The appellant claimed that the deer herd was vulnerable to predators and the site was at risk of animal rights activism. The reporter was satisfied that the deer farming activities were sufficiently well established to require at least one agricultural worker to live on the farm. Although no proper business plan had been submitted, he acknowledged that the appellant's expenditure on buildings, equipment and stock indicated his strong commitment to the development of the business.
In the light of a local plan policy encouraging new farm dwellings to be sited alongside existing farmsteads, he was concerned that the proposed property was to be positioned out of sight and sound of the stock buildings. He was not convinced that this would be in the best interests of animal welfare. He recognised the need to publicise the business in the hope of capturing passing trade for the farm shop, but held that this could be achieved by signage on the road.
DCS Number 100-050-374
Reporter John Martin; Written representations.