Highland cow petting farm at Land West Of Church End, Arrington

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a leisure and tourism use supporting a highland cow petting farm, with temporary buildings, a bar, pods and hardstanding.

“Executive summary 1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning consent for the change of use of land to leisure and tourism (sui generis) use to support the highland cow petting farm enterprise, and the siting of 4no temporary buildings, 1no portable horse trailer bar and 6no afternoon tea pods and the provision of hardstanding.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is beside Arrington’s development framework, accessed from Church End, with public rights of way crossing it and customer parking at The Hardwicke Arms.

“The application site is adjacent to the Arrington Development Framework and accessed via the cul-de-sac of Church End, the access to the site is located within the development framework. A Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs across the site with a second public right of way crossing the very western corner of the site. Prior approval of the agricultural access track has been previously granted under 24/04110/PRIOR.”

“The design/scale and landscaping are compatible with its countryside location, flood risk and impacts upon heritage assets, agricultural land, the Public Right of Way (PRoW) and residential amenities are all acceptable.”

Officer report

Earlier permission

Prior approval was granted in 2024 for an agricultural access track, although the constructed internal section follows a different alignment.

“The agricultural use of the site benefits from prior approval for the provision of an internal access track and hard surface under permitted development rights (24/04110/PRIOR), albeit, the access track as constructed now sits on a slightly different alignment to this.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The parish council, highways, ecology and tree officers objected, while conservation, archaeology, public rights of way, environmental health and Natural England raised no objection.

“Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste 6. Consultations Publicity Neighbour letters – Y Site Notice – Y Press Notice – Y Parish Council – Objection 6.1 Parking and highway safety – inaccurate assessments; parking is ineffective and outside the red line of the application, limited bus services and no safe cycling routes; Church End is narrow and unlit; unsustainable…”

“Definitive Mapping Officer – No Objection 6.9 Amended plan showing no obstruction of the public footpath. Recommend informatives as previously requested. Ecology Officer – Objection 6.10 Insufficient information. Plans are not consistent and biodiversity net gain assessment and metric requires updating. Concerned that grazing is not a suitable management mechanism on a permanent basis further clarification is required.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Objections focused on highway safety, parking, biodiversity, drainage, heritage, landscape, noise, privacy and future expansion; supporters cited jobs, businesses, education and community benefits.

“Those in objection have raised the following issues: • Principle – not diversifying as no existing farming business; no products derived from cattle • Highway safety and parking – lack of safe crossing over the A1198; Church End lacks any footway and is unlit; narrow footways along Church Lane are narrow, damaged and unsuitable for prams and wheelchairs; blind bend; no passing areas; concerns about future expansion and limited leased parking.”

“Heritage and landscape impacts – proximity to listed buildings; archaeological importance; visual impacts and loss of rural character; urbanisation; inappropriate landscaping; light spill from pods • Residential impacts – noise, overlooking impacts.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector, a supporter and a councillor speaking on behalf of Arrington Parish Council.

Members’ concerns

Members expressed concern about the facility’s location, parking provision, hazardous access and missing information in the Travel Plan.

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. Expressed concern around the location of the facility and parking provision. ii. The Principal Development Management Engineer (Local Highways Authority) advice that the access was unduly hazardous for highways users. iii. The Travel Plan lacked information.”

“The Delivery Manager summarised the recommendation of refusal set out on p77 of the agenda for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously refused the application, delegating minor amendments to the refusal reasons to officers.

“The Committee unanimously refused the application for the reasons set out below with minor amendments to the reasons as drafted delegated to officers:”

Minutes

Reasons for refusal

The reasons concerned an unsafe walking route, vehicle manoeuvring, incomplete transport information, inadequate parking, biodiversity net gain evidence and tree impacts.

“As such the development fails to provide safe, secure convenient and accessible provision for waste management and collection contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024. The application lacks sufficient detail regarding pedestrian and transport arrangements, including the volume of pedestrian and vehicle movements and the duration of vehicle parking.”

“Planning Committee Wednesday, 8 October 2025 contrary to Policies TI/3 and HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. The application does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate the biodiversity net gain required to offset habitat loss resulting from the development.”

Minutes