From Sutti H

Monday, 23 May 2011

It has been noted, but nobody seems to be interested.

The latest shed is a milking shed for goats, all 2 of them lol. The next application will be for a house because he needs to be on site to care for his animals and plants lol, lol.

There used to be loads of bats flying around that area, but since the trees were cut down, the bats have decreased if noy gone altogether.
The field is in a wildlife corridor or was before all the mess started.

The site looks a mess and shouldn't be allowed. Before anybody starts shouting, I am a big supporter of local food, local farmers etc, but this is not farming, it's a person with money playing and making a mess of everyone's wildlife and countryside. The field should have sheep or cows grazing, ready to for the local butchers.

I'm glad someone else walks round with their eyes open, maybe you could teach some of our councilors??

From Kathy A

Monday, 23 May 2011

There was oppostition to the council re the first request for a "small building" to "house some machinery". Never saw anything further. Agree that the field is now a mess and yes a house will no doubt appear at some point. We were always told this was a wildlife corridor hence planning permission needed but where is the permission/ evidence??

From Stephen C

Monday, 23 May 2011

This might help with the basic understanding of what is allowed. If there were objections originally, there must be an application reference number interested parties can look up on CMBC Planning portal. According to the above web page there is a requirement in any case for 'prior notification' to the council, so there must be a record of some sort on planning files. Don't however believe that even if the development needs planning permission our council officers will rush to your aid. In my experience they have little enthusiasm for enforcement, even in conservation areas. Once the building/s are up they will of course require an 80 foot wind turbine to power its heating and lighting to keep the machinary dry! Or am I being a tad too cynical?

From Phil M

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Theres another one on the road up to lane ends, opposite the entrance to 'Burnside'. One small field with massive wooden structure. I feel really sorry for the people that live in the little row of cottages ('Kilnside'? I think they are called?) as their lovely view is now blighted by this. Agreed its a wooden structure and will hopefully mellow with age but the footings are a hoge amount of concrete.

Just seems wrong that there is so little legislation and planning! It seems if you have the money you can get away with anything...

The loss in diversity from a wild flower perspective now the Birchcliffe field is intensively covered in animals its quite sad.

If this happens all across the valley we will loose a significent percentage of our plants, Insects and mammals.

From Sutti H

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

I don't think you are being too cynical Stephen. The first building was for machines scattered around the field, these never saw the building.They said they needed them inside so they wouldn't be vandalised. The youth of Dodd Naze should be congratulated because nothing was interfered with until Mr Clough put the tractor next to the path so the kids imagination took the better of them.

At the planning meeting in Halifax Mrs Clough stood up and said if planning was granted for the first building they would not require any more buildings.

If a milking shed is given the ok then mains electric and water will be needed unless he is going to do it 1940s style.

Planning for 2 concrete parking places, about the size of a good shed were turned down, hence the double parking at the bottom of Wadsworth Lane. If they make it difficult for busses etc to get through then planning for these hardstandings may be granted.

I'm sorry to say this is how some people behave when they have money. They see a field in trendy Hebden Bridge, like it, then change it to what they want.

Come on planning, councilors etc, get off your backsides and do something about the countryside.

From Andrew B

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

I think I might be missing something here?

I would much rather see local farming continue and animals in fields than overgrown patches of land with a few wild flowers.

If someone has money and wishes to try and make farming work then why shouldn't they? Hopefully one day there will be a house on the site at Dodd Naze, livestock in all local fields and lots of sheds to accommodate any such animals, milk & meat from which can then supply a Tesco on the old Browns site- what a brilliant idea! Next time I'm passing I will suggest this if I see the farmer around when I pass.

People are keen to support locally grown vegetable co-operatives and the likes, yet not farming- wake up and smell the cow dung (or fair trade coffee maybe?)!

From Mark I

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

I read these discussions regularly and have not replied before - I had to sit on my hands as I read the 'Living in Hebden Bridge' thread. But Sutti has provoked me too far!!

"Mr Clough put the tractor next to the path so the kids imagination took the better of them" The kids did not use their imagination - they simply vandalised and broke all the windows in a perfectly good tractor. Does parking next to a path allow this behaviour? Is a tractor a more acceptable target than a car? Sutti you send completely the wrong message.....

I agree the planning system is being abused by some - not always the rich - but we need to be careful we don't undermine the argument by flippant comments.

For my part I think the shed lacks character but as Andy B says at least the land is being used for something useful...... I hope.....

From John Knapp

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

The reason why the Council doesn't enforce breaches of planning is that last year, Councillors decided to save money.

Enforcement was only to be pursued on the most blatant cases and the rest would not be bothered with.

What a message to send out!

From Sutti H

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

I'm sorry if I didn't explain my position in a better way Mark.
I do not agree with any vandalisation at all, but what I can understand is a youth's imagination can get the better of them if tempted.

Smashing windows on a tractor is wrong, but this happened after Mrs Clough stood up in a planning meeting and said their machines had been vandalised and diesel stolen from their tractor.

Mr & Mrs Clough were invited to a local NHW meeting and asked to report any theft or vandalising to the police. As far as I know neither happened.
Then a tractor was moved from under the tree's (out of sight) to next to the footpath, where plenty of youths passed regularly. Remember these youths had been blamed in a round about way for vandalising the said tractor. This is where I can understand, not agree with windows being smashed.

As for animals in the field, I agree with local farming. This is not local farming, it's a person with money trying to play being farmer, watching Countryfile and thinking it makes you a farmer. When I've walked past I've seen road cones, bright orange fencing and ribbon, miles of sheep fencing, posts, dumped machines etc.

A local farmer has used the grass and put some cows on the field. If the residents are waiting to be fed by these local farmers then we are going to go hungry.

It goes back to what these fields were sold as. Grazing land. It was sold with the warning that no builings can be put up because of the restrictions on the fields, hence grazing land prices for the land until the latest owner paid a stupid price for the grazing land. Owners of the land had been told they could not erect a building on this land, were they just stupid locals because they told the truth about what they were doing? Or were they old fashioned honest farmers who respected the countryside and just wanted to produce good local food? You tell me, Andrew or Mark.

I'm sorry if my honest views upset you in any way, they are not meant to, you know I will never con you, I don't say one thing and do another unlike some people do.

From Phil M

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Did anyone actually see any 'kids' break the windows of the tractor?...
Its an old tractor that has never moved since the incident..

From Stephen C

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

I can see that there are some specific cases which have had some level of public scrutiny. Without knowing more facts I would fence sit by saying that I would likewise be in favour of more local farming providing for the community but also be against anyone with, or without money who takes advantage of systems which are meant to protect our environment, visual as well as tangible.

In responding to Phil M's general and original observations that more and more such buildings are appearing in our midst, each case should be dealt with on its merits.

Unfortunately, as John K pointed out the wrong message has been sent out by both planning and councillors when it comes to enforcement. They have been shying away form action long before the current economic crisis took hold. It is not money that is the issue it is backbone! Planning agents, Architect's and developers know how to play the system and whilst many local folk are ready to vigorously oppose (rightly or wrongly) a certain Mr Fletcher, whatever he comes up with, they have less enthusiasm or willingness to spend time opposing the multitude of infringements on properties supposedly protected by our (newly expanded) conservation area.

Has anyone noticed how quick the local councillors have been to jump into the debate about the radio mast but failed to take up the challenge offered in this thread about agricultural buildings popping up here and there? Whether we have Agricultural buildings, radio masts or wind turbines will always be subject to local disagreements but my overriding concern is that in every case we should have as a minimum a genuine consultative process and proper scrutiny by those who promised so much during the last elections.

From Cllr Janet Battye

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

I've asked Calderdale council planners several times over the years about this - my understanding is that agricultural buildings don't require planning permission in the same way as other buildings but people proposing to put them up do have to notify the planners about them. Such notifications are usually listed on the weekly lists produced by Calderdale of planning applications but on a separate list. So I think that Planners have to specifically stop them putting them up rather than granting permission.

Of the buildings going up on the field at the bottom of Wadsworth Lanes, I've asked planning enforcement to look at them. They've visited the site this week and I'm told that the two larger buildings do have permission - one was granted planning permission a couple of years ago and the new one has agricultural permission.

From Sutti H

Thursday, 26 May 2011

Thanks for your reply Cllr Battye. You say the second builing has agruculural permission. Can the general public complain or object to this permission? Will the planning office enforce it's use as a milking shed? Maybe a spot check every now and then.

I think I'm right in saying Cllr Battye objected to the first building and knows just as well as the general public that rules are being pushed as far as possible if not over the edge.

If she can't get anyone to enforce the rules then what chance has Mr or Mrs Normal sorry even Ms?

Again I will echo what I have always said, if this was a genuine farmer, farming the land then I would not have any objections as long as it was tidy, but let one get away with it then how many more clown farmers are going to pop up and ruin the countryside around Calderdale. Come on Cllr Battye, get your hobnail boots on and kick some asses.

As far as I know Phil nobody Knows who broke the windows, it's just been assumed. Maybe the loss of diesel was assumed and they didn't realise when you start the thing up the diesel goes down, wrong of me but I assume that could have happened.

From Phil M

Friday, 27 May 2011

Haha, probably Sutti!! Not casting aspersions, just seemed to happen right about when the planning permission decision was being made...and its not moved since . . . been replaced by 3 other tractors, a new quad bike and lots of other toys.

From Jim M

Friday, 27 May 2011

And it seems the Coalition has plans to make it easier for farmers to develop without permission.

and not everyone thinks it is wise

From Stephen C

Friday, 27 May 2011

Sounds like a free for all then! They don't need planning permission so they can build where and what they like. If they don't notify planning they are putting up an "Agricultural Building" and just do it, what then? Nothing I suspect, as what can enforcement do where no permission is needed anyway? Even if a conscientious land owner notifies the planners of intention to build, the chances of them issuing a 'STOP Notice' are highly unlikely if you read the planning department's enforcement procedures. There might be a slim chance if the planning officers in the so called 'conservation team' were transferred to the enforcement team where they could be better utilised. I repeat backbone not money is required! (Or hobnailed boots - Sutti H)

From Phil M

Saturday, 28 May 2011

So this is a massive risk then, case in point is the Wadsworth Lane example where one person has bought a field and littered it with steel buildings, miles of barbed wire and assorted agricultural detritus.. The wildlife suffers, the local community suffers...and maybe the animals brought in to fill said field suffers [anyone can buy a load of stock, doesn't mean they know how to look after them] ...all for what?

From Sutti H

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

I'm sorry to say Jim I agree with you. One of the big mistakes I have made as well as others on here is calling this person a farmer. If I buy a plant from Gordon Riggs does that make me a gardener?

I started a thread some time ago (Graffiti in the fields) when I first noticed the mess, it is something that concerned me for various reasons. Wildlife, eyesore,and general change of use from grazing land to a back door small holding.

I think the local councilors have had plenty of time to comment on this issue, I have not even bothered finding out which councilor covers this area because all I will get is some pathetic excuse why they can't do anything or something to that tune.

All I can say if local people let people with money buy up land then change it to a personal playground then Hebden Bridge will eventually be a sad place to live.

The price of the land is now beyond what a real farm can afford so local food will eventually only be available to the few instead of the the many. and eventually is comming here at a fast pace.

From

Date