SIGNIFICANT plans to build a large extension to a farm in an area of natural beauty (AONB) near Malmesbury have been given the green light – subject to conditions.

Nine individual planning applications for different parts of the development at Church Farm in Easton Grey were submitted by farm owner Simon Tomlinson, who also owns Hillcourt Farm and Cranmore Farm.

These included plans for a dairy parlour, a farm management dwelling, a Heifer shed, a grain store and dryer, a straw barn and an anaerobic digester.

All nine application were passed by Wiltshire Council last week, despite Easton Grey Parish Council objecting to all nine of the applications on the grounds of the accumulative impacts of them.

Aside from concerns about the effect the site will have on local highways, the parish council also mentioned the possibility of flooding in the area.

A summary statement of the parish council’s views on the plans said: “The applicant has failed to produce evidence to show how this scale and form of development can take place without harm to the local environment and highway network.

“In this case the scale of the development will give rise to significant adverse impact on the local community and surrounding countryside which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.”

Wiltshire Council member and chairman of the Malmesbury Area Board, Cllr John Thomson, brought all nine of the applications to committee to ensure residents could have their say on the plans.

He said the fact that the proposals had been submitted in nine different applications had sent alarm bells ringing with many residents, however he felt the conditions put on the planning permissions would alleviate some concerns about the site.

These conditions include: waste for the digester must come from the farm’s holding and not be imported, the farm dwelling must be built after the completion of the dairy parlour, access to the site must be improved, passing bays should be added to roads around the site, and a comprehensive drainage proposal put forward.

The applicant, Simon Tomlinson, said he would have “no problem” complying with the conditions, however said he would need to see their exact wording before moving forward.

He also said that concerns of traffic going through the village are “totally groundless”, stating: “It’s not our traffic that goes there.”

In response to concerns about the effects of the development in an AONB, he said: “As organic farmers our major concern is looking after the environment and we don’t think anything we do will have a negative effect on the environment.”

A number of issues about the site were raised by council planning officers.

The landscape officer objected to the location of the digester, as it was “so close to the public highway”.

In the report, the landscape officer’s objection stated that it has “no architectural interest and does not support appropriate local vernacular”.

They suggested the modern building should be moved further into the farmstead, however the council chose not to include this condition when granting planning permission for it.

In the report, the landscape officer added: “I do not raise a landscape objection to the principle of the proposed farm expansion at Church Farm, but these separate and combined applications must not generate harmful residual landscape effects to local countryside character or harmful residual visual effects to public visual receptors within an area of outstanding natural beauty.”

A number of neighbouring residents publicly opposed the plans.

Easton Grey resident Tessa Green CBE, said the plans will have “significant and deleterious effects” on the village.

She continued: “A farm development of this magnitude, including the 10 metre-high digester itself, with its increased noise, smells, effluent and traffic will severely damage this jewel in Wiltshire's crown.

“Church Farm is situated on a thin lane close to two dangerous junctions. The council will be aware that there have already been a number of accidents on this particular stretch of road.

“Eleven of these accidents have resulted in significant damage to our perimeter wall at Easton Grey House. Further HGV and farm machinery turning in and out of the lane can only lead to greater risk for motorists and pedestrians, particularly those using the bus stop.”

The highways officer concluded that the development would not result in severe harm to the highways network.

Henry Jodrell also publicly opposed the plans, saying that the scale of the anaerobic digester “exceeds that required to process the quantities of waste generated at Church Farm”.

He continued: “As a result there will be a need to transport significant volumes of waste materials to Church Farm using heavy goods and agricultural vehicles on the local network of narrow, poorly aligned roads which are not capable of accommodating such an increase with harm to the structure of the road network and related verges and a reduction in highway safety.”

A Sherston Parish Council spokesperson said they “understand” why the applicant wants to centralise their farming operations in one place, however said they had concerns around changes to traffic in the area.

“We feel it might affect Sherston if there is lot of material is imported and exported to feed the digester,” they said.

“It is a good way of dealing with the waste on the farm, but we were fearful of a lot of lorries if waste was going to be imported.”