Cattle housing and silage clamp at Upper Ty Rhos, Wolfscastle, Haverfordwest

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought replacement cattle housing, silage storage, an effluent tank, surface-water drainage and diversion of a public footpath.

“The development proposes to replace the existing silage clamps at the site. The new silage storage will feature an effluent tank and will be located to the west of the existing cattle housing building. The silage storage would be above ground following the excavation of the existing ground level.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The farm houses 630 youngstock beef cattle and includes existing buildings, a dwelling, a listed building, vegetation, open fields and a slurry lagoon.

“The site is located within a farm complex known as Upper Ty Rhos, which consists of a herd of 630 youngstock beef cattle. The farm is located 2.4 km to the south-west of the settlement for Letterston. The site benefits from existing access points from the north and south with further farm buildings located to the east of the site. The overall site is mostly laid to hardstanding with some elements of vegetation throughout.”

“The land to the north and east of the site is made up of dense vegetation, with open fields to the south and west. An existing slurry lagoon lies directly to the north of the cattle housing building. A Public Right of Way (PROW PP92/15) links the access track to the north with the access to the south around the western edge of the application site.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no recent relevant planning history, and screening concluded that the proposal was not environmental impact assessment development.

“The scheme is a Schedule 2 development where a screening opinion (ref. 25/0444/SO) has been adopted which found that the proposal is not Environmental Impact Assessment development because it is not likely to have significant effects on the environment.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the agricultural principle, design, landscape effects and farm operation acceptable, subject to listed conditions.

“It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: • Development in accordance with the approved plans • Details of raising of existing slurry lagoon wall and level of freeboard to be submitted for approval • Diversion of Public Right of Way • A scheme of surface water disposal to be submitted for approval • Sound mitigation secured and in accordance with recommendations of acoustic report and supporting information • Lighting scheme…”

Officer report

Noise and environmental effects

A slurry scraper system had caused statutory nuisance, but proposed soundproofing, drainage, planting and habitat measures were considered capable of addressing the impacts.

“However, The Head of Housing and Public Protection has confirmed that the slurry scraper system in operation has been found to constitute a statutory nuisance as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 resulting in serving of a noise abatement notice in February 2025.”

“The introduction of the slurry scraper system has resulted in a new noise source to the locality that is having a significant detrimental impact upon local amenity. The nuisance noise is directly associated with the extended hours of operation of the slurry scraper system and the noise created by the two motors powering the system including the drive mechanism that moves the scraper through the building to remove slurry produced by the housed cattle.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Three representations raised concerns about visual and environmental effects, scraper noise, boundaries, electricity supply, livestock numbers and protected sites.

“Visual and environmental impact of the development 2. Noise issues related to the slurry scrapers at the site 3. Lack of physical boundary between the farm and the highway 4. An inadequate electricity supply 5. Have the intensive farming practices at the site, potential for increased herd and if the impact on the environment been taken into account via the Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) process?”

“The fifth matter refers to comments made following the publication of a TLSE as part of the HRA process. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has raised no objection to the proposal or the farming practices at the site subject to assessment by the LPA via the HRA process, which has been set out in paragraph 6.19.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and an objector addressed the committee, followed by questions about the footpath, retrospective application, building scale, noise, lighting, drainage and slurry storage.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed runoff, planning awareness, protected sites, livestock numbers, noise mitigation, future increases, monitoring and the farm’s operational benefits.

“As no increase in livestock numbers is proposed there would be no net rise in nitrogen discharge and therefore no additional nutrient impact. • Councillor Neumann further queried a possible disparity between livestock numbers and whether increased slurry storage implied more stock. The Head of Planning clarified that figures relate to the whole farm holding, with no net increase in cattle. Works to the slurry store are not for added capacity but to prevent splashing.”

“Councillor Michael Williams sought clarification on outstanding noise issues and mitigation for the new building. The Pollution Control Officer confirmed the abatement notice relates to the slurry scraper system, with mitigation measures including enclosing motors and improving acoustic performance by sealing voids. While effectiveness will only be confirmed post-installation, consultant reports indicate the measures should resolve the nuisance.”

Minutes

The vote

The approval motion passed with 11 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention.

“Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor John Davies; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans.”

“The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions recommended by officers.

“That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.”

Minutes