Woolley Valley campaign group begins High Court fight over agricultural buildings
A campaign group has begun a High Court fight to get council chiefs to take a tougher line over agricultural buildings in a hamlet near Bath.
A legal challenge brought by the Save Woolley Valley Action Group (SWVAG) got off to a belated start at the High Court in London yesterday, after judge Mrs Justice Lang ordered the large and complex bundles of court documents to be organised.
-
A previous Save Woolley Valley Action Group protest outside the Guildhall in Bath
Almost four hours after the intended start, counsel Richard Harwood told the judge that the case raised the “simple question” of whether Bath and North East Somerset Council made a lawful decision over land at Woolley Farm in Woolley.
The land – in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and subject to extra planning rules thanks to what is known as an Article 4 direction – had been sold by broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby to Golden Valley Paddocks in 2005.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
SWVAG is seeking a ruling quashing the council’s decisions to allow Golden Valley to keep ten 3.5- metre high chicken sheds, enough to house 10,000 chickens, as well as a stock pond on the site.
Mr Harwood said that the authority had been wrong to decide that the chicken sheds did not amount to development, were not subject to planning control and did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried out.
He said: “That decision was unlawful on three bases.”
Firstly, he said: “The council was required to construe the concept of development in accordance with the EIA Directive. Quite simply, it refused to do so.”
He claimed B&NES failed to consider the breadth of the concept of “building operations“, and that it took an “unlawful approach to domestic law”.
In relation to the stock pond, he argued that planners failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the various farm operations.
The group says that it is not against the land being farmed “appropriately”, as it says it has been for centuries, and actively supports sustainable grazing of the land in Woolley Valley by sheep and cattle.
However, the group, which claims some local farmers among its supporters, fears that intensive poultry farming will destroy ancient meadows.
On SWVAG’s website, Mr Dimbleby, who owned the land from 1993 to 2005, says: “I am particularly dismayed by the way in which the field nearest the village has been excavated and partially filled with what looks like hundreds of tons of spoil. This was the most ecologically valuable field on the holding with natural streams and it was farmed with great care to avoid poaching the land and to maintain its particular character.”
The trial is scheduled to last three days, after which the judge is expected to reserve her decision in order to give it in writing.
Comments
by PinBath
Wednesday, July 04 2012, 7:33PM
“A landowner has the right to build a residential property on their land if it is directly related to caring for livestock (very specific rules relate to this & can be looked up on-line). As such, BandNES has little they can do to oppose this, although they can impose an agricultural tie; i.e. the residents of that property have to demonstrate that the major part of their income comes from the land/business that the property stands on or is part of. They can impose varying levels of this tie-in.
However, if the landowner meets these requirements then they should be permitted to develop that land for agricultural purposes without the NIMBYs getting in their way!”
by jdd1977
Wednesday, July 04 2012, 3:47PM
“It's not about agricultural land being used for agricultural purposes, it's about spurious agricultrual development being the precursor to a residential development for one wealthy individual.”
by peterstreater
Wednesday, July 04 2012, 1:47PM
“That's completely, and probably deliberately, missing the point of this case and the campaign that brought it about Ian27. Meaning it's your comment here that's unworthy.”
by Ian27
Wednesday, July 04 2012, 1:25PM
“Agricultural land being used for an agricultural purpose. That's worthy of High Court attention...”