Countyryside Building Issue 4 Volume 1

Publishers:

Ghyll House Publishing Ltd

ATSS House

Station Road East

Stowmarket

Suffolk

IP14 1RQ

Tel: 01449 677500

Fax: 01449 770028

E-mail: [email protected]

Subscriptions - free to members of the

RDBA

Non-members UK: £20.00

Non-members Overseas: £25.00

Advertising Sales

Chris Hutchinson, details as above

Jason Craig, Tel: 0289 7519178 or

07947 360422

Editor: Tony Hutchinson

National Secretary

Rural Design and Building Association

ATSS House

Station Road East

Stowmarket

Suffolk

IP14 1RQ

Tel: 01449 676049

Fax: 01449 770028

Email: [email protected]

Countryside Building has been carefully

prepared but articles are published without

responsibility on the part of the publishers

or authors for loss occasioned to any per-

son acting or refraining from action as a

result of any view, information or advice

included therein. The articles published do

not necessarily reflect the opinions of the

Rural Design and Building Association. The

publishers do not accept any responsibility

for claims made by advertisers.

Countryside Building Contents

ISSUE 4

2 SECRETARY�S COLUMN 2 DIARY DATES 3 AMENDMENTS TO MEMBERS DIRECTORY3 New Members 4 THE RDBA MEMBERSHIP PACKAGE 4 THE CONSTRUCTION GROUP 6 HSE PRESS RELEASE 6 PROPOSALS FOR A NEW DUTY TO INVESTIGATE ACCI ›DENTS, DANGEROUS OCCURRENCES AND DIS ›EASES 7 THIS WAS THE JOURNAL THAT WAS � 1977 8 BRANCH NEWS 8 WESSEX BRANCH NEWSLETTER No.12 APRIL 2001 8 Vintage tractor hits 87 miles per hour 8 East Anglian Branch 10 CONSTRUCTION GROUP 10 Newsletter May 2001 10 Working well together 10 Interesting statistics 10 Advice notes 10 Information on Asbestos containing products 10 Interim Draft Approved Documents 11 Fragility 11 Foot and Mouth 12 TRAINING IN THE CORRECT RIGGING OF SAFETY NETS 12 DISINFECTING ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS FOLLOW ›ING FOOT AND MOUTH. 14 CALF HOUSING UPDATE 16 NEW FARMHOUSE IN THE SCOTTISH BORDERS 18 CONVERT TO SURVIVE � II 20 CONVERSION OF TRADITIONAL FARM BUILDINGS

TO B1 BUSINESS USE: 20 Part 3: Costs & Grants23 FARMERS GET GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN NEW PLANNING

GUIDANCE 26 THE PRICE OF GOOD DESIGN : THE COST OF BAD DESIGN 31 THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WAS › 1962 31 COW CUBICLES 31 How and where did they originate? 33 Kow Kubicles by Major Bramley 35 SLURRY SEPARATION AND THE ORGANIC FARMER 37 THE GREENBELT ISN�T WORKING 39 COWHOUSE TO CLUBHOUSE

Main Features in our next issue

Waste Management

National Dairy Farm Assurance Scheme: Designing to Comply –

University of Plymouth Dairy Unit at Seal Hayne

The upgrading of a piggery in the West Country

Traditional Farm Buildings: Retaining in Agricultural Use – An

investigation into the failure of systems of support.

Plus more articles on conversions

In Association with the

RDBARURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION

Countryside Building 1

Secretaries Column / Diary Dates


Diary Dates Due to the problems of foot and mouth disease some of the events planned for the next few months, that are listed below may be

postponed or cancelled. We will try and keep our Website up to date and so before you attend any event it is important that you

check with the contact.

19th June 2001 at 11.00: RDBA Council Meeting, Diglis Hotel, Worcester. More details from the National Secretary 01449

676049.

3rd July 2001 at 10.00: Construction Group Management meeting, NAC, Stoneleigh.

3rd July 2001 at 14.00: Construction Group AGM, NAC, Stoneleigh. More details from the National secretary, 01449 676049

19th to 20th September 2001 Stand at the European Dairy Event, Stoneleigh, further details from Tony Hutchinson, 01449 676049

9th October 2001 Yorkshire Branch Visit, Nidderdale, planning/diversification. More details from David Marston 01943 874564

October Date to be agreed Yorkshire Branch Visit to Yorkshire Water Development. More details from David Marston 01943

874564

15th & 16th November 2001: Winter Conference, ‘sustainable quality in design of new build and conversions’. Based at The

Tiverton Hotel, Tiverton, Devon. More details from the National Secretary 01449 676049.

20th, 21st, & 22nd of March 2002: Provisional date for the Spring Conference 2002, North West Area. This is the Conference that

was going to be held in March 2001 but was postponed due to the foot and mouth out break. More details from the National

Secretary 01449 676049.

26th, 27th & 28th March 2003: Provisional date for the Spring Conference 2003, Yorkshire branch area. More details from the

National Secretary 01449 676049

14th & 15 November 2002: Provisional date for the Winter Conference 2002. Venue and theme to be advised. More details from

the National Secretary 01449 676049.

21st to 24th April 2002 IVth International Symposium on Concrete for a sustainable Agriculture, Ghent Belgium - Call for papers -

Contact Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Ghent0032 2645518 - E-mail [email protected]

Secretary�s ColumnThis is the fourth issue of Countryside Building and the first to be published by our new publishers Ghyll House Publishing Ltd. Even

though they have taken over at short notice and at the worst possible time, with the foot and mouth outbreak meaning that most

suppliers into the agricultural markets have drastically reduced their advertising spend, they have still managed to produce a much

improved magazine.

Reading my comments in the last magazine, which was written only three months ago, it is obvious that at that time the foot and

mouth out break had just started but we had no idea how bad it was going to be. We are now in a similar but different situation in

that we believe that we are past the worst but cannot yet predict a date when we will be free.

Undoubtedly great damage has been done to the farming industry and to all the others working in rural areas.

These problems will continue. We are constantly receiving enquiries about the disinfecting of buildings, which have held animals

that have been infected. We are giving out the Asbestos Information Centre’s advice note, which we reproduce later in this issue,

but we are hearing of buildings being damaged by the disinfecting process because vets are asking for the buildings to be thor-

oughly cleaned rather than just being disinfected. Stories abound of vets insisting that dust and cobwebs on top of the purlins must

be removed, before they will pass the building as disinfected and recommending that this is actioned by the use of high pressure

spray. Not only does this put the operatives and future users of the building at risk of inhaling asbestos fibres that will be in the dust

on the top of the purlins but it is damaging the sheeting. MAFF is not paying compensation because they claim that the building had

come to the end of its economic life. In reality, if the building had been disinfected by the use of a low-pressure mist spray the oper-

atives and future users would not be put at risk of inhaling asbestos fibres and the sheeting would not have been damaged and in

many cases would have continued to provide a weather proof building for a number of years to come.

On a happier note it is good news that our membership continues to increase and our web site is being used more and more. It is

receiving over 1000 hits per month and I know that members are receiving enquiries from it.

The diary dates section still looks very thin due to the postponements and cancellations caused by the foot and mouth outbreak. I

am hopeful that over the next few months a number of the postponed events will be rebooked. It looks as if this years conference

postponed from March will be moved to the end of March 2002, with the venue, speakers and visits unchanged, but this is still to

be confirmed. This will mean that the Yorkshire conference will be held at the end of March 2003. We will do our best to keep our

Website up to date and so please check in to see what is happening in your area.

Mike Kelly has advised that if there is enough support from Scottish members he is keen to restart the Scottish branch. He has

asked for all those interested to contact him at Knockendale Cottage, Syrington, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, KA1 5PN, Phone: 01563

830147.

Please let us know what you think of Countryside Building, it is only with your input that we can ensure that we supply the maga-

zine that you want.

Tony Hutchinson

National Secretary


New Members

Amendments to Members Directory since the lastissue of Countryside Building

New MembersMr G E Baker, Individual, East Anglia G E Baker UK Ltd (Quality Equipment), The Heath, Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 9RN

Phone: 01359 240529 Fax: 01359 242086 E-mail: [email protected] Web page: www.quality-equipment.co.uk

Pig equipment manufacturer, farrowing crates, cast and plastic flooring, drainage valves and surface drainage pipe. 50mm thick

plastic light weight panels for gates, panels, walling, etc.

Bowline Roofing and Netting Ltd, Small Construction Group, Wessex Mr M Fowler, 11 Manor Close, Kentisbeare, Devon, EX15 2BG

Phone/Fax: 01884 266564

Industrial and Agricultural roofing and cladding contractor. Erection of farm buildings. Safety netting.

Mr S J Cole TechRICS MAPS, Individual Yorkshire Smiths Gore, 26 Coniscliffe Road, Darlington, Co Durham, DL3 7JX

Phone: 01325 462966 Fax: 01325 381139

College of Estate Management, College Corporate Member, South Midlands Contact Mr J D Young BSc FRICS, Whiteknights,

Reading, Berks, RG6 6AW

Phone: 0118 9861101 Fax: 0118 9755344 E-mail: [email protected] Web page: www.cem.ac.uk

Courses available: CEM Diploma in Surveying, BSc Estate Management, CEM Diploma in Construction, MBA Construction and

Real Estate, RICS Diploma in Building Conservation, RICS Diploma on Project Management - all distance taught.

Mr Peter Dowsland, Small Construction Group Member, Yorkshire Dove Cottage, Salton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 6RN

Phone: 01751 430450

Fabricating Steel work, gates, barriers, etc. Erecting steel framed buildings, sheeting work, ground works and concreting

Mr R S Drummond-Hay MRICS, Individual, North West Rural Workspace & Housing Association, Ashmeadow House, The

Promenade, Arnside, Via Carnforth, Lancs, LA5 0AD

Phone: 01524 762899 Fax: 01524 762898

High amenity workspace in rural locations

Mr C Hesketh, Individual, North West 19 Chorley Old Road, Whittle-Le-Woods, Chorley, Lancs, PR6 7LB

Phone/fax: 01772 466266

Regional Sales Manager for the North and Scotland for Eternit Building Materials, manufacturers and suppliers of fibre cement

sheets and fittings.

Dr Mike Kelly BSc Phd FIAgrE, ARAgs, Individual, Scotland Dr Mike Kelly Building Design, Knockendale Cottage, Symington,

Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, KA1 5PN

Phone 01563 830147 E-mail: [email protected]

Independent building consultant

Mr J Kerr, Individual, East Anglia Branch J Kerr & Co, Blaxhall Hall, Little Glemham, Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP13 0BP

Phone: 01728 746517 Fax: 01728 747736 E-mail: [email protected]

Farmer Landowner - Operator of Eastern Farm Park visitor attraction. Chairman Suffolk Show. Interest in rural building restoration

Mr P Lake, Small Construction Group Member, Wales King Sliding Door Gear, Invest House, Bruce Rd, Fforestfach Ind Estate,

Swansea, SA1 3XB

Phone: 01792 583555 Fax: 01792 567046 Web address: www. kingslidingdoorgear.com

Sliding door gear for the agricultural and industrial buildings for over 40 years.

M Morgan, Small Construction Group, Wales Brooklands Farm, Llantarrnam, Cwmbran, NP44 3AE

Phone: 01633 866171

Mr P J Phillips, Small Construction Group, South East Phillips Contractors, 4 Westside, Tillington, Petworth, Surrey, GU28 9AL

Phone: 01798 343392 Fax: 01798 342899

Agricultural building and groundworks, landscaping, plant hire, general building and sewage plants.

Mr J S Rowe, Student, South Midlands 25 Marshalswick Lane, St Albans, Herts, AL1 4UR

Phone: 01727 841937 E-mail: [email protected]

Student studying MSC Rural Management at the Royal Agricultural College

Miss S M Sparrow, Student, Wessex 10 Cornwall Rd, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP1 3NL

Phone: 01722 333037

Student studying for BSc(Hons) in rural estate management at Seale-Hayne

Mr S P R Thorp BSc(Hons) MRICS, Individual, North West Davis & Bowing, 6 to 8 Main Street, Kirby Lonsdale, Carnforth, Lancs, LA6 2AE

Phone: 015242 71711 Fax: 015242 72212 E-mail: [email protected] Web page: www.davis-bowring.co.uk

Chartered Surveyors - All aspects of estate management, rural property consultants - sporting agency

Mr I R Welsh, Student, Yorkshire United Utilities, Rivington WTW, Bolton Rd, Horwich, Lancashire, BL6 7RN

Phone: 01204 692102, Fax: 01204 664308 Mobile: 07977 532998 E-mail: [email protected]

Studying for BSc(Hons) in Rural Enterprise and Land Management at Harper Adams.

AmendmentsMr T J Evanson change name to J R Bains, Technical Manager

Mr G Nye, Change of address to Monks Tor, 17 The Broadway, Exmouth, Devon, EX8 2NW

Phone: 01395 224691, fax: 01395 224693, e-mail [email protected]

Mr O F Stones Change of address to FPD Savills Ltd, 13/15 Micklegate, York, Yorkshire, YO1 6JH, Phone 01904 617800 and fax 01904 617801.

Dr M Kelly of SAC Change name and address to: Hugh Campbell, Building Design services, Scottish Agricultural College,

Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Phone 01224 7112211

Mr D Morris change name to Mr D Biggs

Membership


The RDBA Membership Packageu Regular meetings and conferences at branch and national level.

u The opportunity to comment on draft legislation and have ones views represented on a number of BSI Committees.

u Plenty of opportunities to meet with experts involved in rural buildings to discuss the issues of the day.

u This journal �Countryside Building� is published at least four times a year and mailed to 10,000 key people in the agricultural industry. It con›

tains interesting and informative articles as well as giving members the opportunity to advertise their products and services. The Members

Directory of Services will be printed in one issue each year.

u The RDBA show stand where Members can show their products and services at the major agricultural shows.

u Receive enquiries via the National Secretary.

u The opportunity to speak to the HSE and other Government Departments as a trade association rather than an individual company.

u The opportunity to develop method statements as a trade association and with an input from the HSE.

u The opportunity to promote best practice in the construction of farm buildings.

The Construction GroupIn 1999 a new group was formed for the farm›building constructors. It was felt by a number of them that they needed a forumto discuss the industry�s problems and to allow them to talk to various Government Departments.This has proved very successful with a large number of farm building constructors joining, such that we can be confident that themajority of farm buildings built now and in the future will be erected by one of our members.They have representatives on BSI Committees and a Member of the HSE is on their Health and Safety Committee.They also have their own safety training rig, which is taken to agricultural shows to demonstrate to farmers the safety featuresthat they should see on a building being erected on their farm,

The main aims of the Construction Group are:

u To promote good safe working practices within our industry.

u To raise the profile of agricultural building manufacture and construction as a skilled industry.

u To discuss and exchange views and information withinour industry.

u To ensure that our clients realise their responsibilities under the Construction Health and Safety Regulations.

u To promote a Safety and Quality Scheme to the highest standards within our industry.

u To liaise with the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies, including suppliers.

Based on the aims, the group has agreed a Mission Statement and a Health and Safety Statement, which they have all signed.They are now working on standardising method statements for the different processes involved in constructing a farm building.They have published an advice note on the Farmer�s responsibility when he has a building erected on his farm. Explaining howas the client the Farmer must ensure that he uses a competent Contractor and that in many instances the Farmer is acting as theprinciple Contractor and so has full responsibility for health and safety on site.

Membership of the Construction Group is open to Corporate Members, with the Construction Group annual subscription, £100.00.

The RDBAThe RDBA was formed in 1956 and until 1991 was known as the Farm Buildings Association.We are still today the only Association in the UK having a detailed knowledge of the function and environmental require›ments of a modern agricultural building, together with the breadth of expertise in their siting, planning, design and construc›tion. This expertise also extends to conversion for diversification and other rural building design issues.There is a branch structure with most branches holding:

u Regular meetings.u Interesting and informative visits.u Seminars and presentations on subjects of interest.Members are drawn from all sectors of the rural building industry giving them the opportunity to meet with a diverse range of interesting people.

u Designers, Surveyorsu Teachers, Lecturers, Collegesu Contractors, Farm Building Erectors,u Equipment Manufacturers,u and Farmers.The Construction Group are responsible for the construction of over 50% of the buildings erected in the UK. Most otherbuildings either new or modified have some input from a Member, either as a designer or component Supplier.

We are actively recruiting new Members.

Membership Application Form(Includes information for the Membership Register)

Please give your details below in block letters. If you do not want your details to be published please mark a cross here ( )

We/I wish to become members of the Rural Design & Building Association and agree to pay the annual subscription on 1 October

each year.

Name of Company or College (if applicable)

Address

Post Code Tel No Fax No

E-mail Web address

Title Mr./Mrs./Miss. Initials Surname

Position

Professional or other qualifications (abbreviations)

Home Address

Post Code Tel No Fax No

Business, please describe materials, products or services offered, including Trade Names. If a College please describe courses available.

Signed Date

Membership (circle) Corporate - £220.00, College - £110.00, Individual - £39.00, Retired -£20.00, Student - £15.00.

Construction Group Membership is open to Corporate Members of the RDBA plus a £100.00 annual fee. Tick the box

if you wish to join the Construction Group and you will be invoiced for the £100.00 fee once you are a Corporate Member.

There is a special concessionary rate for small firms with less than 6 employees, who wish to join the Construction Group of £150.00.

The cheques should be made payable to the RDBA Construction Group.

Please return to the National Secretary with your cheque made payable to RDBA.

National Secretary, Tony and Jeannie Hutchinson

ATSS House, Station Road East, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 1RQ

Tel: 01449 676049, Fax: 01449 770028, E-mail: [email protected]

RDBARURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION


National News


HSE Press Release

The following press release has been received from the

HSE.

HSE is warning that Uralita FC6 and Uralita FC6R roofing

sheets are not safe to work on without precautions to

prevent falls through the material.

Following an incident, HSE is investigating the possibili-

ty that the safety information provided by the manufac-

turer has led some users of the sheets to think that fall

prevention precautions are not needed.

The Health and Safety Laboratory in Buxton tested sev-

eral batches of the roofing sheets and all but one was

fragile. It is likely that some buildings, in particular farm

buildings, will be roofed with sheets from the fragile

batches tested by HSE.

The product is distributed by Roofing and Cladding

Supplies Ltd, 42 John Street, Brierly Hill, West Midlands

to builders, merchants and roofing contractors through-

out Britain.

HSE construction inspector, Ron Boyd, said: “Falls

through fragile material give rise to more fatal and seri-

ous injury accidents in the construction industry than any

other single cause. Everyone with responsibility for this

type of work, at whatever level, should treat this warning

as a priority.”

HSE recommends that the material chosen for roofing

should be ‘non-fragile’ as defined in the publication

Advisory Committee for Roofwork Material Standards.

The HSE publication Health and safety in roofwork con-

tains important information on how to work safely on

roofs and how to design and plan for safe working.

Copies of Advisory Committee for Roofwork Material

Standards (ACR (M)001: 2000) can be ordered from The

Fibre Cement Manufacturers Association.

ATSS House, Station Road, Stowmarket, IP14 1RQ. Tel.

01449 676053.

Copies of Health and safety in roofwork, ISBN 0 7176

1425 5, price £8.50, can be ordered online at

http://www.hsebooks.co.uk or are available from HSE

Books.

Proposals for a new duty toinvestigate accidents,

dangerous occurrences anddiseases

The above consultative document has been released by the

HSC, with a request that comments are received by the 3rd

September 2001. The document is available at the HSC web

site at or from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk,

CO10 2WA.

The proposal is that there is an amendment to the Management

of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999, to require a

responsible person to carry out an investigation into any acci-

dent, dangerous occurrence or disease within a reasonable

length of time after the occurrence.

An HSE Inspector will be empowered to give directions to the

responsible person as to the manner in which the investigation

is to be carried out.

The responsible person must permit safety representatives and

representatives of employee safety to participate in the investi-

gation.

He must keep a record of the investigation and inform any per-

son who has carried out a risk assessment relevant to the work

or activity concerned of the results of the investigation.

It also requires a person who has carried out a relevant risk

assessment to notify safety representatives and representatives

of employee safety of the results of the investigation.

Reader Enq 001

Reader Enq 002


This was the Journal thatwas � 1977

The Formation and Development of the Association

by David Soutar OBE

This is an abridged version of the article written in the 1977 Journal

by David Soutar and has his approval. It should be remembered

that much has happened since 1977.

BackgroundFrom the time David Soutar was appointed to form the Farm

Building Department at the North of Scotland College of Agriculture

Aberdeen, he realised that the development of farm buildings in

this country was handicapped by a lack of research and develop-

ment facilities of a standard that was enjoyed in the USA.

A number of organisations were approached for funds to establish

a research department at the College but without success.

Determined not to be defeated, the success of the British Society

for Animal Production inspired the idea of forming a group of peo-

ple interested in farm buildings. However, John Mackie, as he was

then, when approached, insisted that any group so formed should

be open to anyone in the UK.

So on the Thursday of the Royal Show in July 1956 a group of

farmers, manufacturers, designers and advisors from various parts

of the country met under Lord Mackie’s chairmanship. They

agreed to form an association and to meet again during the

Smithfield Show week in December.

At the December meeting, “after considerable debate” the

Committee adopted the name The Farm Buildings Association and

the interim committee was formally

re-elected. Thus the FBA was born.

The First YearThe first spring conference “set standards of efficiency, technical

merit and camaraderie which gave the Association a wonderful

start” and set out the guidelines that proved so successful in the

future.

Seventy members attended the Conference. Five farms were vis-

ited on the first day and nine on the second. After the second day

the delegates enjoyed a superb barn supper provided by Lord and

Lady Mackie!

On each day, following the farm visits, there were lengthy discus-

sion periods on what had been seen and learnt that day. The third

day of the Conference was devoted to discussion.

Aims and ConstitutionJohn Mackie as Chairman wrote in the first Journal that the

Association had two broad objectives:-

“We are a body formed to help ourselves to a better understand-

ing of all the problems of the layout, design and erection of farm

buildings.”

The second objective was to encourage the Government to inau-

gurate research and development facilities for farm buildings.

These two objectives have never changed.

AdministrationIn the early years administration was very much on an “ad hoc”

basis as members were asked to take on specific jobs and mem-

bership rose from 200 in 1957 to 900 in 1966.

In 1970 the Chairman, EH Maunder, reported that the Committee

had considered the Aims and Constitution of the Association with

a two-fold result,

1) The original objectives of the Association as drawn up in 1957

were considered to be the same in 1970.

2) The growth of the Association and its involvement in the

National Farm Buildings field made it desirable for the greater par-

ticipation by the Committee in running our affairs. To this end four

Standing Committees were set up as follows:

a) Building and Equipment Manufacturers

b) Education and Meetings

c) Investigation and Development

d) Branch Organisation.”

Later in 1976 further delegation of work was necessary resulting in

the formation of a Council, an Executive, and the Standing

Committees being subdivided into Working Groups.

The JournalThe purpose of the first Journal was to provide regular contact with

members who were unable to attend meetings. It came out in

December 1957 and on its cover was a design showing the eleva-

tion of a farmsteading by Ronald Harrison of Aberdeen. A design

that became the well-known FBA symbol or logo and has stood the

test of time very well as it is of course still used by the RDBA and

can be seen on the front of this magazine.

The first Journal contained a 31 page report on the first Spring

Conference including “a memorable sketch of the Barn Supper

with Dimple Haig bottles every 5’ 0’’ and a 22’’ face per feeder.” It

also contained articles by members and others, a reference sec-

tion, useful addresses and notes from Overseas Correspondents.

The Journal was typed on foolscap paper and roneoed and bound

by the Farm Buildings Department of the North of Scotland

Agricultural College “outwith official time.”

After production of number 7 Peter Girdlestone took over editorial

responsibilities and under his guidance the journal achieved a very

high standard.

However with time a succession of editors each added improve-

ments to the contents and method of production. A Trade Directory

was produced in 1972 and later in 1977 Bill Marshall, the

Association Secretary and Editor of the Journal, introduced a sep-

arate Technical Journal leaving the original journal to report on

conference and branch meetings and other in-house matters.

ConferencesThe first Spring Conference set a standard for those following

which were held in the different Branch areas. Over a three day

period farm visits predominated and the discussions in the

evenings were stimulating and lengthy. In 1964 the first

Conference handbook was produced.

Nor was the social side ignored. There was, of course, the

Conference Dinner with speakers of knowledge and wit. On other

evenings members provided their own entertainment with folk

music, singing and dancing.

Then a one-day Winter Conference was held in London during the

Smithfield Show week in December and continued to be an annu-

al event.

The programme was made up of technical papers with question

and answer periods after each paper or at the end of the morning

or afternoon sessions.

In 1961 there was an overseas Study Tour to Sweden, Norway and

Denmark. Subsequently visits have been made to the

Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Czechoslovakia

and the USA.

Finally the first recorded Branch meeting was organised by CS

Smith of Dunmow, Essex in 1958 but it was not until a Branch

Organisation Working Groups formed in 1976 that the number of

Branches increased throughout the length and breadth of the UK

and began holding their own meetings in addition to the National

events.

Editors CommentDavid Soutar names many of those who were prominent in the for-

mation and activities of the Farm Buildings Association – now the

Rural Design and Buildings Association. To do so here would

greatly increase the length of this article but one cannot but praise

the Founders of the FBA for their wisdom and foresight. So little

has changed in their original aims and organisation except details

to suit changing times.

National News


WESSEX BRANCH NEWSLETTER No.12

APRIL 20011 New Members

A very warm welcome to our new members;

Mrs. A. Bailey DevonMr. S Hill Devon. Mr. W. N. C. BeverageDorsetMr. C. D. A. HiscoxHerefordshireMr. P. Crawford DorseMr. D. Hurdis GloucestershireMr. M. Goff WiltshireMr. I. C. P. Long Gwent Mr. A. Griffiths WorcestershireMr. C. Richardson Avon Mr. P, D. Grugeon WiltshireMr. J. Scudamore Gloucestershire Mr. M. D. Hemmett SomersetMr. N. Small Worcestershire

We look forward to meeting you at one of our meetings. Please

make yourself known to the Branch Chairman so that he can

introduce you to the other members.

2 Spring MeetingThe Branch Committee had arranged a visit in April to see a

Robotic Milking Unit in action. Unfortunately this has to be post-

poned because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak. Do not despair

for the owner looks forward to seeing us in better times.

3 Editors Comments

When we started these newsletters there was a fear that the

RDBA would not survive as a National body. The Wessex

Branch Committee were determined to keep going, come what

may. So the Newsletters were designed to keep members

informed on meetings, members activities and also to include

some technical articles.

Now we have a new, active National Secretary and a rejuvenat-

ed National Association together with a new journal, the Wessex

Committee has decided to keep members informed through an

annual Newsletter.

Should any member, especially the Corporate Members wish to

include a short piece about their services or products, or would

like to include a single A4 sized brochure describing their prod-

uct we would be very happy to include it.

We suggest a small contribution towards the cost of producing

the Newsletter would be acceptable.

Grateful thanks to Mervyn Rose of Mervyn Rose Engineering for

duplicating the Newsletter.

4 AGMThe AGM was held on October 26 at 11 am at the Nags Head,

Thornfalcon, Taunton prior to the autumn meeting. Although

members were few in numbers we were delighted to welcome

Bob Honey, the National Chairman.

Unfortunately Alan Hayes; the Branch Chairman, was unable to

attend as he was moving house. After a short discussion on his

wisdom of doing so rather than attending the meeting, it was

agreed that John Scott-White, the Branch Secretary, should take

the Chair.

After the list of apologies and the Minutes of the previous AGM

were approved as a true record, John read out the Chairman’s

report.

In his report the Chairman explained how the Committee’s work

had been dominated by organising the very successful National

Spring Conference. The programme included an afternoon of

technical talks and two days of visiting farms and other rural

buildings. He had previously expressed his thanks to the

Committee Members for their hard work with a special thank you

to Jeanie and Tony Hutchinson for their great contribution and

help. Alan hoped that this Conference would be the first of many

more to come within the RDBA.

Alan also thanked John Scott White and Philip Lewis of

Briarwood Products for their considerable contribution in organ-

ising the meeting following the AGM and the help and backing of

Briarwood Products, via Philip was greatly appreciated.

With regret Alan reported the resignation of Roy Hughes from

the committee. Roy finds travelling from Exmouth to the

Committee meetings too taxing. Alan thanked him for his great

contribution over the last 30 years and the Meeting agreed,

unanimously to ask John to write to Roy expressing its appreci-

ation of his contribution to the Association. His advice will be

greatly missed and we hope to see him at future meetings.

John Scott-White, who had recently taken over these duties,

reported that the Branch No l a/c contained £663.07 the money

being on deposit. The current a/c No 2 would contain about £

145. John explained that the year-end a/cs were due at the end

of the month and so could not be finalised until the income and

expenditure from the afternoons meeting had been included.

John also pointed out that the Branch received no income from

the Spring Conference although in a normal year the income

from the Branch Spring Meeting would be added to the current

a/c.

The following were elected:

Chairman Alan Hayes.

Vice Chairman Philip Lewis.

Sec/Treasurer John Scott White.

The other committee members were elected en mass.

Spring Meeting. As mentioned above this was to be to a Robotic

Milking Parlour.

Finally,

Vintage tractor hits 87 miles per hourThe owner of a vintage tractor was astonished when he received

a speeding ticket for driving at 87 m.p.h. The ticket was issued

after speed cameras caught a Mercedes with the same number

as the tractor.

Editors Eric Stockton 01450 52329 and John Messer 01308

862I64.

East Anglian Branch

We have been very lucky in the Eastern Region, although there

were some foot and mouth out breaks in the south of our area

at the beginning of the out break, they were quickly brought

under control, without spreading to the rest of the area.

Obviously we are not complacent, the out break is not over yet

and so we are still not holding any meetings but we are hopeful

that in the not too distant future we will be able to resurrect some

of the meetings that were being planned earlier in the year.

We will write to everyone in the Branch to advise them of the

dates as they are agreed, for others please watch Diary dates

on our Website.

Jeannie Hutchinson

East Anglian Branch Secretary

Scottish Branch

Mike Kelly has advised that if there is enough support from

Scottish members he is keen to restart the Scottish branch. He

has asked for all those interested to contact him at Knockendale

Cottage, Syrington, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, KA1 5PN, Phone:

01563 830147.

Branch News


Reader Enq 003 Reader Enq 004

Reader Enq 005Reader Enq 006


The Construction Group have decided that they will from

time to time issue a newsletter to members. Below is the first

news letter, which was sent to all Construction Group

Members in May .E d

Newsletter May 2001

It has been decided that we will start a newsletter for all

members of the Construction Group. It will contain what we

hope is useful and interesting information. There are no

plans for it to be issued at set times but rather when there is

enough information to warrant its issue. Copies will be pub-

lished on our web site in the Construction Group area and

much of it will also be published in Countryside Building.

If you have any information that you would like to see in

future newsletters please let me know.

Working well together

As you will note from the bottom right hand corner, the

Construction Group is now a member of the above cam-

paign, which allows us to use their logo on all our letter

headings and advertisements. This group is for companies

and associations that can show that they have actions in

place to reduce accidents on construction sites. I wrote to

them and advised what we are doing and provided them with

copies of some of our advice notes. Based on my informa-

tion they have confirmed that we are members. I will keep

you informed of developments.

Interesting statistics

· In the year 2000 there were 92 deaths from falls

from heights.

· HSE make 20,000 site visits a year

· Investigate 1,000 accidents c. 7000 complaints

· Issue 2070 prohibition notices

· Made 537 convictions relating to construction

· Site workers over 55 are far more likely to have

serious/fatal injury than those aged 20 - 25

Advice notes

A large number of the above have now been issued and it

has been decided that we will supply a Construction Group

hard-backed ring binder for them to be kept in. We are also

considering what other information, such as a list of mem-

bers, HSE advice notes, Construction Group logo, etc,

should be incorporated. It is likely that we will start to issue

them at the next AGM.

Information on Asbestos containing

products

The majority of farm buildings will contain some products

that contain asbestos, sometimes it is difficult to decide if a

product is asbestos cement in which case a ‘competent’ con-

tractor can work on it or whether it is a low density product

in which case a licensed contractor must be used. A new

Web site has been started up, which lists the trade names of

most asbestos containing products. It states whether the

products are asbestos cement or low density and in many

instances gives the likely type and quantity of the asbestos

content. The address is

www.aic.org.uk.

Interim Draft Approved Documents

L1 Conservation of fuel and power in

dwellings

L2 Conservation of fuel and power in

buildings other than dwellings

The above are the revised Part L of the building regulations,

although they are listed as draft they are not open for com-

ment, the changes are expected to be made in August 2001

and to come into effect 6 months later. Listed below are sum

of the U-value requirements for new build, although of

course, as before, many agricultural buildings will be

exempt.

W/m2K

Walls 0.35

Pitched roof with insulation between rafters 0.2

Pitched roof with insulation between joists 0.16

Flat roof 0.25

Metal framed windows 2.2

Wood or PVC windows 2.0

Floor 0.25

Some special cases have been agreed such as historic

buildings, where specific guidance is given to conserve the

special character of such buildings, buildings with low hours

use and portable buildings.

There are also regulations concerning the type of heating

and fuel that is used, the airtightess of the building, the insu-

lation of pipes and ducts, etc.

Any one involved in the design or construction of buildings

where the building regulations apply should obtain a copy,

from the DETR or their web site at

www.construction.detr.gov.uk

Construction group

Reader Enq 007


Fragility

As you will have noted from the last issue of Countryside

Building a new fragility test has been developed, I have

copies of the test if you require one but we felt that it was

more important that you knew what the test meant rather than

it’s mechanics.

It is a very basic test to show whether a roof assembly, NOT

A PRODUCT, is fragile or non-fragile. In this instance non-

fragile means that the roofing assembly will allow a worker on

a roof to carry out a normal task without failing in such a way

that the worker can fall through the assembly. It does not nec-

essarily mean that walking on the roof will not damage the

roofing product. You should always check with the roofing

products’ manufacturer as to whether the product can be

walked on without causing any damage.

Because an assembly is non-fragile it does not mean that the

roofing work can be carried out without the use of the correct

health and safety protection such as nets or fall arrest sys-

tems. Precautions must be taken to ensure that no one can

fall off any edges or holes in the roof, and so nets with perime-

ter edge protection or some other fall protection must be

used.

The test does not give a length of life of the non-fragility of an

assembly, just that it is non-fragile at the time of construction

and for some time afterwards. Once completed all roofs

should be treated as fragile until a competent person has con-

firmed that it is non-fragile.

The test involves fixing the roofing assembly (as it would be

fixed on a roof) to a tightly defined test rig and then dropping

a 45Kg sandbag on to specific areas of the assembly. The test

will give 4 different ratings to an assembly, as listed below:

·If the bag passes through the assembly it is classified as

Fragile.

·If the assembly retains the sandbag it is classified as a

Class C non-fragile assembly.

·If the bag is dropped in the same place again and again

retained by the assembly it is classified as a Class B

non-fragile assembly

·If following a close inspection of the surface of the

assembly after the second drop no damage can be found

that will reduce the life of the assembly, then it is classi-

fied as a Class A non-fragile assembly.

The different classes allows a designer to choose a class that

suits his particular construction, suggested uses of the differ-

ent classes are listed below:

·Class C non-fragile assembly, a roof where little or no

maintenance is required and it is not expected that any

one should be required to access the roof. A typical

example would be a fibre cement agricultural building.

·Class B non-fragile assembly, A roof where a regular

annual inspection is required. A typical example is a plas-

tic coated steel roof where an annual inspection of the

surface is required to comply with the manufacturer’s

warranty.

·Class A non-fragile assembly, A roof with plant on it,

which requires regular adjustment and maintenance. The

designer could though decide to use a Class C non-frag-

ile assembly for the majority of the roof and provide a

walk way of at least Class A non-fragility assembly, with

edge protection, from an accesses point on the perimeter

of the roof to the plant requiring regular access

Foot and Mouth

The Government and press have been saying that there is

support for companies that have been adversely effected by

foot and mouth. I have managed to trace information on help

with rates bills, extended/deferred Tax and VAT payments,

loans from Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and other

possible support. I also have more detailed information on

the deferment of rates payments, if you require a copy

please advise me.

Construction group

Reader Enq 008


Training Courses

Net Rigging

I attach information on a net rigging training course that Rombull

could organise around the Country if there is enough interest.

Please advise me if you are interested and how many of your

men you would like trained and I will liaise with Rombull.

Risk Assessment and Method statement writing

There has also been a suggestion that we should set up training

courses around the Country on the writing of risk assessments

and method statements. It would probably be a one day course

open to everyone but with RDBA members having a discount. If

there is enough interest, the likely cost for the day is going to be

in the region of £150.00 for non-members and £125.00 for mem-

bers.

Please advise me if you or your staff are interested in attending,

I will liaise with Malcolm James and advise if there is enough

interest.

Training in the correctrigging of safety nets

The contribution of safety nets in Agricultural/Industrial con-

struction cannot be questioned. Falls account for the greatest

number of accidents in the workplace and last year alone over

30 falls into nets were reported. It only takes one slip to kill or

maim a worker, deny income to his family and expose employ-

ers to prosecution, fines and imprisonment.

Safety nets are generally recognised as the norm, not the

exception. A farm building roof under construction is likely to

attract more attention if it hasn’t got nets than if it has.

FASET (Fall Arrest Safety Equipment Training) is an industry

body set with the task of raising the standard of net rigging

through consistent and structured training. The objective for

individuals is to achieve levels of competence so their work is in

line with industry recognised practices and therefore ensure

safety net systems perform as intended.

Proof of an individuals competence is confirmed by the issue of

a riggers ticket which allows them to show site managers, clients

and the Health & Safety Executive that they have been trained

on a FASET course, passed examinations in both theory and

practical rigging and have been independently assessed on site.

The card scheme is run by the CITB, and operates in a similar

vein to other construction industry record card schemes. Clients

and the HSE are being encouraged to insist on the use of card-

ed riggers to be sure the work they are being employed to carry

out is done so within known industry standards.

The FASET course best suited to the Agricultural sector is the

Safety Net Rigger General course, which can be run in a single

day. At the end of a three-day course candidates will be able to

rig safety nets correctly to protect roof workers and will be pro-

vide with a certificate of attendance.

Rombull are one of the founders of FASET and are recognised

as the organisation with the most experience in net rigging train-

ing. As members of the RDBA, Rombull can help those using

safety nets to secure FASET rigger cards through training cours-

es throughout the country.

Each course runs for one day, starting at 0830 and concluding

around 1700. A maximum of 6 delegates per course can be

accommodated. To ensure members can benefit from each oth-

ers needs, Rombull will organise regional training to accommo-

date demand. This means that if you only need one or two indi-

viduals trained, Rombull can group everyone together to offer a

local course at a reduced rate. Suitable facilities will need to be

provided by one of the companies, but exact requirements can

be discussed as regional needs arise.

The price per person for the Safety Net Rigger General Course,

based on 6 candidates and acceptable logistics is RDBA

Construction Group Members £220.00

Non-members £240.00

More information on Rombull's FASET courses can be found by

calling the RDBA Secretary on 01449 676049 or Rob Harris

from Rombull direct on 01494 485558.

Following from the foot and mouth outbreak there have been a

number of questions asked about how asbestos cement prod-

ucts can be safely disinfected without releasing dangerous

quantities of asbestos fibres. The Asbestos Information Centre

and MAFF have written the following advice note and as we

believe that it will be of interest to our members it is reproduced

below.

Copies of the advice note can be down loaded from our website,

from the AIC website at www.aic.org.uk or are available by post

from the National Secretary

Disinfecting asbestoscement productsfollowing foot andmouth.The following advice relates to asbestos cement products

and does not apply to low-density asbestos containing

products, i.e. those with a density of less than 1 Kg/cm3.

It is unlikely that low-density asbestos containing materi-

als will have been used in animal housing.

The release of asbestos fibres is dangerous to health.

Asbestos cement products in good condition, which are

not being abraded, will not be releasing dangerous quan-

tities of fibres. If asbestos cement products need to be

worked on, in any way that will release fibres the correct

precautions must be used. See the AIC advice note

‘Working with asbestos cement products’

MAFF have advised that following a foot and mouth out

break they will require all the surfaces, both internally

and externally that have been in contact with animals or

Construction group

Reader Enq 009


their wastes to be de-greased and disinfected. Any inter-

nal surfaces such, as the undersides of the roof that have

not been in contact with the animals just need to be dis-

infected. Because asbestos cement products are alkaline

in nature it is preferable if the de-greasing and disinfec-

tant products used are also alkaline. Acids may be neu-

tralised so fast that their disinfectant properties may be

compromised.

Different farms may use different processes to disinfect

their buildings and because many of the buildings will

contain asbestos containing products, we have compiled

the following advice to help ensure that the release of

asbestos fibres is kept to a minimum.

· When working with asbestos cement materials it

is always advisable to ensure that the material is

damp, which will help ensure that asbestos fibres are

not released.

· Any waste that contains more than 0.1%

asbestos must be treated as special waste and under

normal circumstances should be disposed of by

employing a licensed haulier to take the waste to a

licensed asbestos dump. When the waste has been

generated on agricultural premises it can be treated

as agricultural waste and buried on site, with at least

1mtr of cover. With a record being kept as to where it

is buried and actions taken to ensure that it is not

disturbed in the future.

· The slurry that is created from cleaning asbestos

containing products with dusty surfaces will probably

contain more than 0.1% asbestos and so it should be

carefully shovelled, whilst still wet, into thick plastic

bags which should then be sealed before burial as

above.

· Where dusty surfaces are being cleaned, they

should not be vacuumed unless a special Type H

vacuum cleaner is used. The dust should be wetted

and carefully bagged for burial as above.

· Pressure washing: different forms of asbestos

containing materials will withstand different pres-

sures before they are damaged, a fully-compressed

flat sheet used in the construction of pig or calf pens

will withstand higher pressures than a semi-com-

pressed or corrugated sheet. We strongly suggest

that a trial be carried out in an area that is hidden, to

ascertain what pressure should be used. If the pres-

sure is too high there is the risk that a hole will be

abraded through the sheet or the top laminations will

be removed. This will release large quantities of

asbestos. Even when the correct pressure is used on

semi-compressed sheets it is likely to scour the sur-

face and create greater quantities of asbestos waste

mixed with vast quantities of water, which may well

find its way into the slurry system. To close off the

slurry system and set up a system to filter the

asbestos fibres out of the waste to the satisfaction of

the HSE is likely to be very costly. It may though be

possible to close the slurry system, direct the run off

water to a confined area outside and let it soak away;

this should leave the waste including the asbestos on

the surface. Before it dries the top 150mm of the soil

and waste should be dug up bagged and buried.

· Steam-cleaning: If this is carefully carried out it

should not damage asbestos cement sheets, but the

steam should not be held in one place for too long as

it could cause a marked increase in temperature, in a

small confined area of the sheet, which could cause

unusual stresses.

· Low pressure mist spray: This is the preferable

method of cleaning asbestos containing materials

that have not been in contact with the animals or

their wastes, it should not create large amounts of

slurry and yet if the surfaces are properly wetted with

the correct alkali product it should adequately disin-

fect the area.

· Detergent use: Where the asbestos cement is

soiled and needs to be cleaned it is preferable to

spray detergent on the surface and leave to soak,

then remove the soiling with care, using a low pres-

sure hose at approximately 45deg angle, where

brushing is required to remove the dirt only soft

brushes should be used, ensuring that the surface is

wet during the brushing. If the surface of the

asbestos cement is being damaged then too much

force is being used and the run off must be collected

whilst still wet and buried.

· If at any time operatives need to work at height

to carry out their duties all the necessary precautions

must be taken to ensure that they are protected from

the risk of falling.

· The risks associated with asbestos fibre release

and working at heights are not the only risks that may

be faced by the operatives a detailed risk assess-

ment should be carried out of each site prior to the

start of work and method statements written to

ensure that the risks are reduced to the minimum.

The above guidance is given with the best intentions but

nothing in this advice shall create or be deemed to cre-

ate any obligations, whether expressed or implied, on the

Asbestos Information Centre, ATSS House, Station Road

East, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 1RQ

Phone: (01449) 676900 Fax: (01449) 770028 e-mail:

[email protected]

Visit our web site at www.aic.org.uk

Construction group

Reader Enq 010


CALF HOUSING UPDATEI J Loynes BSc (Hons) MIAgrE

Senior Lecturer Farm Building Design and Environmental

Control Systems

Head of Engineering

Harper Adams University College

Successful calf rearing is reliant on good management and

good housing. The primary requirement of any calf house must

be to provide an environment (both in terms of air quality and

building fabric) in which calves will flourish. In many ways

therefore, consideration of the requirements of the stockman

are secondary to this, but he/she too must be provided with the

right environment - in terms of space, light and facilities etc - to

enable him/her to perform the essential husbandry and man-

agement tasks in order that the calves will continue to flourish.

Recent legislation, in particular - The Welfare of Livestock

(Amendment) Regulations 1998 1, (here after referred to as the

Regulations) which came into force on 27 July 1998 and

applies to all new calf housing from that date - goes much fur-

ther than previous legislation in defining the exact features and

facilities which must be provided in a calf house, or where

calves are reared. This legislation also outlaws or requires

those involved in calf rearing to adopt certain management

practices, some of which I will mention below.

Those involved in calf rearing should also be aware that these

rules will apply to all calf housing from 1st January 2004.

Therefore, they should check their present housing system for

compliance now and make any changes necessary in good

time.

Basic Principles

The basic principles of good calf housing were defined some

years ago by Dr Dan Mitchell in his book the Calf Housing

Handbook2, and I suggest that these are as relevant today as

they were then. Very briefly, the essential features of good calf

housing can be summarised as:-

Adequate space for individual pens or groups of

calves

Good ventilation with a draught-free lying area and a

minimum air volume per calf

· A lying area which is clean, comfortable, well drained

and well maintained with dry bedding

The new Regulations will influence all of these features. I have

discussed much of the detail below and suggest that readers

refer to the legislation or their adviser for the complete details.

Space allowances

The Regulations are quite specific as to what must be provid-

ed. In general calves will either be housed in groups or in indi-

vidual pens. However, the Regulations stipulate that calves

must not be housed in an individual pen, or stall, beyond the

age of eight weeks (unless this is necessary for health reasons

and has been certified by a veterinary surgeon).

The eight week limit will clearly influence the size of the pen

that should be used. The Regulations stipulate that the calf

should be able to stand up, turn around, lie down, rest and

groom itself without hindrance. In order that this can be

achieved the pen must be at least as wide as the calf is high

(measured at the withers when the calf is standing up) and the

pen should be at least 1.1 times as long as the calf, in this case

measured from the tip of its nose to its pin bone. Hence the

size of individual calf pens can be determined. The Regulations

also state that the stalls or pens should have perforated walls

which allow direct visual and tactile contact between calves.

Technical


Now I don’t expect you to rush out and start measuring your

calves to see if your pens comply with the Regulations, but I do

suspect that the modern dairy cow (i.e. Holstein) is producing

slightly larger calves than of old and, as far as I am aware, off-

the-shelf calf pens have not been changed very much, in terms

of the dimensions, in recent years. However, Table 1 below

gives the current recommended sizes for individual calf pens

and as far as I can gather, from studying existing calf size data,

these sizes should meet the requirements as set out in the

Regulations, but you should check this for yourself.

Table 1. Individual calf pen sizes

Calf weight Approx Calf age Clear lengthClear width

(kg) (weeks) (mm) (mm)

Up to 60 Up to 4 1500 750

Up to 80 Up to 8 1800 1000

Group rearing

After eight weeks of age the calves will have to be group

reared. Some producers may prefer to do so from the start and

that should not be a problem providing they comply with the

Regulations. Here again the Regulations are quite specific as

to what has to be provided.

Table 2 below gives the space allowances for calves housed in

groups. No need to worry about the height or length of the calf

here but we do need to know the weight of the calf. I am

pleased to report that the current space allowances for group

housed calves, as found in BS5502: Part 40 ref 3 for example,

are in fact in excess of those stipulated in the Regulations. So

you shouldn’t have any problems if your existing facilities have

been designed in accordance with BS5502 - but you should still

check for compliance with the Regulations.

Table 2. Area allowances for grouped calves

Calf weight Unobstructed area

(kg) (m²/calf)

Up to 150 at least 1.5

150 to 200 at least 2.0

over 200 at least 3.0

Feeding

When considering the overall building design we must not for-

get that the stockman has to work in the building, and in fact

under the Regulations must inspect and feed the stock at least

twice a day. The space he/she requires will depend on the

tasks to be performed and what equipment they have to use.

Feeding of calves in individual pens is usually done using buck-

ets which are positioned at the front of the pens. Generally, in

a calf house with two rows of individual pens facing each other,

the clear passage width between the pen fronts, or in fact, the

clear distance between the feeding and drinking buckets hung

on the pen fronts, should be at least 1.2m. In a building with

only one row of pens, the clear passage width between the pen

fronts, or buckets, and the opposite wall should be at least

1.0m.

In group housing the calves can be fed in several different ways

depending on whether they are being fed hay, silage or milk

(i.e. milk substitute) and this will clearly influence the pen lay-

out and the space required for feeding. Milk machines should

be positioned to avoid excessive distance between the machine

and the teats, as this will reduce heat loss from the milk

(assuming a warm ration is being fed) and the amount of time

it is in the pipe before it gets to the calf – stale milk may not

taste very nice. For silage or hay feeding a minimum of 350mm

Technicalwidth feed trough length should be allowed per calf.

Hutches

Calf hutches can provide suitable housing facilities for individ-

ual or group reared calves. They are mainly used for individ-

ual accommodation but they tend to provide slightly more

space than is found in a building with individual or group pens

as they have a covered lying area and an external loafing

area.

However, two main problems arise from using hutches. The

first is in providing a dry bed, as this will be influenced by the

weather and ground conditions and the second is that the

Regulations ban the use of tethers. Therefore, hutch systems

which use chains will have to be modified to provide an out-

side run.

Ventilation

Ventilation performs several vital functions in maintaining a

suitable environment. Perhaps the most important is the

removal of moisture vapour produced by the calves and by

evaporation from muck, bedding and water spillage. Unless

this moisture is removed from the building by the ventilating

air, the relative humidity is likely to rise above 90% to the

detriment of the building structure and calf health. Here again

the Regulations state that the ventilation in the building should

not be harmful to the calves.

Ventilation also removes the various gases given off by the

animals and from their excreta - i.e. ammonia, hydrogen sul-

phide, carbon dioxide, methane and others. These can be

harmful to the calves and the stockman if allowed to build up

in the air.

Continuous air change also keeps down the levels of airborne

micro-organisms and dust, thus limiting the spread of disease

and irritating components in the house atmosphere.

Good ventilation can be achieved by providing appropriately

sized and positioned openings i.e. an open ridge outlet and

spaced boarding inlet. This system should work effectively in

most situations, however, it is essential that draughts at stock

level are not allowed to occur. A simple solution is to provide

a solid lid to the rear of individual pens and group housed

areas so that a small shelter or ‘kennel’ is formed. Here the

calves can escape the harmful draught and ample air move-

ment can take place above their heads. Another important

factor to consider in providing good ventilation is air space or

volume.

Air space

By providing a minimum cubic capacity per calf we can ensure

that the building dimensions will allow air to be introduced into

the house well above calf level. This will help to ensure that

draughts around the calves are minimised. Table 3 below

shows the recommended minimum air volume to be provided

for each calf.

Reader Enq 011

Technical


Table 3. Minimum air volume for housed calves

Calf weight Cubic capacity

(kg) (m³/calf)

Up to 60 6

61 to 85 10

86 to 140 13

141 to 200 15

It is difficult to define a draught, but it has been shown that the

air speed close to each calf must not exceed 0.25 m/s so that

discomfort and accelerated heat loss is avoided. This of

course, is most important when calves are housed during the

winter.

Ventilation openings

Effective ventilation without draughts, can usually be provided

by natural means. In some cases where existing buildings are

used or converted for housing calves it may not be possible to

arrange for ventilation by natural means and we have to resort

to the use of a fan.

Natural ventilation of buildings relies on both the wind effect

and the stack effect. The wind effect (i.e. the wind pressure on

a building forces air in on one side and sucks air out the other)

is the prime mover of air in naturally ventilated buildings and

may provide the required air movement through the building for

over 95% of the housing period. On the remaining times that

the wind is not blowing sufficiently strongly we rely on the stack

effect to give adequate ventilation (i.e. heat given off by the

stock warms the air around them and causes air movement in

the building). Basically, for the stack effect to work we must

provide an air inlet, at one level, and an air outlet at a higher

level.

Recommended minimum ventilation openings are as fol-

lows:-

i) Pitched roof buildings - 0.05 m²/calf inlet and 0.04

m²/calf outlet.

The outlet should also be between 1.5m and 2.5m

above the ventilation inlet.

ii) Monopitch buildings - 0.25 m²/calf on the higher side

of the building.

In wide monopitch buildings, extra inlet ventilation may be nec-

essary and can be provided through openings below

the eaves on the lower side of the building.

The Regulations do not restrict the numbers of calves that can

be held in one air space, but good management dictates that

this should ideally be restricted to groups of 20. To facilitate this

the building should be sub-divided into compartments to house

calves in batches of relatively even age and weight.

Compartmentalisation aids management such that rooms can

be cleaned, disinfected and rested between batches and also

reduces the risk of disease spread. Group sizes are also

dependent on the capabilities of feeding equipment being used

and the building dimensions. Larger numbers have been sug-

gested, but this generally requires a higher degree of manage-

ment, and more flexibility of design and layout in the building.

A dry bed

As calves spend much of their time lying down it is essential to

provide a dry, free draining lying area. This will prevent exces-

sive heat loss from the recumbent animal and reduce straw

usage. The Regulations mirror this requirement and stipulate

that the lying area should be well drained and well maintained

with dry bedding.

Generally, the floor of the calf house will be concrete and lit-

tered with straw. If the floor is laid to correct falls (i.e. 1 in 20)

and the drainage layout in the building carefully planned, then

free liquid will be quickly removed from the building. In existing

buildings it may be necessary to fit pens with a perforated floor

to aid drainage below the bedding material.

References

1 The Welfare of Livestock (Amendment)

Regulations 1998, SI 1998 No. 1709, HMSO

Publications.

2 The Calf Housing Handbook, 1976, C D

Mitchell, SFBIU.

3 BS5502 : Part 40 : 1990. Code of Practice for

Design and Construction of Cattle Buildings. British

Standards Institution, London.

Reader Enq 012

Reader Enq 013


NEW FARMHOUSE INTHE SCOTTISH

BORDERSDavid McPherson

two with en-suite facilities. In total the net internal floor

area is 330 square metres.

The farmhouse is of traditional construction with insulat-

ed block work cavity walls. The ground floor construction

is an insulated concrete floor slab with various surface

finishes applied. These include quarry tiles, softwood

flooring on battens and Scottish oak flooring. Internally,

the timber finishes in the entrance hallway; drawing room

and dining room are all Scottish oak, which was locally

grown by Buccleuch Estates. Other internal features

include deep fibrous plaster cornices and covings.

Despite atrocious weather conditions during the winter

months, the house was completed on schedule by the

end of February 2001 and our client took possession the

following month. The overall cost of the proj-

ect, including the provision of incoming serv-

ices but excluding land costs worked out at

approximately £745 per square metre.

Good building starts with good design and

detailing but good construction also requires

a competent builder. Commendation must go

to Colin Gilholm from Selkirk, the main con-

tractor who completed the contract to an

extremely high standard.

At the time of writing this article phase 2 is

nearing the tender stage and site works

should commence in July 2001.

About the Author:

David McPherson has been employed by

SAC in Building Design Services at

Auchincruive for over 8 years, designing

a wide variety of rural buildings including

visitor centres, residential units, dairy

units and private housing both new build

an refurbishment.

Prior to this, David worked predominant-

ly in private architectural practices for 20

years working on commercial and indus-

trial projects.

David also works as a Planning

Supervisor.

SAC Building Design Services at Auchincruive have

recently completed the design and contract administra-

tion of a new farmhouse for a private client in Eddleston,

near Peebles. Due to client confidentiality we cannot

disclose the clients name or the contract sum.

In September 1999 the client approached SAC

with a view to designing a new farmhouse and

agricultural buildings. The client has bought over

155 acres of land which had outline planning per-

mission for the buildings granted by Scottish

Borders Council in July 1999. The project was to

be phased, phase 1 entailing the overall scheme

design and the erection of the farmhouse and

phase 2 involving the construction of the agricul-

tural buildings.

By January 2000 we had completed the design of

the buildings and had applied to Scottish Border

Council for full planning approval. Building

Warrant Consent was applied for in March 2000.

By the beginning of April 2000 we had issued the

tender documentation to seven contractors for

pricing with a return date in May 2000. By the

end of May 2000 we had concluded negotiations

with the successful contractor and site works com-

menced in June 2000.

As can be seen from the photo-

graphs, the farmhouse is of tra-

ditional appearance with a nat-

ural slate roof finish, white dry-

dash rendered walls and fea-

ture stonework basecourses,

quoins and copes. The accom-

modation includes a large

entrance hall, drawing room,

dining room, traditional farm-

house kitchen, uti l i ty room,

pantry, office, front and rear

vestibules and five bedrooms,

Technical

Technical


CONVERT TO SURVIVE �II

By John M Conlin, FRICS

In this second article of his series John M Conlin looks at

the need to consider the increasing opportunities for con-

version and substitution of farm buildings as part of a

long term strategy for farmers and rural landowners

When, in my previous article ‘Convert to Survive’ I advo-

cated lifting the cumulative problems besetting agricul-

ture as justification for planning permission to convert

almost any farm building we were all Ignorant of the

scale and geographical spread of the Foot and Mouth

epidemic

Although it remains uncertain whether the crisis is fully

under control some consequences are clear. Every local

planning officer must now be convinced that agriculture

is on its knees with one crisis following another and cre-

ating an urgent need for alternative enterprises if the

rural landscape is not to become derelict.

In theory this should make it even easier to secure plan-

ning permission for diversification. This apart what are

the consequences of the F&W epidemic on non-agricul-

tural diversification? As far as the farming community are

concerned, not surprisingly, it seems to have increased

the desire to find ways of using land and buildings to

generate income or capital release from non farming

activities. Even those not involved in the F&M cull seem

to be rapidly loosing confidence with F&M being seen as

the latest in a continuing series of disastrous events.

The effect of the same series of events on those who

might have been potential occupiers of converted farm

buildings is also becoming apparent with the possibility

of being denied access as a result of agriculturally trig-

gered restrictions being the major worry.

Whilst the planning case for conversion and diversifica-

tion has been greatly strengthened and many more

schemes are likely to become reality the pool of potential

user/occupiers has, for the moment at least, reduced due

to anxiety regarding the freedom of use. So the safe mar-

gin for error when assessing the viability of a scheme has

now shrunk making it essential that any scheme is not

only well researched and costed but also is examined as

a part of a long term strategy for the farm as a whole.

There appears to be a consensus that small end medium

size farms will become progressively unprofitable. So

when such farms come on to the market the most remu-

nerative disposal is likely to be the sale of the farm house

and say ten acres as a country house with the balance of

the land being offered in appropriate lots for integration

with larger farming units. As the farm house and a few

acres may well be worth much more than the residue of

the farm it is vital that diversification and the related con-

version of existing buildings does nothing to undermine

the future value of the farm house. Put bluntly the buyer

of a country house will not want a small industrial estate

of converted barns on his door step or to share his drive

with HGV’s. Me might, however, be quite attracted to a

leisure/tourism business with a number of converted hol-

iday suites and a fishing lake. To summarise; if the farm

includes a house which might conceivably be sold at

some future date as a country house all other considera-

tions must be secondary to the preservation of the future

value of that house. If there are farm buildings clustered

around the house any scheme of conversion should be

for uses compatible with a country house e.g.: residen-

tial, equestrian, hospitality etc. I know of at least one

farm where the barn has been converted for functions

including a modestly adequate stage and produces a

healthy income from receptions, seminars, concerts and

community functions such as amateur dramatics. Any

uses close to the house should be arranged so that own-

ership and control is retained with no long term rights of

occupancy being created which might tarnish the attrac-

tion of the country house.

Where there is no house or the buildings are well

removed the scope for alternative uses is much wider

with the buildings, themselves, dictating the likely uses.

One thing that has become apparent from the F&M epi-

demic is that potential occupiers will remain wary of pos-

sible restrictions on access as a result of agricultural

problems. Although lightning rarely strikes twice in the

same place this is unlikely to convince someone trying to

run a business. So it is better to provide an entirely sep-

arate access. Ideally the converted buildings, be they

industrial, storage, or equestrian uses should form a self

contained area independent of the farm. Where this is

possible sales of the units singly or as a whole to release

capital can be considered. In any event it should be

remembered that unless the security of occupancy provi-

sions of the Landlord & Tenant Act are specifically

excluded by mutual agreement from any business letting

the commercial occupier can demand continued posses-

sion albeit the rent can be increased periodically. Hence

once a conversion scheme has been let to business ten-

ants recovering total vacant possession may be difficult.

In my previous article I recommended that farmers and

their advisors should undertake what I termed an ‘audit’

of all farm buildings whether currently in use or vacant.

The purpose of the audit being to establish whether the

building has potential for profitable conversion. In

instances where the building is currently in use the cost

of a substitute building must be included in the analysis

of profitability.

Where the economics of conversion justify transferring

an ongoing agricultural use to a new purpose built unit

size, style and location will need careful consideration

with a constant eye to the future. One thing that has

become apparent even to planners is that the economics

of any branch of agriculture can change unpredictably

and dramatically within a single cycle of seasons. This

is not due to F&M so much as the so called ‘global econ-

omy’ and the EEC. By example largely due to the latter

UK salad crop growers and dairy farmers have seen their

markets decimated by EEC competition. With the

prospect of further enlargement of the EEC and no radi-

cal overhaul of the CAP the rest of our traditional agri-

cultural activities risk marginalisation. Hence planners

are having to accept that the agricultural need which sup-

ports planning permission for a substitute building may

evaporate making that building redundant virtually before

the paint has dried.

The new, increased, uncertainty in agriculture is the

incentive to design and site substitute buildings with at

least half an eye to their suitability for non-agricultural

use. Wherever possible the following criteria should be

observed

1. Site new buildings well away from any farm


house and as near a good main road as possi

ble.

2. Provide Independent vehicular access.

3. Plan hard standing and yard space so that it

would be adequate for HGV manoeuvring,

workers parking and open storage.

4. Irrespective of any lesser requirement for inter

im agricultural use ensure that new buildings

have a minimum eves height of at least 7m to

allow for the future addition of mezzanine

offices.

To briefly recap, the down turn in agriculture continues

(to say the least!) and F&M may deter some potential

occupiers from considering converted farm buildings but

this can be overcome by providing separate access and

identity. On the positive side the disasters in agriculture

provide sound planning justification for converting build-

ings, putting up new buildings which almost immediately

become agriculturally redundant whilst record low inter-

est rates should assist in making more schemes viable.

Lastly I hope I have shown why it is essential to work

backwards from the theoretical future disposal of the

farm to ensure that the long term asset value is not com-

promised for want of a co-ordinated programme which

fully exploits the potential without selling the future short.

I hope that a further article will illustrate some of the

problems and solutions by reference to various farm

schemes.

Technical

Antique BuildingsLtd

DUNSFOLD SURREY

Tel. 01483 200477We specialise exclusively in ancient oak framed buildings

We are anxious to purchaseBarns, Cart Sheds, Granaries etc., for dismantling.

Old handmade bricks, Floor bricks, Coping

Reader Enq 014

Reader Enq 015

Reader Enq 016

Reader Enq 017


Technical

Costing FactorsEach conversion is an individual project with a series of factors

influencing cost including:-

l Location within UK & local accessibility of build

ing resources.

l Scale of infrastructure works - which will depend on

such things as the availability of adequate services,

public highway access etc. and the extent of addition

al work made conditional by the planning consent.

l The cost of ancillary works such as providing agricul

tural replacement buildings, house or farm access

alterations etc.

l The condition of the existing buildings to be convert

ed.

l The stage to which the buildings are to be converted

(for example; with/without internal services)

l The contract method used and whether phased or

not.

l The extent of professional input required (linked with

the above).

l Finance and grant availability & restraints.

l Index linking - bearing in mind the long lead time

before starting (allow minimum of 12 months?), and

the expenditure spread for phased development.

l VAT: not included in cost of registered applicant. Zero

rated if carried out under a listed building consent.

Professional Services & FeesMost conversions are carried out with grant aid at the present

time making it even more desirable to seek professional help.

Such grants require prior consent before work starts. The end

cost must therefore be properly assessed based on a specifi-

cation with working drawings, with or without Bills of Quantity

(depending on the scale of the project). Such help can save

considerable cost & embarrassment through extra and/or ineli-

gible expenditure, as well as achieve a quality result. It follows

that only such architects/building surveyors & other consultants

with a proven experience in this field should be employed.

Typical fees for a £250,000 contract would be at 10% plus

expenses, to which the fees of a Quantity Surveyor should be

added, say 5/6%, plus the charges of the engineer which will

depend entirely on the extent of the remedial work necessary,

(Allow say £5,000 for a survey including the work involved in

roof strengthening in a range of buildings.), plus the charges

for CDM Planning Supervision, which also has to be assessed,

but allow say 1% plus expenses as above. This would bring

the fee total to somewhere in the region of £54,000, excluding

VAT, for a £250,000 contract.

The planning fees would be merely for change of use: current-

ly £190 but the Building Regulations would be based on the

cost of eligible building works: say £1,500 for £200,000 esti-

mated eligible cost.

If a discharge consent is required from the Environment

Agency the Standard Application Charge is £661 (with an

annual charge factor of £511 resulting in costs of over £1500

pa) so it is obviously important to design the scheme below

5m3 discharge/24 hours resulting in a reduced application

charge of £94 - and no annual charge!). If a mains sewerage

connection is to be made then the infrastructure fee (currently

Conversion of Traditional FarmBuildings to B1 Business Use:

Part 3: Costs & Grants

Dick Coates FRICS., Associate Senior Lecturer in Agricultural

Buildings

Seale Hayne, University of Plymouth

Conversion of Trad


£229 each) is payable for each unit. A further fee of the same

amount is payable for each mains water connection, in addition

to the connection costs which could be substantial. Each unit

will require an independent metered supply, so a new main

may be required to service the individual connections.

Budget CostingPart of the professional service would include provision of

budget costs but there is usually an earlier stage of feasibility

study when some basic idea of costs & grants are required as

well as an indication of the potential net revenue. Methods

include (Note most of these references relate to England): -

Comparative Costing: such a project should not be under-

taken without looking at other recent conversions and their

costs if this information is available.

Costing Replacement Farm Buildings: The only com-

prehensive source of reference for the cost is the current edi-

tion of the Farm Building Cost Guide published annually by the

SAC.

Costing Building Works: A variety of Builder’s Price

Books are also published annually. Budget Costs may be

ascertained by comparing new cost with the Building Price per

m2 for typical examples. Spon 2000 quotes £375 - £660 for B1

Light/industrial buildings for an economic shell with core heat-

ing only, or £585 - £865 for a medium shell with core heating &

ventilation. (Spon 2000) Alternatively the price may be built up

using the applicable elemental costs per square metre and

adding the item costs. An exercise using the highest figures

yielded a cost of £885 per square metre – too high I hope!

Alternatively the Guide to House Rebuilding Costs published

annually by the RICS Building Cost Information Service also

gives an elemental breakdown, which is specifically aimed at

traditional construction of residential property. A Basic Standard

Semi-detached House, of medium size, constructed before

1920, is listed at £700/m2.(BCIS 2000) By removing the non

applicable items of elemental cost this could be reduced by

half for industrial use or perhaps 25% for office use – to which

the cost of repairs, strengthening, insulation and forming new

openings must be added ( which could add say £1,200 each in

thick stone walls, or say £600 in 225mm brick). This Guide is

also invaluable in assessing the insurance value of unconvert-

ed buildings on the same basis.

GrantsNote: Whatever type of grant you go for you will locked into

certain conditions including retaining the capital (ownership of

the buildings) & business enterprise for at least five years.

Redundant Building Grant: Talk to your Regional

Development Agency (RDA) office. Obtain their current

Programme Directory. Check the Rural Priorities map first. If

you are outside the designated areas or a National Park there

may be funding in certain circumstances. The grant awards up

to 25% of the total project cost. (Max. grant £75,000)

Rural Enterprise Scheme: (RES) Your MAFF Rural

Development Scheme Regional Office (Bristol for SW region:

Tel: Mr Phillip Owen 0117 959 1000) who will be able to advise

about this EU funding which is targeted at Farmers in EU

Objective 2 areas, but now covers other rural businesses and

every area apart from Objective 1. It is very broad with funding

available for environmental, social or economic projects. It

Technical

ditional Farm Buildings to B1- 'A perfect example of a B1 Conversion - Milbury Systems Ltd's HQ near Bristol'


includes funding for the diversification of agricultural activities,

and activities close to agriculture to provide multiple activities or

alternative incomes. Unlike any other scheme this could include

new agriculture use diversification. There is no fixed rate of aid

or maximum. The high levels, over 50%, only apply to non-rev-

enue earning schemes. For business unit conversions the rate

will fall to between 30 – 50% in an LFA or 30 – 40% elsewhere.

Like most such substantial grants there is a competitive bidding

process which needs to be supported by a well documented

application based on a scheme with a sound business core &

rationale, justification for capital funding, cash flow projection (

especially as this is likely to be a phased development) and

with full planning consents in place. Build in contingencies and

work closely with the officer concerned. Allow 4/5 months for

the application process.

Objective One: Contact your Agricultural Development Team

area office. ( at Truro for Cornwall: 01872 322 800) If you have

a holding number, farm a min. of 5 acres(!) for a tourism proj-

ect, or have an income of not less than £1500 for a business

use project, or are submitting the application in partnership with

an agricultural holding or are in the agricultural supply business

this should make you eligible to start the bid process for an

Objective One grant under Umbrella Funding and will be

referred to the delegated authority: -

Business Link in Bodmin for B1 use. Tel: Richard Adams on

0845 600 9966 under the Rural Diversification Capital Grant

Initiative,

SW Tourism in Exeter for rural tourism. Tel: Phil Aubrey on

01392 353288 under the Rural Tourism Improvement Fund.

If you have acquired a set of buildings without an agricultural

tie, then you will have try for funding direct from the Objective

One Office in Truro: 01872 241 388, and must allow a longer

time scale.

The Scheme is not substantially different from the RES but the

support is stronger with up to 100% support for initial feasibility

advice, up to 80% for consultancy for setting up the business

plan, (allow 75%?) and up to 50% capital grant – which means

40% in normal circumstances. Despite the advice available it is

still on a competitive bid basis with clear proposals for match

funding etc.. The life of the scheme is finite: currently until 31-

03-04 for the above two umbrella schemes.

Rural Development Programmes: County & Unitary

Authorities, and National Parks have their own which are

designed to maximise the available resources available for rural

development. Direct funding is limited but they can be extreme-

ly helpful in pointing you in the right direction. It is understood

the programme is under review, which may cause short term

problems.

References: A Useful SelectionBooks:BCIS 2001 Guide to House Rebuilding Costs. RICS London

Brunskill R.W. 1999 Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain. Victor

Gollancz, London

Cunnington P 1988 Change of Use: the conversion of

old Buildings. Alphabooks, Sherborne

DOE 1995 Planning for Rural Diversification: A Good

Practice Guide. DOE London

DOE/MAFF 1992 A Farmers Guide to the Planning System.

MAFF London

Local Authority Design Guidance Books: always check your

area: one of the best:

Exmoor National Park Authority 1995: Design Guide: to assist

those engaged in designing, extending & restoring buildings in

the Exmoor National Park.

Powell Smith V & Billington M.J. 2000 The Building

Regulations. Blackwell Science, Oxford

RDC 1998 Rural development & Land Use Planning Policies.

RDC Salisbury

SAC 2001 Farm Building Cost Guide 2001. SAC Aberdeen

Spons 2001 Spon’s Architects & Builders Price Book. Spons,

London

Web SitesSW Regional Development Agency:` south-

westrda.org.uk

RES: MAFF

http//maffweberdp/default.htm

Objective One, Cornwall

objectiveone.com

Unpublished University of Plymouth Recent Honours

Projects at Seale Hayne Library:Chirstmas E 2000 Rural Buildings B1 Use: Agricultural v New

Buildings: A comparative study in the West Oxford Rural Area

Edwards R 1997 Agricultural Barn Conversions. Design

Guidance by English Local Authorities.

Green C 1998 Barns for Business: A survey of Business

Interest in Barn Conversions in East Devon.

Harris Y 1995 Business Use of Barn Conversions; A study

of rental values

Humphries L 2000 Farm Building Conversions to B1 Use: A

study of the Limiting Infrastructure Factors.

Peterson J 1997 The Conversion of Agricultural Barns to

Business use: effect of the Building Regulations

Technical

Only the fire escape intrudes

a lovely view to work with 0800 45 85 660 FARMSIGNS • QUEENS ROAD • BARNET • HERTS • EN5 4DN • TELEPHONE 020 8364 9333

Design and manufacture of high quality aluminium signs and notices.

Suppliers to farming estates, local authorities, farm shops, schools and hotels.

For a FREE CATALOGUE of safety signs, banners and retail signs phone free.

Reader Enq 018


Farmers Get GreaterFlexibility in New Planning

Guidance

The following press release has been received from the DETR

and since it is of so much interest to our members it is repro-

duced below.

Guidance to promote greater flexibility in the re-use of redun-

dant farm buildings to assist farmers in setting-up new, diversi-

fied business has been announced.

The new planning policy guidance states that local planning

authorities should be supportive of farm diversification schemes

for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their

rural location.

The guidance has been amended to reflect the importance that

the Government attaches to effective planning for sustainable

farm diversification projects and the re-use of redundant farm

buildings.

Planning Minister, Nick Raynsford, said,

“PPG 7 recognises the increasing importance to farm-

ers of diversification into non-agricultural activities in

order that they may supplement their incomes, which is

essential in achieving a competitive and sustainable

agricultural industry.

“The new guidance is being updated to reflect the new

context, and to make clearer to local planning authori-

ties that they should take a positive approach towards

farm diversification proposals. This was one of the

commitments set out in the Rural White Paper, Our

Countryside: the future, published on 30 November

2000.”

Planning Policy Guidance note 7, The

Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social

Development (PPG7) can be accessed on the website at:

www.planning.detr.gov.uk/policy.htm.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question from Mark Todd, MP for

South Derbyshire, Mr Raynsford said,

“A competitive and sustainable agricultural industry is

vital to the economic, social and environmental well-

being of rural areas. The Prime Minister’s Action Plan

for Farming and the White Paper Our Countryside:

the Future emphasised the Government’s desire both

for agriculture to be prosperous, forward-looking and

sustainable, and to encourage diversification and

enterprise. Reform of the European Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) is changing the direction of

agriculture and the England Rural Development

Programme provides a major switch of CAP funds to

support the new approach.

“Planning policies for the countryside are set out in

Planning Policy Guidance note 7, The Countryside:

Environmental Quality and Economic and Social

Development (PPG7). That guidance is now four

years old and needs to be clarified in respect of the

Government’s policy on farm diversification. I am

therefore amending the text of the guidance to reflect

the importance that the Government attaches to

effective planning for sustainable farm diversification

projects and the re-use of redundant farm buildings.

The first point in paragraph 2.8 of PPG7 is amended as fol-

lows:

“. encourage rural enterprise, including the diversification

of farm businesses;”

Technical

Reader Enq 019

Reader Enq 020


Paragraph 3.4 no longer adequately reflects the significant

changes now shaping the agricultural industry. I am there-

fore deleting the current text and replacing it with the fol-

lowing:

‘3.4A The Government’s long term strategy for

farming was set out in “A New Direction for

Agriculture” published in December 1999 and was

taken a step further with the launch of the “Action

Plan for Farming” in March

2000. The England Rural Development Programme

(ERDP) was launched in October 2000. Together,

these are providing opportunities to help the indus-

try become more competitive and diverse and to

promote environmental

aims. Farming continues to make a significant con-

tribution to the economy of rural areas but increas-

ingly diversification into non-agricultural activities

is vital to the continuing viability of many farm busi-

nesses. Local planning authorities should set out in

their development plans the criteria to be applied to

planning applications for farm diversification proj-

ects. Local planning authorities should be support-

ive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes

for business purposes that are consistent in their

scale with their rural location.

3.4B The ERDP will, through the Rural

Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and

Marketing Grant (PMG), provide support for select-

ed diversification proposals, subject to competition.

Success in securing RES and PMG funding may

depend upon obtaining prior planning permission

for diversification proposals, but the potential avail-

ability of any grant funding is not a material consid-

eration when determining a relevant planning appli-

cation. Further guidance on development related to

agriculture (other than that covered by permitted

development rights) and to farm diversification is

given in Annex C, which includes a non-exclusive

list of examples of potential farm diversification. It

is usually preferable for farm diversification

schemes to re-use good quality existing buildings

and put them to a new business use, rather than

build new buildings in the countryside. New build-

ings, either to replace existing buildings or to

accommodate expansion of enterprises, may also

be acceptable provided that they satisfy sustain-

able development objectives and are of a design

and scale appropriate to their rural surroundings.’

Planning guidance relating to the protection of England’s

best quality agricultural land is also contained in PPG7. The

Rural White Paper signalled the Government’s intention

that decisions about the development or protection of best

and most versatile agricultural land (BMV land) should rest

with local authorities. Additionally, the Draft Soil Strategy for

England, which we published for consultation on 6 March,

sets out our wider proposals for protecting and managing

our soil resources.

Paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of PPG7 are therefore with-

drawn and the following paragraphs should be substituted:

‘2.17 Development of greenfield land, including

the best and most versatile agricultural land

(defined as land in grades 1, 2, and 3a of the

Agricultural Land Classification), should not be per-

mitted unless opportunities have been assessed for

accommodating development on previously-devel-

oped sites and on land within the boundaries of

existing urban areas (see PPG3 in respect of hous-

ing development). Where development of agricul-

tural land is unavoidable, local planning authorities

Technical



should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in

preference to that of a higher quality, except where

other sustainability considerations suggest other-

wise. These might include, for example, its impor-

tance for biodiversity, the quality and character of

the landscape, its amenity value or heritage inter-

est, accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and

markets, and the protection of natural resources,

including

soil quality. Some of these qualities may be recog-

nised by a statutory wildlife, landscape, historic or

archaeological designation, such as a National

Park or Site of Special Scientific Interest.’

‘2.18 Local authorities planning to allow the devel-

opment of greenfield land, where soil or agricultur-

al quality is a consideration, should seek advice

Technicalfrom MAFF and from other relevant bodies such as

English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the

Environment Agency or English Heritage as appro-

priate. They may also be required to consult one or

more of these agencies of any intention to allow

development under the Town and Country Planning

(General Development Procedure) Order 1995, and

in respect of development plan proposals as

described in Annex C to PPG12. The decision

whether to utilise BMV land for development is for

each local planning authority, having carefully

weighed the options in the light of competent

advice.’

MAFF will continue to provide technical advice to local

planning authorities on agricultural land quality issues and

other matters relating to agricultural development as

described in Annex B to PPG7. My Department expects to

issue good practice guidance on methodologies for inte-

grating competing sustainability considerations later this

year. In due course the Government expects to repeal the

statutory right available to the Minister of Agriculture under

section 18(3) and 44(3) of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 to require the Secretary of State to intervene in

development plans to which MAFF have unresolved objec-

tions.

My Department will be writing to every planning authority in

England to inform them of the clarification of PPG7 set out

in this statement and a version of PPG7 which consolidates

these and other changes already announced will be posted

on the Department’s website at www.planning.detr.gov.uk.

Other planning policy guidance notes and mineral policy

guidance notes that refer to PPG7 should be read in con-

junction with this statement.

Reader Enq 023

Reader Enq 024


Introduction:

Good building design is important and good skills have a price.

Time spent debating and designing out good solutions has to be

paid for, either directly as a fee, or indirectly within product or

service costs.

The price paid for a good design is seldom wasted. It is far

exceeded by the cost of a bad design. Buildings are permanent

structures which are expensive to modify, or enlarge, once fun-

damental design errors have been made. Farmers making deci-

sions about livestock housing and crop storage cannot afford to

get it wrong. Most farmers do not have the opportunity to build

up a fund of knowledge, since relatively few large scale invest-

ment decisions are taken during a working lifetime. This fund of

knowledge and experience is out there in the industry, but how

can it best be sourced and utilised?

What is Good Building Design?

Good agricultural building design clearly establishes the function

required, and delivers that function in a straightforward way. A

functionally sound solution, which meets aesthetic and budget-

ary requirements is paramount. This must satisfy the working

and living environmental requirements of both humans and live-

stock. It must also meet all statutory legislative demands,

including Codes of Good Agricultural Practice. Adaptability is

important, with due consideration given to likely future extension

and improvements, including change of use.

Good design solutions are a source of pleasure and pride for all

involved. The building elements and components look ‘meant’

for one another. Their design co-ordination is such that labour,

stock movement and handling, feed storage and delivery are all

effectively and safely carried out. Good designs are also robust,

lending themselves to changes to suit farming policy changes,

such as the introduction of larger breeds, changes in feeding

regimes, specialisation or expansion of output.

Good design is best delivered by a team since it requires a thor-

ough, up-to-date understanding of a range of issues from farm

practice, including animal welfare, mechanisation, waste and

feed storage, environmental impact, legislation, quality assur-

ance, building materials and cost, access and services.

The team may comprise of a farmer and a builder, or product

supplier. But beware of a vested interest in product or service

selling, not related to actual needs. Other farmers can assist in

providing ideas and solutions, and the industry remains refresh-

ingly free in providing access to farms to look at completed

building projects. The test of the benefit of visiting a range of

built solutions, is the ability to sift the good from the bad, and the

appropriate from the inappropriate.

Good consultants can bring in other specialists as required,

(waste engineers, vets, husbandry experts). All the attention is

devoted to delivering the most appropriate functional design

solution, without any vested interest in product selling, and with

all the experience of literally hundreds of completed designs

every year, UK wide.

Farmers contemplating building projects must source and avail

themselves of the extensive experience and design skills avail-

able within the agricultural sector, from other farmers, product

suppliers, builders and design consultants. To go it alone is

highly risky, and potentially expensive, as outlined in the follow-

ing example.

Beef Unit Case Study 1:

A farmer-designed suckler beef unit is illustrated in Figure 1.

The unit was designed to house 92 beef cows in cubicles with a

central calf creep, and outside feed areas, scraped to a dung

midden. The unit was built in 1991 on a greenfield site, in close

proximity to a watercourse, 13m away at the nearest point.

Builder work quality for the building is good, but design stan-

dards are extremely poor. The building has struggled to accom-

modate traditional Scottish hill cows, and a new tenant now

wishes to house spring-calving continental suckler cows. This

poses a number of significant problems, including:

· The cubicles are too small (2.18m x 1.07m) and not

readily extended, with solid walls at the head.

· The cubicle bed is flat with a high step, hence not

drained, and not attractive for cow entry.

· The calf creep is long and narrow, and inflexible for

alternative use.

· The water troughs are poorly sited, immediately adja

cent to a busy access door, with inadequate space

(1.2m) to allow cows to stand and drink undisturbed.

· Cow access to the outside feed area is too narrow, at

1.2m with a high risk of cow stress and injury.

· No artificial lighting, for animal inspection and manage

ment.

· No power sockets, to assist with routine management

tasks.

Technical

THE PRICE OF GOOD DESIGN : THE COST OFBAD DESIGN

Dr Mike Kelly Building Design Services

Knockendale, Syrington, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, KA1 5PN

Tel: 01563 830147


· Outside feed face inadequate, can only feed 40 cows

maximum either side on full feed frontage (total 80

cows).

· Feed trough base is at floor level, not permitting maxi

mum comfort and reach when cattle are feeding.

· Slurry store is inadequate providing only 150m3 of stor

age when over 680m3 is required under current pollu

tion legislation. Leakage is evident the full length of the

store, causing a significant pollution risk.

· There is no safety fencing or hazard warning notices

for the slurry store, posing a risk to anyone in the vicin-

ity, especially children.

This building is totally unsuited to its purpose. It contains a num-

ber of significant design faults, from the day it was built, exacer-

bated by the current requirement to house larger cows. The

building cost approximately £65k in 1991, grant-aided at 37% on

most items, net cost £42k. It now requires approximately £18k

expenditure, to address some of the design limitations outlined

above. Even with this expenditure, the building still poses a sig-

nificant pollution risk, because of outside feed areas scraped to

an inadequate dung store. The cost of feed area roofing is an

additional £9k, increasing the required expenditure to £27k.

Expansion of the unit is not possible because of poor site

choice. In summary, it is a real mess.

Technical

Figure 1: Cubicle with outside feed area, scraped to midden

Figure 2: Cubicle unit with internal feed passages, scraped to a slurry store.


Beef Unit Case Study 2:

An SAC-designed, suckler beef unit (1991) is illustrated in

Figure 2.

The unit houses 116 beef cows in cubicles, with slurry

scraped to an above ground store. The feed stances and

feed passage are under cover. The building is an upgrade of

an existing unit, incorporating a lean-to, allowing the internal

layout to be modified to a conventional 4-row arrangement.

The straightforward design, with flexibility for future use won

a Certificate of Merit in the 1991 ‘Reused but not Abused’

Building Competition organised by the Rural Design and

Building Association. Builderwork standards are high

throughout, and the building has stood the test of time, with-

out any significant design problems. It complies with all cur-

rent pollution legislation, animal welfare and Quality

Assurance requirements.

A broad overall cost of the building, automatic scrapers and

slurry store was £115k. Grant aid was paid at 50%. Design

fees were approximately 3.5%, at £4k. The chosen site is

such that the building can be readily expanded, or can have

other facilities linked to it, by extending the existing channel,

for slurry transfer to the above ground store. It is a robust

design, well-suited to changing needs, either for larger suck-

ler cows or dairy stock.

Technical

Summary of Case Studies : Initial and Subsequent Costs:

Building 1 (1991) Building 2 (1991)

No of cows which can be accommodated, 80 116

to meet feeding provisions.

Initial costs (after grant) £42k £58k

Additional costs to meet current requirements £27k Minimal, say 2k

TOTAL £88k £60k

Subsequent cost per cow place £860 £520

Continued suitability for purpose poor good

The poor design of Case Study 1, means a continuing, significant pollution risk


TechnicalConclusion:

There is a long-term cost to be paid for bad design, in lack of flexibility of use, poor animal welfare and performance, no expansion

potential etc.

The example above of two beef units built in 1991, indicates that this cost penalty continues throughout the life of buildings. The

price of bringing in good design skills is well worth it, if it delivers a functional design in a straightforward way, which stands the test

of time.

Good design is all about effective communication between all parties, at all times. Readers will be amused by the tree project

sketches, based on original drawings by Dave Taylor.



Reader Enq 027


THAT WAS THE YEAR THATWAS › 1962

A look at past Farm Building Association Journals

COW CUBICLES

How and where did they originate?

Today many dairy cows are housed in cow cubicles. They wereinvented in Britain on a small›holding in Cheshire, or were they?

In the FBA Journal of 1962 Peter Buckler wrote of his visit to seethe dairy cow housing system developed by Mr Howell Evans ofGreen Lane Farm, Saltney, Cheshire.

Mr Evans had a 36 acre holding that was much split up and theonly practical way of feeding his cows was zero grazing. As hisbuildings were not suitable for zero grazing he developed abunker system for feeding grass in summer and silage in winter.

By building a platform raised on brick piers above a trough witha ramp at each end Mr Howell fed the forage by driving a trac›tor and trailer over the platform and dumping the feed from thetrailer through a continuous slot in the platform into the troughbelow. The brick piers were spaced 1� 9� apart so giving eachcow its own feeding space.

On each side of the feeding area was a lean›to building whereMr Evans � tried deep litter.� But this was too costly.

�From his observations of the behaviour of his cows, and MrEvans is an expert on cow behaviour, he hit on the idea of cowcubicles as a solution to his problems.� Although several peoplelay claim to inventing cow cubicles Mr Evans was the first toinstall them in Britain, and he developed them without referenceor knowledge from elsewhere either here or abroad.

The Journal contains a written description of the cubicle designand is shown in the drawing.

Peter Buckler watched the cows for a whole afternoon andnoted that the 9� gap at the bottom of the cubicle was impor›tant as allowed the cow to lie comfortably with her foot outstretched. Equally important was the higher 17� gap throughwhich the cow pushed her head when lying down or rising. Arailway sleeper was placed against the front wall to stop the cowlying to far forward

Peter Buckler noted that the cows were surprisingly clean andduring the afternoon he was there he watched them get up andlie down without difficulty. He was told that the cost of beddingwas much reduced and was about 8 to 10 lbs of sawdust percow per week. Mr Evans also commented that there was muchto learn about the movement of slurry.

Kow Kubicles by Major Bramley

National News

Mr Howell Evans’ cow cubicle unit

Cow cubicle as used by Mr. Howell Evans


National News

Diagrams to illustrate the principle of Mr. Howell Evans’ cow cubicle layout with zero-grazing bunk filled from overhead tractor

From this article it seems clear that Mr Evans was the inventor of cow cubicles.

But turn the page of this Journal and what do you read.

Editors note:-

COW n Female of any bovine animal, esp. of the domestic species

COWTOWN small provincial town with cattle dealers

COWSHOT (cricket sl.) pull across ball to leg side

KOWTOW n Chinese custom of touching ground with forehead as sign of worship or absolute submission


In a no›nonsense opening Major Bramley wrote, �Many peoplein this country seem to be under the impression that the idea ofputting cows into cubicles originated in the USA this is not so.Cubicles for cows were developed on my farm.�

The initial experiments were carried out in 1957/58 and whenMajor Bramley visited the States in 1959 his ideas on cubicleswere received with amusement at first, but the idea caught onvery rapidly, especially in areas where there was little bedding.He wryly comments that the farmers of the USA are more recep›tive to new ideas than those in Britain.

Major Bramley wished to improve cow comfort by bedding themon Kowleys instead of straw. The Kowley, a plastic foam mat›tress, could not be used in covered yards, as it would be soiled.Clearly the cows had to be restricted in some way to prevent this happening.

Several layouts and experiments finally resulted in a �weldedtubular cage, open at one end and closed at the other except

for a vertical slot through which the animals head and neck pro›trudes.� Details are shown on the drawing.

The cows readily took to the cubicles and when they firstentered the building they walked into them and lay down,although there was no bedding except the Kowleys. Majorthought it reasonable to assume that �loose housing must beabhorrent to cows.�

In the article Major Bramley claimed that his cubicles allowed forself›feeding or trough›feeding, and at the time the article waswritten, experiments were in progress to milk cows in the cubi›cles.

It would be interesting to hear the comments of these two pio›neers if they could see the development of cubicle design andthe extent of their use since their day.

National News


Reader Enq 028

Reader Enq 029

Reader Enq 030

Reader Enq 031


The use of a separator to convert a messy, smelly noxious

slurry into a valuable fertiliser, is one of the success stories

of the last decade.

Peter Blackwell of Bredy Pollution Control Limited explains.

Restrictions prohibiting the use of inorganic fertilisers on organic

units, has reinforced the benefits to farmers to the value of good

grassland husbandry and the way in which slurry separators may

assist in the process.

As farmers are well aware, the timing of fertiliser application is a crit-

ical factor in effecting the yield of the crop and spreading of slurry in

the winter can lead to massive losses of nutrient as well as pollution

risks.

Easy, we say, use storage to keep the slurry until it is suitable to

spread, but is there a good time?

Before the first cut of silage there is a contamination risk. After the

second cut the ground is usually too dry and application of a large

amount of slurry causes die back and pollution risk. With separat-

ed liquid, there is no such risk. By applying the liquid to a growing

crop, the dew next day is enough to wash in the liquid; therefore the

separated liquid becomes a valuable fertiliser and not a waste prod-

uct.

One of the keys to yield without bag nitrogen fertiliser is clover.

Valued both for it’s ability to fix free nitrogen from the air and as a

very palatable material in silage or grazing, clover has always been

respected, but the use of inorganic fertilisers and the spreading of

mixed slurry causing capping and land compaction has very much

depressed the growth of clover.

However, this is not the case when separated liquid is spread into

pasture. Then clover proliferates and hence yields are sustainable

without inorganic fertiliser.

Slurry caps over grassland causes an anaerobic layer on the sur-

face and worms are killed. Slurry tankers also play their part in

compacting ground and the combination of the two means that

drainage is impaired lending to water logging of solids and damage

to the soil structure.

Separated liquid can be pumped with low-rate irrigation equipment

already present on up to 25% of farms without causing blockages.

As separated liquid enters the ground readily, it therefore causes lit-

tle anaerobic problems. It kills far less worms and the worms pro-

liferate and aid ground drainage. The soil lifts allowing oxygen into

the plant roots and thus aiding grass growth.

Killing weeds can be a difficult task without chemical herbicides.

Slurry causes patches of bare ground and promotes weed growth

while separated liquid encourages grasses to stool out. Such

grass then inhibits weed growth

Lower stocking rates have lead to a reduction in labour usage,

hence there is no longer the labour available on farming units as

there was in the past, to spend time agitating and spreading mixed

slurry on pastures. This in turn, has given the contractor a major

role in using umbilical apparatus to spread slurry. Regrettably in

some cases, this has been a disaster as non-separated liquids sit

on top of the ground and with 20-40 hectare covered per day, a

good nights rain in hilly terrain can cause massive run off problems.

The E.P.A. is getting increasingly nervous and perturbed by farmers

using methods such as these and more stringent fines are being

placed on both contractors and farmers for bad spreading practice.

The separated liquid does not cause the same sort of run-off prob-

lems as on suitable ground. It is easily absorbed, therefore is not

left to run off. Losses to atmosphere are reduced dramatically so

greenhouse gas emissions are lessened. Organic farmers want

and need to be seen demonstrating best husbandry practices.

Could separation be the key to this?

Technical

SLURRY SEPARATIONAND THE ORGANIC

FARMERPeter Blackwell of Bredy Pollution Control

Reader Enq 032

Reader Enq 033


Reader Enq 034

Reader Enq 035

Reader Enq 036

Reader Enq 037



The Government has recently published Green papers on the

countryside and on urban development. These have identified

problems of decline and have proposed possible solutions as a

starting point for consultation. However, one of the key reasons for

the decline has been overlooked.

The Greenbelt was created to contain urban sprawl. Although this

has prevented ad hoc development in the countryside, there are

drawbacks, accentuated by an increasingly vigorous implementa-

tion of the regulations.

1.Demand for building land exceeds supply. Once allocated for

development, the value of land soars.

2.Precious open spaces in our urban areas, including large rear

gardens, are increasingly being developed. Amenity space is lost

as more properties are squeezed on to sites.

A new two bedroom village house now typically costs £70,000 and

the average family house costs £90,000. The average family

income of £23,000 will finance a £69,000 mortgage. Rural wages

are lower.

When rural development is allowed builders increasingly produce

large houses, usually with small gardens. These are aimed at afflu-

ent purchases, often urban dwellers who can afford the premium.

The needs and requirements of the rural population are side-lined.

Landowners wishing to renovate dis-used buildings face obstacles.

Councils allow barns to decline beyond repair rather than allow

structural changes to permit conversion. A landowner recently high-

lighted on `CountryFile’ was refused permission to convert dis-used

farm buildings for light industry, because they were a mile from the

local village. Their previous use and the benefits to the rural econo-

my were not sufficient.

Industrialisation of farming has forced wildlife from large areas of

countryside. As farms have merged and the workforce reduced,

the rural infrastructure has declined. The lack of local services and

housing for the poor was noted in the rural paper. However, key

problems seem to have been overlooked.

With adequate backing and local commitment, local services can

be created to meet local demand. The response is flexible and

meets the need. This can be a community bus, the local shop or a

play area. Housing people and managing the land needs a more

structured, planned approach.

The green belt approach isn’t working. Developments continue to

encroach. When a bypass is built to reduce congestion, the newly

enclosed land is steadily developed to accommodate industry and

housing. The new houses are huddled together in random regi-

ments, held back by close-board fencing. Surrounding land is often

abandoned to scrub, waiting to be allocated for the next develop-

ment.

The countryside needs attention. Like a rare breed, it needs to be

managed. Not as a large rural theme park, its inhabitants keeping it

manicured for the visitor, but as a living, vibrant, active place of

work.

Agribusiness, the modern, large scale approach to global food pro-

duction, is managing the countryside less. With margins squeezed

and the workforce reduced, the quality of the countryside, with its

diversity and habitats is sacrificed in pursuit of dwindling profits.

Increasingly, we are losing the countryside that many cherish.

Whilst it may have been protected from unrestrained urban sprawl,

a new lifeless rural desert is forming. It lacks wildlife and people.

In France, great efforts are made to prevent land being aban-

doned. European citizens under 30 with appropriate qualifications

are given grants and assistance to set up holdings. In Britain, the

next generation faces numerous obstacles to stop them from join-

ing the trade. Consequently, the average age of a farm worker is

55.

A holding has to generate most of the family income before a prop-

erty can be built, via an Agricultural Occupancy restriction. With an

established 500 acre farm producing an income of £10,000, this

option is not viable.

The countryside needs to be worked, and to be lived in. Housing

should meet the needs of local residents, including those who want

to work the land. They should not be penalised because of soaring

property prices.

If social housing is to be built, will it meet the demand? Will it meet

the needs of a rural population, who may not wish to live in an

estate away from the place of work? With significantly reduced

profit margins, who will build these properties?

The rural population is diverse and independent. Why should the

Opinion

2. Surely there is room for low key development like this in the green belt

1. The type of development typically found in villages - designed to maximise the

“premium” available from a rural development

3. Three years ago this site was farmland. It is typical of modern housing. As the

new houses slowly encroach, one wonders how long the land in the foreground

will remain. The village’s population has grown by 1/3rd in the past 5 years and

so much of the character of what was a market town has been diluted.

THE GREENBELT ISN�T WORKINGMark J Chester BSc(Hart), Cert.Arb, NC Arb

Tree Officer, Planning Department, Dudley MBC


people be expected to live in such developments when there are

alternatives, which may be more appropriate?

Is there not a case for allowing those who wish to work the land, to

stay on it or to retire to it after a life of working it, to build modest

small-holdings? Small-scale operations will allow more people to

work the land and manage it the way most people would prefer.

Regulations on size and design can produce a property more in

keeping than the modern estates. Individual buildings are part of

the landscape, after all. Restricting resale to agricultural workers,

locals and rural professionals would help to ensure a local avail-

ability.

The British countryside has been scarred by fifty years of ill-formed

policies. As we grasp the consequences of this legacy, surely now

is the time to take a radical new approach. The countryside needs

to be protected and worked as never before, and unlike our prede-

cessors, we cannot wistfully cite ignorance.

Opinion

4. The property in the background is on the site of a dwelling similar to that in the

foreground. Why can we not have more like it?, when we permit a development

such as that in picture 3 only 1/2 a mile away.

Reader Enq 040

Reader Enq 041

Reader Enq 042

Reader Enq 043


Cowhouse To Clubhouse

When golfing became more than just a hobbie for one

Cheshire farmer, ADAS came to the rescue with some advice

to help fulfil his dream to create a nine-hole par 3 golf course

near Congleton.

The creation of Marton Meadows Golf Course was to involve

the conversion of 22 acres of agricultural land and an existing

building, once used for milking cows. From milking cows to

teeing-off, the land was to be transformed over a period of four

years, which included obtaining planning and building

approval, the conversion of the building and the completion of

the golf course.

Specialist Consultants, from ADAS Building Design, were

enlisted to design the project from beginning to end. They pro-

vided detailed specifications for both the clubhouse and the

construction of the Par 3, 1244 yard course. This involved

obtaining the necessary planning consent and building regula-

tions for the clubhouse facilities. Detailed drawings and speci-

fication enabled the farm to competitively tender each stage of

the work – something they felt unable to handle themselves.

Much of the course construction was carried out by in-house

farm staff who sourced materials and workmen locally. ADAS,

as specialists in golf course design, were continually on hand,

providing technical support and experienced advice every step

of the way.

After much preparation and work, planning was granted in

favour of the conversion project, as it was to benefit to the rural

economy, whilst supporting the more commercial cause of

diversification in its farming business. Since its creation, the

golf course has further strengthened the farm’s business posi-

tion; providing an alternative and additional means of income.

Additional facilities built into the clubhouse were; changing

rooms, showers, toilets, a kitchen with servery and a sales

area for golfing merchandise. A large lounge area provides a

venue for functions, to be used by golfers and non-golfing visi-

tors alike. The original building saw the addition of a large

entrance lobby - a practical feature which brought a sympa-

thetic, architectural enhancement to the original cow house

facade.

The clubhouse itself was completed in 1998 and was opened

in July 1999. Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, William Bromley –

Davenport conducted the official opening, in recognition of the

determination and achievement of the Cheshire Farmer in tak-

ing on such a project.

The total project cost approximately £300,000 but already gen-

erates revenue in excess of £30,000 a year. Two local people

were needed, part-time, to look after the Green-keeping of the

course, which keeps the farm owner himself busy. Since

opening, both the golf course and clubhouse facilities have

provided the farm with alternative sources of revenue; the

lounge has already played host to many weddings, millennium

and birthday parties and golf society meetings.

“ADAS has been most helpful in the conception and design of

both the course and the clubhouse conversion. Such experi-

ence and advice has enabled us to breathe new life into a for-

mer milking parlour and dairy,” said the Cheshire Farm Owner.

Technical

Reader Enq 044

Reader Enq 045

Reader Enq 046

Reader Enq 047


Reader Enq 048

Reader Enq 049


Countyryside Building Issue 4 Volume 1

Documents

Transcript of Countyryside Building Issue 4 Volume 1