The NPPF sounds a bit like an American national football players body – rather than the UK’s National Planning Policy Framework. But as I watched the Superbowl on Sunday, I realised that the planning battle over the proposed pig farm in Shropshire next to Upton Cressett is turning out to be a showdown between the heritage champions – the likes of the HHA, Churches Conservation Trust and heritage crusader Loyd Grossman – the Heritage Alliance quarter back – on one side championing local employment, heritage tourism, community benefits and viable economic development. On the other side of the field is the hulking NPA – the National Pig Association – supporting agricultural and devlopment and benefits for a lone local famer (and one ‘half of a job’) above any community, historic, tourism or educational considerations.
The factory pig farm case at Upton Cressett will be a test case for the NPPF and is likely to go the Planning Committee at the end of February, so I have been informed by the case officer Thomas Cannaby. There may, however, be a delay due to the need to pull together more important information – not to mention a detailed Highway report – that has been requested.
The decision will ultimately decided not on emotions but by a close reading of the NPPF planning and various technical details relating to the close proximity of the proposed farm to Upton Cressett, which is one of the most heavily protected heritage sites in the county. Because the pig farm controversy has now been in the national news, the pig farm will be closely watched as an important test case of heritage protection for assets of national significance in the NPPF.
One reason for the delay in setting a date for the committee meeting is that critical technical information that has been requested by English Heritage (whose CEO Simon Thurley is aware of the case) is yet to materialise, especially in regards to storage and spreading of the pig waste. Clearly this ‘waste’ issue – and toxic pollution issues – could seriously damage the award winning heritage appeal of Upton Cressett.
A letter of support for the UC pig factory farm has been sent in by the National Pig Association. It was written by Lizzie Press, the Regional Manager of the NPA. I spoke to her today in the hope that she may be able to assist in arranging a site visit to a similar sized intensive pig farm to that proposed at Upton Cressett. The Upton Cressett factory farm is backed by Stockcroft, one of the country’s biggest intensive pig farming companies. ‘Site visits to similar farms have been offered before to local residents to try and calm fears’ said Ms Press, who was helpful. ‘I know Stockcroft well. I’ll speak to them and get back’.
This would certainly be a helpful step forward as my own planning consultants have failed to locate an intensive pig farm which we could visit by way of ‘education’.
The real problem, however, with the Upton Cressett pig farm proposal is not so much how the 2000 or so weaner pigs are reared but rather the impact on the experience of those wishing to enjoy the unique Grade 1 heritage assets of Upton Cressett, which has a Scheduled Ancient Monument (the medieval ornamental water garden and moat) less than 400 metres away – with proposed muck spreading in the old historic parkland less than 20 metres away from the front entrance gates.
The letter from the NPA does not mention the word ‘heritage’ or refer to the Grade 1 assets at Upton Cressett at any point at all. The assets are blindly ignored, as if the turreted Grade 1 Elizabethan gatehouse was never built in 1580; or the Hall – which dates back to the 15th century – was never built; or the Grade 1 Norman church of St Michael never erected, nor is their any acknowledgement of the three Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the hamlet of Upton Cressett.
What is referenced is the National Planning Policy Framework, drawing attention to the section entitled’ supporting a prosperous rural economy’. The NPA letter highlights that local plans should ‘support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings’.
All types of business and enterprise ? What about investing a very considerable amount of money to renovate and create one of the county’s award winning heritage and tourism attractions?
My parents and myself have made restoring Upton Cressett and turning it into a viable commercial heritage business for the public to enjoy – a life’s work. Many local jobs have been created in the four year building projet – which continues with the gardens, under the supervision of Dr Katherine Swift, the celebrated Shropshire author and gardener.
The point is that the proposed pig farm is simply in the wrong place. Why choose one of the most protected heritage sites in the West Midlands for such an anti-social enterprise ? Even the NPA, in their own letter, frankly admit that the sort of pig farm that is proposed will inevitable emit noxious odours for the locality which the NPA admit is ‘unfortunate’.
More local guides are being hired this year. We employ local catering firms, tent firms, cake makers, medieval dancers, musicians and so on. We have school visits. There is a small gift shop – all this has been going on since the 1970s, and has slowly been evolving, with buildings being renovated and converted from the 1970s, through the 1980s to the recent four year restoration programme – all backed by Shropshire Council and its conservation and heritage teams. The proposed pig farm, we are reliable informed in the official planning documents submitted by the Cantrills, will employ just ‘half a job’.
If any of the South Shropshire Planning Committee get to read this, or are alerted to this blog, I would also like to point out again – for the avoidance of doubt – that the NPPF is not just about promoting rural business and enterprise: one of its key foundation stones is also protecting heritage from inappropriate development. There are hundreds of rural businesses types – not only farming – that also have the right to flourish and not have their investments ruined by competing rural businesses.
No rural business has a ‘monopoly’ to industralise their own businesses to the point of damage and ruination of others – especially those that have been running since the 1970s, creating much enjoyment for the local community and being a ‘jewel’ of local tourism and heritage. Indeed, that is why the NPPF was created; so as to give planners ‘clarity’ in deciding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in getting the balance right between protecting the historic environment and local tourism – and allowing anti-social intensive farming and industrial development.
It was exactly this point that Dr Simon Thurley, chief executive of English Heritage made in front of Culture Secretary Maria Miller last week when he made a major speech to mark the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Ancient Monument Act. This launched the birth of the UK’s heritage protection and tourism industry – now brining in over £12 billion diredtly a year, and more valuable to the economy than car manufacturing or our film or advertising industries. Tourism is now the UK’s fifth biggest industry; in Shropshire alone it provides for 8% of jobs.
The all important message from Dr Thurley is contained in the following excerpt from his speech, which I listened to myself as a member of the audience in the famous Robert Adam room on the 11th floor of the Lloyds of London building in the City, the youngest building in the UK to be awarded Grade 1 status (Upton Cressett has three Grade 1 buildings):
‘Clarity to the development industry is one of our top priorities at a time when the government is doing everything it can to stimulate growth. As the national heritage agency we are in a unique position to provide a national picture’ stated Dr Thurley.
For the avoidance of doubt on the importance of ‘clarity’ in the NPPF, in relation to the protection of heritage assets of national significance (ie Grade 1) from the sort of anti-socia development proposed by the pig factory farm, I also refer the reader to the comments to case officer Thomas Cannaby made by Nick Way, Director General of the Historic Houses Association – after being officially invited to be a Consultee.
I am quoting the HHA’s invited report in full as the HHA’s comments as an official ‘Consultee’ have NOT been posted on the Shropshire Council site along with the other official consultees, only in the ‘public comment’ section. This is a bit like being invited to the Shire Hall for lunch by a civic official and then being told to wait outside and buy a bag of crisps for the vending machine. Repeated requests to correct this have not been rectified by the Council.
To Thomas Cannaby, Planning Officer (Shropshire Council).
From Nick Way, Director-General, Historic Houses Association
Dear Mr Cannaby,
Further to my e-mail to you of 20 December, thanking you for your invitation to comment on the implications for an important historic site, Upton Cressett Hall and its surrounding historic landscape and buildings, of this application (your e-mail of 17 December), I am now submitting the comments of the Historic Houses Association (HHA), below. As you may know, the HHA represents 1,500 historic houses and gardens in the UK, welcoming 13 million visitors a year, with owners dedicated to the stewardship of these places for future generations.
Our locus here is to seek to ensure, alongside other heritage organisations, that the safeguards contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for the proper recognition of the special circumstances and the major contribution of heritage to the success of the country, in economic, cultural and social terms, are observed in the handling of individual planning applications affecting significant heritage assets.
Given the planning guidance on listed buildings in the NPPF, the HHA believes there are a number of issues which need to be resolved in relation to the current application (12/04724/FUL & 12/04723/FUL – Upton Cressett) for the development of pig units adjacent to Upton Cressett Hall. These are:
1. Section 17 of the NPPF sets out the general requirement to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’. The proposed pig rearing units should not, therefore, be allowed to undermine the owners’ capacity to conserve the significant asset which Upton Cressett Hall represents.
2. Section 126 states ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’. If, as seems possible, the pig rearing units would affect the viability of Upton Cresset’s offer to visitors, either as a consequence of air pollution, noise pollution or visual intrusion, this would damage the viability of Upton Cressett Hall’s business operation and thereby its conservation. We understand the pig units could have a particularly damaging effect on the Hall’s heritage holiday letting business.
3. Section 128 identifies the need to take the settings of listed buildings into account: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting’. The applicant is, as a consequence, required to provide adequate information on Upton Cresset Hall and the effect on its significance and setting, which could be substantial. If the unit does involve, as has been suggested, two separate giant industrial buildings, the applicant will have had to identify fully the damage likely to be done to the setting of Upton Cressett Hall and any proposed mitigation.
The HHA submits that these concerns must be satisfactorily addressed and resolved before any permission is granted for these pig rearing units.
I am not an expert on the Superbowl or American Football, but I would class the above letter as a winning game touch down.