultivating can go on until after dusk, especially in the summer, but there is no noise at night. Noise is one of the main factors for many of us opposing this application;

·       Calves cry loudly for days, especially when just taken from their mothers and also when scared or ill. This is well-known and well-documented in the farming community. Mr Cherry states that new batches of calves will arrive regularly. This means that for

local residents, the noise could be fairly continuous – both from the animals and the vehicles bringing them;

·       Noise from the calves and from machinery;

·       Smell from so many animals, particularly when it is hot;

·       The living conditions of the animals and the impact on the natural ecology from the slurry;

·       Concerned with the impact on the wildlife. Currently there are nesting owls, woodpeckers, and treecreepers – to name but a few. The impact of this development on the existing wonderful habitat would be irreversible;

·       As the calves were not already on the land, I believe this meant that the application should be re-considered for Phosphate neutrality;

·       Noise disturbance and odour;

·       Phosphate increase. The application had been screened out for needing phosphate mitigating as the livestock were already in the field. This has been disputed by a close neighbour of the Langley Marsh site who stated that for thirty years the field had never been used for calve rearing on this scale;

·       Requirement for a worker dwelling. No information on the location of the workers dwelling for the Langley Marsh site had been provided by the applicant. Previously stated that it was essential to the operation of a similar barn;

·       T&L Cherry had rented a building in our farmyard at Ford Farm for the past five years. The building had been used to rear batches of 100-150 calves. My family has never been disturbed by noise from the calves despite living with 70 meters of the calf building. We have neighbours within the proximity that have never had any complaints about calves. The manure from the building was used on our arable crops as part of a crop nutrient plan to help reduce artificial fertiliser use. Agricultural business was an important part of the rural economy in the Wiveliscombe area and should be supported;

Comments from Members included;

(summarised)

·       Concerns with the lack of a Phosphate Mitigation, odour and noise assessments;

·       Concerns with the lack of verification for the number of calves purported to be in the field at any given time;

·       This application should be for a change of use as there were now going to be calves in the field;

·       Concerns with the higher output of waste in the field due to the amount of calves in the field;

·       Evidence was needed from the applicant for the movement of the calves in the field;

·       Concerns that the straw base system would not prevent slurry getting into the watercourse;

·        

Councillor Lithgow proposed and Councillor Whetlor seconded a motion for the application to be DERERRED to require the applicant to provide evidence of livestock levels within the unit. An assessment of the consequences of the proposal in terms of Phosphate loading. If no information was forthcoming the deferment would fail and would not come back to committee.

The motion was carried.