An agent has submitted three simultaneous planning application for livestock buildings. They all appear to align next to each other (on their long sides) with the central building being open-sided on each of its long sides. This is of course a way of saving the applicant a lot in terms of planning fees, which is not the issue I am concerned with. It raises several procedural conundrums which I hope some of you can help with.
It is not clear in any of the applications whether the three buildings are to be joined up at all. Verbally the agent reports that they are to be merely adjacent to each other but there is virtually no documentation in the applications to confirm this and frankly the plans are not good enough to answer the question (using a light table). It looks like they could be joined up but on a 1:1250 plan it is far from clear. Together, all three buildings, were they in one application, would make it a major planning application. This has implications in terms of time scales, consulting the EA or using standing advice, consulting our own drainage team or the lead local flood authority instead and probably some other variations I can't think of right now.
The applicant has confirmed that it is for cattle (so no pigs or chickens likely to trigger EIA screening requirements - possibly that is).
The local residents will no doubt be looking at it as one building. As the LPA, one would assume we should deal with each on its merits but in reality it looks like it is intended to function as one building. If considering granting, is it material to consider the appearance of the whole thing or each on its own (bearing in mind that the inner faces may not be visible if all three go up)? Likewise with the drainage/waste/access matters?
The agent has stated that it the LPA objects to this approach he will simply dribble in each application one after the other to achieve the same end result.
Overall, the whole thing may well be acceptable but the procedures appear to have been over-complicated through the desire to reduce the planning fees (which is understandable and not necesarily objectionable of course).
Anyone got any pointers?
Thanks
