Farmer submits livestock photos in attempt to resolve planning dispute

Twm Owen, Local Democracy Reporter

A farmer has provided a council with photographs of livestock on his farm in a bid to resolve a planning dispute over an agricultural barn. 

They are included with a retrospective application to retain alterations to an existing agricultural barn including a mezzanine floor and internal changes that include two office spaces and a staff room, toilet and shower. 

Changes to the barn, at Blaen-y-cwm Farm near Henllys, Cwmbran were carried out throughout 2023. 

But Torfaen Borough Council’s planning department has questioned whether they were necessary to support its agricultural use. 

As a result the farmer, identified only as Mr Tunley, has provided a statement, prepared by his planning agent Spence Gadsby, of Skerryvore Designs, in Bassaleg, Newport addressing “key points” in the application which is currently being considered by planners. 

It confirms Blaen-y-Cwm farm has approximately 170 sheep and lambs and some 50 grazing cattle as well as a duck egg production enterprise and also operates on adjoining land, under a different registration, but as the same enterprise, and established mountain grazing rights. 

According to the statement council planners questioned whether the holding represents an active and established agricultural enterprise; the necessity and function of the internal layout, including office, welfare and breakout spaces; the scale of the building in relation to the needs of the farm and the applicant’s involvement in contracting work alongside farming. 

The farm is currently operated by two full time employees, and one part-time member of staff who assists during busier periods and seasonal demands and they are responsible for management of the sheep, ducks and cattle, egg production and handling and land management. 

It is anticipated staffing levels will increase to six full-time and one part-time employee, reflecting planned growth, including the expansion of livestock and associated farm activities. 

The statement claims the planning department would be aware of Mr Tunley’s intention to expand the farm enterprise due to previous applications including a rejected application to retain a duck barn. 

It also describes the existing use of the offices and says expansion means “provision of more than one workspace is both reasonable and necessary” while “the physical nature of the work, including the handling of livestock, eggs and associated materials, requires appropriate welfare and washing facilities to be available on site.” 

The council’s “queries regarding the absence of a formal business plan”, which would assist its assessment, is also dismissed as “the preparation of a formal, consolidated business plan is not typical for working agricultural holdings of this nature”. 

In the statment Mr Gadsby said: “Farming enterprises, particularly family-run operations, are generally managed on a practical and operational basis as such, a single formal document setting out all aspects of the business is not ordinarily produced unless required for a specific external purpose.” 

It added the required information has been provided in the statement, and other details submitted with the application, and “there is no requirement for a formal business plan to be submitted in support of development of this nature.” 

Mr Tunley disputes the council’s claim that the mezzanine was added later, arguing the timber’s colour indicates it formed part of the original structure.

The council is also challenged to present the evidence it said it has “suggesting that the mezzanine floor was not present”. 

During the application process the applicant has also agreed to remove a front balcony, described as “the most prominent visual element”, replace dormer windows with rooflights “to further reduce the visual impact” and only retain the rear terrace.