countryside building issue 1 volume 2

Publishers:Ghyll House Publishing LtdATSS HouseStation Road EastStowmarketSuffolkIP14 1RQ

Tel: 01449 677500Fax: 01449 770028E-mail: [email protected]

Subscriptions - free to members of theRDBANon-members UK: £20.00Non-members Overseas: £25.00

Advertising SalesChris Hutchinson, details as aboveJason Craig, Tel: 0289 7519178 or07947 360422

Editor: Tony HutchinsonNational SecretaryRural Design and Building AssociationATSS HouseStation Road EastStowmarketSuffolkIP14 1RQ

Tel: 01449 676049Fax: 01449 770028Email: [email protected]

Cover: Courtesy of Eternit

Countryside Building has been carefullyprepared but articles are published withoutresponsibility on the part of the publishersor authors for loss occasioned to anyperson acting or refraining from action asa result of any view, information or adviceincluded therein. The articles published donot necessarily reflect the opinions of theRural Design and Building Association.The publishers do not accept anyresponsibility for claims made byadvertisers

VOLUME 2 ISSUE 22 SECRETARY S COLUMN 2 OUR NEW CHAIRMAN 3 AMENDMENTS TO MEMBERS DIRECTORY SINCE THE LAST

ISSUE 3 DIARY DATES 3 OBITUARY 4 THE RDBA MEMBERSHIP PACKAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE RURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING

ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERALMEETING 7 RDBA AT THE EUROPEAN DAIRY EVENT 8 LETTERS 8 Stone Slate Minerals Planning 8 Stone Slate National Briefing 10 THE CONSTRUCTION GROUP 10 The Importance of our H & S Campaign 11 HSE ISSUES FRAGILITY CLASSIFICATION ALERT TO THE

ROOFING INDUSTRY 11 Amendments to the Building Regulations part L 11 Amendments to the Building Regulations part B 11 Fire Safety European Supplement 11 RDBA says NO to Building Controlfor working farm

buildings 12 PLASTIC STRUCTURES FOR LIVESTOCK HOUSING 16 STONE SLATE QUARRIES OR DELPHS 20 DOUBLE UP ON THOSE VALVES BEFORE IT S TOO LATE! 23 THE HARMONY CENTRE A FARM DIVERSIFICATIONPROJECT 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE INSULATION OF FARMBUILDINGS 30 ROBOTIC MILKING › THE FUTURE TODAY? 32 ROBOTIC MILKING SYSTEM 32 HIGH TECH IN AGRICULTURE 33 WHEN IS CONSULTATION NOT CONSULTATION › WHENIT IS CARRIED OUT BY GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTS 34 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

GUIDANCE (PPG7) IN RELATION TO THE DIVERSIFICATION OF FARM BUSINESS.

35 BACK ISSUES 35 TIMBER INDUSTRY AWARDS 2001 36 NEW CONCRETE MIXES FOR FARMERS 38 SETTING THE PLANNING SCENE FOR THOSECONSIDERING DIVERSIFICATION IN TO HORSEKEEPING!

Main Features in our next issueFeatures planned for Volume 2 issue 3 - March 2002

The implication of the Changes to Part 'L' of the BuildingRegulations on the Conversion of Rural Buildings - Richard LangleyThat was the Year that was - John MesserHarmony Centre - Part II - Explanation of the use of Green

Construction Materials and Systems.Impact of Climate Change on the Construction Industry- Paul

Blackmore of the BREPlanning and Equestrian Buildings - David J Wood

Construction GroupStone Slate Quarries, or Delphs, part II

In Association with the

RDBARURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION

Countryside Building 1

Countryside Building Contents


Secretaries Column / Diary DatesSecretary s Column

I trust that you have had a lovely Christmas and hope you have a prosperous 2002.

You will note that we have made a few changes to the magazine and trust that you like the new look.

Undoubtedly last year was the worst for the rural economy for many years, but we can be confident that for the majority of us,next year can not be as bad, although there are bound to be changes.

We need to watch the development of DEFRA, they have a very difficult task to perform, with all the different demands on thecountryside it is impossible to cater for everyone’s requirements, the countryside can not be all things to all people. So some verydifficult choices will have to be made but if DEFRA get the choices right and can give a lead, so that the majority of those involvedin the rural economy can back them, we can come out of our present problems in a far stronger position. The fear is that they willtake the lead from those with the loudest voices rather than those that understand the problems and so the situation will getworse.

During the year there has been very little activity either at national or branch level, but now that Foot and Mouth is over, we mustlook forward to a busy 2002. In the last year our membership has grown by 15% and we need to attract these new members tonew interesting and enjoyable events around the country. We should look at the Winter Conference in November on Sustainabilityas a great stepping stone.

You can read all about the conference later in Countryside Building, but there is no doubt that sustainability is with us to stay andwe all need to look at what we can do to reduce our impact on the environment. It was interesting to listen to Judi Loachenthusiastically extolling the fact that one way of building sustainably is, where practicable, to reuse old buildings. This is ofcourse a theme that the RDBA has been pushing for many years; with our last competition ‘Re-used but not Abused’ being basedon the reuse of old buildings.

With this in mind and to continue the theme (and have abit of fun) I have decided to start my own competition,with the publishers of Countryside Building putting up abottle of whisky as a prize. The competition is to find thestrangest / most interesting building that has beenconverted or reused. To start this off I reproduce aphotograph I took in Athens earlier this year of twobuildings that are now smart offices but obviously startedlife as large gasometers.

All photographs with a brief explanation to the Secretary,a selection will be reproduced in the next issue.

Our New Chairman

At the AGM on the 15th November 2001 Jim Rogerson was elected as our new Chairman.Jim was born on 5/2/58, the day before the Munich Air Crash.He is a farmer’s son who has worked around the farm for as long as he can remember carrying out the typical tasks such ashand milking the cows into a bucket.After leaving school with 4 O levels he worked for an agricultural contractor for a year before working for two years on a dairyfarm of 180 cows. In 1977 he decided to branch out on his own as a self-employed agricultural contractor then in 1979 he started erecting timbercow kennels for Farmplan from Ross on Wye. In July 1988 he bought the building business from Farmplan with the help of theBank manager, who insisted that he used his house as collateral and pay interest of 5% over Bank base! He renamed thebusiness Farmplus and moved the offices to Shay Lane, Longridge, Preston, Lancashire.Over the years he has redesigned and increased the cow kennel range and can now build quality buildings for differing farm andfarming situations. He has also increased the range of General Purpose buildings, which now include more traditional types ofbuildings to suit conservation areas. He has expanded into Europe recently building 4 Dairy Units in Germany (one of themwinning a regional award in the area)He was married in 1984 to Mandy (Amanda Jayne) and now has two sons, Matthew 16 and Adam 14.He advises that he is used to hard work and never had time for a real holiday until 1991.He has been a Town & Borough Councillor since May 95, sitting on the Borough Council Planning Committee since day one; in1998/9 he was the Longridge Town Mayor.He is very keen to see an increase in “sustainable” development.He advises that some of his aims, as the Chairman, are to increase the number of Contractors who are members of theConstruction Group, ensure that next years spring conference is informative, interesting, enjoyable and well attended and toattend as many branch events as he can to meet as many members as possible.


New MembersAmendments to Members Directory since the last

issue New Members

Mr J Collinson, Individual, WessexMonk & Ptnrs, 4 The Crescent, Plymouth, Devon, PL1 3ABPhone: 01752 255222, Fax 01752 251100Building Surveyors offering design and build contract administration.Mr J. LL Edwards, Individual, WalesJ. LL. & E O P Edwards, Cefnbraich, Rhydymain, Dolgellan, Gwynedd, LL40 2BPPhone & fax: 01341 450688Steel framed agricultural and industrial buildings, f/c cladding, box profile sheeting in steel and grp. Mass concrete walling andflooring reinforcing, etc,. Ground preparation, agricultural contracting, etc.Mr G P Middleton A.B.I.A.T. Individual, WessexRoger Parry Chartered Surveyors, Hogston Hall, Minsterley, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 0HZPhone: 01743 791336, Fax: 01743 792770, E-mail [email protected] Site www.rogerparry.netChartered Surveyors, Planning and Listed Building Applications + Building Regulations Approvals, Architectural Drawings, Farmand Land Sales Management, Quota Sales, Valuations, etc.Onduline Building Products Ltd, Corporate, South EastEardley House, 182 – 184 Campden Hill Road, Kensington, London, W8 7ASMiss Maisie Meehan, Mr. H M Eichenauer, Mr. Anthony Knell, Claire HayzerPhone: 0207 727 0533, Fax: 0207 792 1390, E-mail Web Site: www.ondulinebuildingproducts.netOnduline roofing/cladding/oversheeting, Bardoline Tiles, Fonduline Damp Proofing, Ondusteel, Bituline Torch-onMr Nial Watkin-Rees Individual, North WestT E G Environmental PLC, Crescent House, 2-6 Sandy Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancashire PR25 2EBPhone: 01772 422220, Fax 01772 422210Continuous flow thermophilic composting system, bio degradable waste solutions, compost plants, design build and operatepackages, agricultural diversification opportunities, advice, R & D. Land and buildings wanted to develop in many areas, activeplant available to view, nation wide service, agri-business friendly.

AmendmentsNial Watkin-Rees Change to Mrs Lorna ShufflebottomMervyn Rose Engineering, Change of address to: Paradise Farm, Bagber, Sturminster Newton, Dorset, DT10 2HBMiss J S Rowe Change from Student to Individual Member

Diary Dates Due to the problems of foot and mouth very few meetings have been planned. Now that the outbreak is over, branchesaround the Country are booking dates I will try and keep our website up to date, as the dates are agreed.

16th of January 2002: Construction Group visit to Italy to see the Merlo factory.17th, 18th, & 19th of April 2002: The Spring Conference 2002, Diversification and Intensification in the Rural Area based at theSwallow Hotel on the A59 at Samlesbury, Lancashire. Read all about it later in the magazine.14th & 15 November 2002: Provisional date for the Winter Conference 2002. Venue and theme to be advised. More details fromthe National Secretary 01449 676049.

26th, 27th & 28th March 2003: Provisional date for the Spring Conference 2003, Venue and theme to be confirmed. More

ObituaryAlex Menzies

28th December 1970 – 4th September 2001

It is with great sadness that I report the death of Alex Menzies. He died of a heart attack on the 4th September.Alex was just 30 years old, married for 2 ½ years to Sis, with whom he had a daughter, Emily Sparkle, 3 months old.Having graduated from the Royal College, Cirencester, Alex joined us at Milbury, where he came into contact with many in theagricultural construction industry. His lively, enthusiastic manner and sense of humour, made him a most popular person in theCompany and wherever he went, being completely at home at any level of the society or in any situation.A keen member of the RDBA he held the posts of Chairman and then of Secretary of the Wessex branch.Alex left us 2 years ago, lured by the more exciting world of computers and e-commerce, something by which he had alwaysbeen fascinated. He kept in touch with us and remained a good friend.His popularity away from work was easily seen whenever we met socially, and very movingly emphasised by the sheer number offriends who attended his beautiful and emotional funeral in Bristol.Alex will be greatly missed by all who knew him.Our thoughts and sympathy are very much with his parents and family and with Sis and Emily Sparkle.

Bob HoneyPast Chairman


MembershipThe RDBA Membership Package� Regular meetings and conferences at branch and national level.

� The opportunity to comment on draft legislation and have ones views represented on a number of BSI Co

� Plenty of opportunities to meet with experts involved in rural buildings to discuss the issues of the

� This journal Countryside Building is published at least four times a year and mailed to 10,000 key

contains interesting and informative articles as well as giving members the opportunity to advertise the

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

� The RDBA show stand where Members can show their products and services at the major agricultural show

� Receive enquiries via the National Secretary.

� The opportunity to speak to the HSE and other Government Departments as a trade association rather th

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

� 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 to 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 majority 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 CommitThey also have their own safety training rig, which is taken to agricultural shows to demonstrate to farthat they should see on a building being erected on their farm,

The main aims of the Construction Group are:

� To promote good safe working practices within our industry.

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

� To discuss and exchange views and information withinour industry.

� To ensure that our clients realise their responsibilities under the Construction Health and Safety Re

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

� 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 tThey are now working on standardising method statements for the different processes involved in construcThey have published an advice note on the Farmer s responsibility when he has a building erected on his as the client the Farmer must ensure that he uses a competent Contractor and that in many instances the principle 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 su

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 envi

requirements of a modern agricultural building, together with the breadth of expertise in their siting

construction. This expertise also extends to conversion for diversification and other rural building

There is a branch structure with most branches holding:

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

� Designers, Surveyors� Teachers, Lecturers, Colleges� Contractors, Farm Building Erectors,� Equipment Manufacturers,� and Farmers.The Construction Group are responsible for the construction of over 50% of the buildings erected in th

buildings 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 Octobereach 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 DateMembership (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 boxif 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 HutchinsonATSS House, Station Road East, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 1RQTel: 01449 676049, Fax: 01449 770028, E-mail: [email protected]

RDBARURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION



Minutes of the RuralDesign and BuildingAssociationAnnual General MeetingHeld on 15th November2001 The Royal Hotel, Ross onWye

Present:

Mr R Coates Mr J Rogerson Mr C HeskethMr J Loynes Mrs H Ronson Mr A HutchinsonMr C. Pearce Mr J Lace Mr P DouglasMr K Musson Mr D Tysoe Mr S ThorpeMr L Scragg Mr T Blake Mr S MilesMr D Pollard Mr A Roberts Mr P CottrellMr R Johnson Mr R Stewart Mr L Woodhams I believe that other members also attended but did notcomplete the attendance sheet. Please advise theSecretary if you did attend but you are not listed above.

Apologies: See Secretary’s Report.

Minutes of the AGM held on 8thNovember 2000:

Jim Rogerson, seconded by and Hazel Ronson proposedthat the minutes of the AGM of 8th November 2000 beaccepted as a true record. The proposal was passed.

Matters arising from the previousminutes:

There were no matters arising

Chairman’s report

The chairman advised that he was delighted with the waythe membership had grown over the last year, but footand mouth had had a very negative effect on ouractivities. Despite this he was pleased to report that wehad moved forward with one of his key aims of creating alevel playing field in the quality of farm buildings. There isa move, from others, to bring working farm buildingsunder Building Control approval, but the Association andthe Construction Group disagreed, except that theyaccepted that there should be some checking of thestructural safety. To this end a statement had beenagreed, which states:

“The Rural Design and Building Association and itsConstruction Group does not support the move for“working farm buildings” to come under full Local AuthorityBuilding Control, but it does support the checking of theframe, foundations and load bearing walls in a systemssimilar to the system in Scotland, where by themanufacturer supplies to the Local Authority drawings andan engineers certificate underwriting the design. The

Local Authority can carry out checks of the calculations attheir discretion but should check sites post construction toensure that the building is built as drawn. The RDBA cansee no reason why the fixed cost to the client for thiswork by the Local Authority should be excessive.”

Now that it looks as if Foot and Mouth is finally over theAssociation has started to become more active, theconference should be the launch of a more active year.He hoped that the already active branches would lead theway for the activation of old branches.He asked for continued support for Countryside Building,which was helping to attract new members and give theRDBA a higher profile.We should all support the continued expansion of theConstruction Group.

Annual Accounts for Approval.

The Treasurer, Jim Loynes presented the annualaccounts. It was obviously very disappointing that therewas a loss, when we had budgeted for a small profit; thiswas directly due to Foot and Mouth, which meant that wehad to cancel so many events many of which would havegiven us a profit.Unfortunately the accountant only presented the finalaccounts to him late on the evening before and so therewere a number areas where he was not clear how someof the figures had been arrived at. He was confident thatthe final result was correct but some of the figuresneeded to be clarified, such as how was the VAT on thesecretary’s fees accounted for.As the loss was due directly to Foot and Mouth it wasagreed that the Secretary and Treasurer would investigatewhether there were any grants that could be claimed toreduce our loss.

Jim Rogerson seconded by Keith Musson proposed thatthe accounts are not adopted at this time, but thatclarification is sought by the treasurer and then providedto council for their acceptance and adoption at that time.The proposal was passed.

The Treasurer presented the budget for next year. Hepointed out that at the Council Meeting, the eveningbefore, two items had been discussed that might changethe budget, but since no decisions had been taken theeffect on the budget could not be predicted. The twoitems were; the publishing of the Members Directory inCountryside Building, which might be more expensivethan originally thought and an increase in the Secretary’sfees. Both were the subject of discussions andinvestigations that were on going. It was hoped thatdecisions would be taken at the next council meeting.

Nick Woodhams seconded by Jim Rogerson proposedthat the budget was accepted, with the above commentsnoted and it was hoped that it would be achieved.

The Chairman thanked the Treasurer for all his hard workover the last year.

National secretary’s report

The Secretary presented his report.Hazel Ronson reported that the Spring Conferenceplanned for March of this year, which was cancelled dueto Foot and Mouth, would now be changed andreorganised for late April of 2002. The Secretary wouldprovide more information once it was known.

National News


Election of CouncilThe Chairman advised that last years Vice-Chairman, JohnScott-White who had been expecting to stand for election asChairman, had recently decided to move house to the North ofScotland and felt that he would not often be able to attendmeetings or be able to spare the time to be Chairman, and sowas not standing for election. The Chairman thanked John forall his hard work and support as the Vice Chairman last year.He advised that he was delighted to report that Jim Rogersonwho had been an active Council Member for many years hadput himself forward to be elected as Chairman and HazelRonson had agreed to stand as Vice-Chairman.

Nick Woodhams seconded by Jim Rogerson proposed thatthose requiring election on the list of officers and Memberssupplied with the agenda should be elected on block. Thisproposal was agreed. The list is provided below.

Name Position LastElectedSir Pat Astley-Cooper Hon President LifeJim Rogerson Chairman 2001Dick Coates Immediate Past ChairmanHazel Ronson Vice-Chairman 2001Jim Loynes Treasurer 2000Tony Hutchinson National Secretary PaidGraeme Blanchard Member 2000David Bussey Member 1999Paul Douglas Member 1999Bob Honey Member 2001Mike Kelly Member 1999Jonathon Lace Member 2000Phillip Lewis Member 2000David Marston Member 1999Keith Musson Member 1999Chris Pearce Member 1999Jim Reid Member 1999 JohnScott-White Member 2001Lee Scragg Member 2000David Tysoe Member 2000 & NomChris Wareing Member NomineeDavid Wood Member 2000Any other business

RDBA at the EuropeanDairy Event

We had planned to attend at least three agricultural shows in2001, but then foot and mouth struck and for a time, forobvious reasons, all shows were cancelled.

We were then advised that the European Dairy Event wasgoing to go ahead at Stoneleigh, without any animals andreduced from 2 days to 1. After much debate as to whether itwas correct for us to attend, when some areas of the UK werestill being devastated by foot and mouth, it was finally agreedthat we would.

Last year we saved money by taking an outside stand, but itwas obvious that there were not nearly as many peopleoutside as there were inside and so the decision was taken toreduce the size of our stand and pay the extra to be undercover.

This proved to be the correct decision with plenty of visitors tothe stand, although with hindsight we should have had a largerstand, as you can see from the photograph the stand was veryfull. My thanks to Briarwood Products Ltd, Eternit UK Ltd,GFA-RACE Partners Ltd, Richard Mumford, Rombull (UK) Ltdand John Scott- White who all took space on the stand andhelp make the day such an enjoyable success. There was ageneral consensus that we should book again for next year,undercover if the price is not too high, and with a larger stand.

Talking to the farmers who visited the stand confirms the greatchanges that are sweeping through the agricultural industry,although in the short term milk prices to the farmer haveincreased this is not expected to continue in the long term.Only those farmers who continue to make efficiency savings orinclude added value processing on their farm are going to beable to make a living in dairying. The smaller herds are likely todisappear unless the farmer can find a higher priced nichemarket to sell into or find other paid work that allows him to runa hobby farm. Many farmers at the show were looking to re-organise their dairy to make them more efficient and a fewwere talking about totally rebuilding and increasing the herd to400 or 600 dairy cows.

It is though disappointing to note thatmany farmers are happy to take timeand effort to research the equipmentthey need to make them more efficientand accept that price is not necessarilythe most important aspect of theirdecision, but not as many are preparedto spend much time on considering thetype of building that they are going toput the equipment in, even though theystill expect the building to be in use forconsiderably longer than the equipmentthey put in it.

Stoneleigh was again a good venue butthey did let themselves down by havingnothing open the night before. Therewere a number of stand holders whostayed the night and an even largernumber of stand erectors who workedlate into the evening, who would havewelcomed somewhere to eat and havea drink.National Secretary

National News

The RDBA stand at the European Dairy event


LettersLetters

Dear Sirs

Stone Slate – Minerals Planning

I read with some considerable interest the article on StoneSlate in Vol. 2 Issue 1 of your publication.

Under the heading ‘Minerals Planning’ you indicate a need fora guide to preparing an application. Earlier you refer to theworking group formed to tackle specific problems and the factthat certain County Councils are represented on that groupand that minerals policies are supportive of slate grouping.Advice is always available from mineral planning offices. Theywill always advise on the best way to present an applicationand indeed most have a special (standard) application form.What I suggest is needed is clear advice and publicity byRDBA, CLA and others that all potential applicants should firstapproach the minerals officer for their area and obtain adviceand help.

Also the minerals local plan will contain advice and otherGovernment guidance eg. MPG1 is available. The advice isalready in place it is a matter for publicity to inform landownersetc about it.

Graham Warrilow FRICSCoed Helyg, Feidr Brenin, Newport, Pembrokeshire, SA42 0RZ

ED – Since this article ‘Stone Slates National Briefing’ createdso much interest we are starting, in this issue, a series of fourarticles on a ‘Guide to Making a Mineral Planning Applicationfor Stone-Slate Production, which does advise that contactshould be made with a mineral officer.’

Stone Slate National Briefing

I write as Chairman of the Collyweston Stone SlatersTrust, which is actively involved in many of the issues referredto in the above titled article in the last issue, with a specificreference to Collyweston stone slate. We have recentlypublished a leaflet on Collyweston Stone Slates, which can bemade available to anyone who is interested on receipt of astamped addressed envelope to the address below. Quantitiesof the leaflet may be ordered at the rate of £25.00 per 50copies.

The Trust has also established a website. The addressat the moment is rather indigestible,(www.collywestoneslaterstrust.org.uk) but we hope shortly tobe using www.csst.org.uk. We would be grateful for any furtherpublicity you can give to this matter.

Yours sincerelyRobert Dalgliesh. Collyweston Stone Slaters TrustEstate Office Milton ParkPeterboroughPE6 7AHPhone: 01733 267740Fax: 01733 331200

Reader enq 64


National News

The RDBA 2002 National Spring ConferenceThe RDBA 2002 National Spring ConferenceDiversification and the Environmental ImpactDiversification and the Environmental Impact

18th & 19th April 200218th & 19th April 2002Based at the Swallow Hotel, Samlesbury, LancsBased at the Swallow Hotel, Samlesbury, Lancs

18th April 2002

The Conference1. Sustainable Hi-Tech In-Vessel Composting2. The Future is Bright the Future is Green3. Farmscape a Modern Concept4. Finance for the Rural Future5. Grant aid for Rural Areas6. Future Buildings for Modern Agriculture7. Modern Estate Management and a Guide to

Funding8. Is Organic the Modern Way?9. Environment Agency - What is the Future?

19th April 2002

The Visits

1. Dairy Farm and Equestrian Centre2. From Grain to dog food3. Modern Composting Plant4. From farm to Golf Club5. Dairy Farm and award winning Ice Cream

Factory6. Garden Centre on a beef and sheep farm

Booking Form

Conference, with one night D B & B & visits, Double

Conference, with one night D B & B & visits, Single

One day, either the Conference or the visits, without dinner

Two days without dinner or bed

One day cost with dinner no bed

Two day cost with dinner no bed

MemberCost

150.00

175.00

50.00

80.00

75.00

100.00

Non MemberCost

200.00

225.00

75.00

110.00

100.00

120.00

No Total Cost

For those that are not attending the complete conference please ring the dates below to advise thedates that you will be attending: 18th April, 19th AprilThe Conference is likely to start early on the 18th of April and so for those wishing to stay the nightbefore in the hotel, we have agreed a special rate of £80.00 for doubles and £65.00 for singles. Weare organising an “Event” for the evening of the 17th April and so if you wish to join us please advise. Name (in caps) Signature:Address

Post Code: Phone:

Fax back to 01449 770028 or post to RDBA, ATSS House, Station Road East,Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 1RQ, Phone 01449 677500

To book your place, please complete this form and return itto the address at the bottom

Tick in box below ifyou wish to be

booked in for thenight of 17/04/02


The Importance of our H &S Campaign

The latest fatal injuries in farming, forestry, horticulture and relatedindustries, make very sombre reading.

The provisional figure for 2000/1 is 53 deaths an increase of 9 on1999/2000, of these deaths 12 or 23% were caused by falls fromheight, with 7 of the deaths probably related to construction. Thebreakdown is given below. � Through fragile materials 5� From unsecured work platforms 2� From trees 2� From walkway 1� From feed trough 1� Into grain pit 1

This does show how important the Construction Group’s aim of creatinga level playing field is, not just to allow fair competition but also andmore importantly to save lives.The figures for deaths 1990 to 2000 are broken down into more detailand show that:The majority of deaths from falls from height occur to the self-employed,48 deaths (65%), rather than the employed at 26 deaths, but this figureis reversed for non-fatal injuries, with the falls from heights numbers forthe employed at 235 (90%) as against 24 for the self-employed. It isdifficult to know how accurate these figures are, no doubt there is aconsiderable amount of under reporting particularly in the non-fatalinjuries to the self-employed figures, in my view it is more likely that therelationship between the deaths and non-fatal injuries of the employedat 1 to 9 is likely to be the more accurate figure, which would suggestthat the true figure for the self-employed is likely to be in the region of432. So in 10 years the figures for deaths from falling from height is 74 andnon-fatal injuries 667 a truly frightening statistic, but what is even moreconcerning is that even though the number of buildings being erectedand the number of people employed in agriculture over the last 6 yearshas reduced, the number of deaths from falling from height has notreduced. This suggests that the man-hours worked per death havedecreased!There could be a number of reasons for this, some of which are listedbelow:� Maintenance on old buildings is not being

carried out.

� Farmers are using their own (non skilled) labour to carry out building and maintenance work.

� Contractors are not using the correct safety precautions

� Contractors are not ensuring that on new roofs the complete roof structure is non-fragile.

No doubt each of the above is driven by the need to save costs, but ifthose taking the decisions knew the risk they were taking with peoples’lives or well being, would they really carry out the work in an un-safemanner.It is important that these figures are widely publicised so that thosetaking decisions are aware of the risks they are running, and that theConstruction Group continues to publicise the fact that working at heightis dangerous and so only competent contractors such as ConstructionGroup Members should be used.Any contractor:who is prepared to erect a building or carry out maintenance at heightwithout adequate safety protection (often at weekends to reduce therisk of being caught by a Health and Safety Inspector), needs toseriously consider the above figures and forgetting the law for amoment, just consider how you will feel telling the wife or children ofone of your workman that their husband or father is dead because yousaved a few £ and did not insist on the use of the correct safetyprecautions.Any Farmer: who is employing a contractor to carry out work at heights needs tothink in the same way. It is no longer acceptable to just say that thecontractor is the expert and so Health and Safety is not myresponsibility, you do have responsibility and if a workman is killed it willbe on your conscience for the rest of your life. You must ensure that thecontractor that you use is competent in Health and Safety and theeasiest way to do this is to use a Construction Group Member.Any Designer:must also think in the same way, you also can not leave Health andSafety up to the contractor. It is your responsibility to ensure that yourdesign can be erected and maintained safely for the life of the building.

We must all ensure that we work together in a safer way if we are goingto reduce this annual death toll.

Proposals for regulations tamend the PersonalProtective Equipment atWork, The Manual Handling Operations,The Workplace and the Provision and Useof work Equipment Regulations.

The changes have been proposed to clarify a number ofissues recently raised by the European Commission (EC) onspecific aspects of the UK’s implementation of five ECdirectives and to address minor drafting problems that havesince been identified in some sets of regulations (e.g. incorrectcross-references within regulations).The proposed amendments are relatively minor and will havelittle practical effect for those complying with the existing law.They should, however, help improve clarity in what theregulations require.

Copies can be obtained online: http://www.hsebooks.co.uk orfree of charge from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury,Suffolk CO10 2WA Tel: 01787 881165

Construction Group


HSE ISSUES FRAGILITYCLASSIFICATION ALERT TOTHE ROOFING INDUSTRY A new alert to ensure that industry is working to the rightfragility classification when constructing or repairing roofs hasbeen issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) today.

HSE's report, Fragile and non-fragile sheeting materials, SIR30, is no longer valid and has been withdrawn. The onlycurrent test, accepted by HSE, to classify non fragile materialsis contained in the Advisory Committee for Roofworkdocument, Test for Fragility of Roofing Assemblies, (SecondEdi-tion), ACR[M]001:2000, also known as 'The Red book.'

The Advisory Committee for Roofwork (ACR) is a bodydedicated to making working on roofs safer. Its membership ismade up of nominees from the Health and Safety Executive,the major roof working Federations and Associations andothers, who provide the experience of many years ofinvolvement in working on roofs. ACR[M]001:2000 wasproduced under its guidance.

Principal Specialist Inspector, Martin Holden, said: "We havereceived information that some manufacturers are still claimingnon-fragility based on the old SIR 30 test. This test is no longervalid as it only tested roofing components. It took no accountof how such components behaved when fixed in position ortheir interaction with adjacent materials and fixings. Everyoneinvolved in the roofing industry should be aware that a differenttest is now in place which classifies the non fragility of roofingassemblies."

"HSE is concerned that manufacturers, designers - whichincludes specifiers-, planning supervisors, clients andcontractors may be incorrectly using some products in themistaken belief that they are non fragile. It is important whenselecting, specifying or claiming non-fragility always to verifyfrom suppliers and/or manufacturers that the products (e.g.metal cladding, roof lights etc) , when assembled together,meet the requirements of 'The Red Book.' "

Copies of ACR[M]001:2000 [second edition] "Test for Fragilityof Roofing Assemblies - "The Red Book" can be obtainedfrom the RDBA Secretary

Amendments to theBuilding Regulations part LWe understand that the above amendments will come intoforce from the 1st April 2002.

We understand that only work that has commenced before the1st April 2002 or for which there is a full Building ControlCertificate covering the contract will avoid the new regulations.

There is concern that the new requirement for air leakagetesting and thermographic imaging could be seen by certainMain Contractors as an excuse to delay payment to thesubcontractors until both tests had been successfullycompleted. It may be possible to carry out the air leakage testfairly quickly but the thermographic imaging could only becarried out in the correct weather conditions and so therecould be considerable delay.

Where there is a problem with air leakage it may be verydifficult to decide which trade or subcontractor is at fault, againcausing delays in payment.

It is important that all those involved in the design of buildingsthat are covered by building control obtain read andunderstand these new regulations.

Amendments to theBuilding Regulations part BFire Safety EuropeanSupplementA Consultation document on proposed amendments to Part Bof the Building Regulations was published on the 12thNovember 2001, with comments required back by 15thFebruary 2002.

The main reason for the amendments is to ensure thatconstruction products tested by the European harmonised firetest methods can be used in England and Wales. Thedocument is suggesting that there is a three-year change overperiod during which products tested to the British Standardsand the new European Standards can both be used. Thisthree-year period will start in 2002, at the end only productstested to the new European Standard will be allowed. It isexpected that the new standards will be more severe on somecurrently acceptable products and constructions.

This is an important document that all manufacturers ofbuilding products, builders and designers should read andunderstand. It can be down loaded fromwww.safetydtlr.gov.uk/bregs/conindex.htm or by post from,DTLR, PO Box 236, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7NB,phone 0870 1226 236.

RDBA says NO to BuildingControl for working farm buildingsMost working farm buildings are at present exempt from LocalAuthority Building Control. The RDBA understands that there isa move to remove this exempt status and so bring all farmbuildings under Local Authority Building Control.

This has been considered in detail by both the ConstructionGroup and the RDBA Council, who have come to an almostunanimous decision that we should not support this move. Itwould be expensive, it would cause delays and very littlebenefit would ensue.

It is though recognised that there may be advantages inensuring that the frame, structural walls and foundations arecorrectly designed and constructed in accordance with therelevant class in BS 5502. So both the Construction Group andThe RDBA Council suggest that a similar system of checkingthe structural design is used as that used in Scotland. Thiswould mean that a fully qualified Structural Engineer wouldprovide a certificate to the local authority to confirm that theframe, structural walls and foundations were correctly designedto the relevant class in BS5502. It would not be expected thatthe LA would check the Engineers calculations unless they hadreason to believe that they were wrong. It would be expectedthat the LA would visit site to check that the building waserected as designed.

The cost of this LA approval should not be large as on themajority of contracts all the LA will have to do is to visit site tocheck that the structure is as designed.

Construction Group


TechnicalPlasticStructures forLivestockHousing

Dr Mike Kelly, works as an agricultural buildingdesigner, with an interest in assisting manufacturers indeveloping their products to suit the agricultural market,tel: 01563 830147, e-mail:

[email protected].

Introduction

Plastic housing for livestock is not new, and many of usare very familiar with polytunnel-type structures forsheep, which continue to be popular, mainly for smallerto medium-sized flocks.Plastic structures for larger animals such as dairy cows

are less common. As early as 1972, Dr Hartwig Erps atthe Institute Fur Landwirtschaftliche, Braunschweig,Germany, designed and built a plastic tunnel for dairycows. He concluded that this concept was not likely tobe successful, mainly due to a poor finishedappearance, and a lack of durability.This was borne out by some early structural failures ofpolypen plastic sheep houses, on exposed sites inArgyll, reported by Don Stevenson of SAC in the early1980’s. However, polypen-type frames have beenconsiderably strengthened, and improved claddings arenow available to suit a wide range of applications.

Companies such as Visqueen now offer a very toughsheet, produced by bonding together 3 layers ofpolythene, all extruded at the same time to form onecomposite sheet. A sheet can now be designed to meetcertain criteria, such as thermal or ultra-violetresistance.The greatest advances have been in the horticulturalsector, leading to improved structural strength ofbuildings, associated with large structures using trellis

girders, and heavy gauge uprightsto rack units together.A typical large horticulturalbuilding is shown in photograph[1] with shade lining. Suchstructures are resilient, withsophisticated designs based on aconsiderable amount of wind-loading research, carried out atthe Silsoe Research Institute,Bedfordshire. Pressurecoefficients for wind loads complywith BS 5502 : Part 22 : 1993.Silsoe staff are now working on aEuropean wind-loading designcode for horticultural buildings.To what extent is all thishorticultural design knowledgetransferable to the livestocksector? Will it lead to large, cost-effective units for cattle? Plasticsare a rapidly developingtechnology, with the ability toprovide specific claddings to meetspecific needs. The signs arethere that the breakthrough into

Photo 1, A typical large horticultural building with shade screening. What benefit doesthis have for livestock housing?

Photo 2, Equestrian centre New York state


Technical

wider agricultural applications is imminent.

Developments in USA and CanadaThe author saw a horticultural building adapted for dairycows in Canada in 1996. The unit housed 70 dairy cowsin cubicles in a 3-row layout, with drive-through passes.The roof shell at that time cost £15/sq m for a double-layered plasticroof. Airmonitoring bythe OntarioMinistry ofAgricultureindicated goodinternal climaticconditions. Thehigh natural lightlevel wasattractive forcow welfare andmanagement.Cover-All ShelterSystems, basedin Canada,produce fabric-covered steelframed buildingsover a range ofspans from 6mto 48m, to anylength required.The buildingscan be groundfixed or post orwall mounted,with a fabric

cover woven from high- density polyethylene tape,backed by a 15 year warranty. A range of colours isavailable, with good natural light levels of at least 40%daylight factor.A Cover-All building has been erected in Norfolk forgeneral purpose farm storage, and carries a ten yearwarranty for UK conditions. Similar buildings are

Photo 3, Calf housing with ridge outlet ventilation in New York State

Photo 4, 100 head goat unit in Holland


Technical

provided by Calhoun Agri Services, based in Ontario,and a typical design of this type of structure is shown inphotograph [2]. The building in question is anequestrian centre in New York State, seen by the authorin 1999. These buildings are not pretty to look at, butare well thought of by their users, especially the highlight levels, generous volume, and speed of deliveryand erection. An average size 21.6m span building canbe fully installed within one week.Large dairy units in New York State are housing calves

under plastic, and an example is shown in photograph[3]. This is a well-ventilated building with side and ridgeopenings, allowing good air circulation. Again highnatural light levels are an attractive feature.

.Developments in Holland

The Dutch company Rovero is one of the wor ldleaders in innovat ive bui ld ings for hort icul ture.They are increasingly turning their at tent ion tol ivestock housing. In 1996 they bui l t a 1000 headgoat house for W & FW Blunt, Sl i jk-Ewi jk, Hol land.

This is shown in photographs [4] and [5] , wi th theBlunt fami ly looking very pleased with theirdecis ion.The uni t is impressive because of h igh natural l ightlevels, good cross vent i lat ion, and a good workingheadroom, at a low-cost. The roof sheet ing is insound condi t ion, wi th no signs of wear or r ippingafter 4 years in use. Stock performance is excel lentand the owner already plans to expand the herdinto a sect ion present ly used for machinery. Theclear height of 4.5m under the t russes al lows forlarge machinery access.Rovero are bui ld ing a dairy uni t in Hol land basedon this pr inciple, using curtain wal l ing to savecosts, and have already completed large pig uni tsunder plast ic.

Developments in the UK

Many UK companies cont inue to sel l basic tunnelstructures for a wide range of appl icat ions,including calves and pigs. McGregor and others ,such as Northern Polytunnels, have progressed intomult i -span solut ions for larger contracts. TheMcGregor 3 bay mult i -span is 23m wide by 80mlong and can be used for inwinter ing sheep,lambing, pig weaning or pig fat tening. A Mi lk Development Counci l research projectcompleted by the author in March 2000 suggestedthat i t would be possible to bui ld a 4-row dairy uni tunder plast ic, as shown in Figure [1] . Cost savingsfor such a uni t are up to 23% on convent ionaldesigns, and 10% on t imber kennel structures.Air in lets would be al lowed for, using mesh fabr icdown the sides of the bui ld ing, wi th out lets asrequired in the r idges of the roof. The high naturall ight t ransmission with in such structures isbenef ic ia l to stock management, and may bebenef ic ia l to stock performance as wel l . Plast ic sheets are now avai lable wi th a 10 yearl i fespan and these are to be welcomed. This istwice the l i fespan of many plast ic mater ia lscurrent ly in use, and the increase in cost , at 2%, is

insigni f icant as a percentage of the cost of thewhole structure.I f p last ic structures are to make an impact,customers must be conf ident of proven structuralstabi l i ty and good long-term performance ofc laddings. Plast ic sheet ing replacement is cheaphowever, at approximately £3 per sq m, and inthese days of concern over bui ld ing dis infect ion,what better way to dis infect than to replace the roofcladding.What is needed is an entrepreneur ia l farmer and

Mr & Mrs Blunt with their goat house

Fig 1. A 4 -row dairy unit under plastic


Reader enq 001

Reader enq 002

Reader enq 003Reader enq 004


economic development department may be able to direct you to sources of help with this.

2 Check whether planning permission is required, will other permissions,licences and consents for example for diverting public rights of way or treefelling be necessary?

3 Preparing the planning permission application.

(a) Before making a formal application: -

Discuss your provisional ideas with the minerals planning officer and thelocal council’s building conservation staff;

Before you meet make sure you have the following in outline -

� The justification - market need, an estimate its size and any other products to be produced.

� The location of the proposed quarry (and any alternative sites).

� The scale of activity - estimates of the ground area needed with a sketch plan, duration and quantity journeys, and site restoration proposals.

At the meeting ask for an explanation of the local plan for mineraldevelopment and how it relates to other local objectives such as buildingconservation, sustainability and historic building conservation. This guidecontains details of all the information which might have to be included withthe application. Take this along and go through it to check what you mustsubmit. Check the planning meeting timetable so that you can time yourapplication.

(b) Preparing your application:-

Consider employing a minerals planning consultant.

Read the local development plan including all relevant issues such assustainability, conservation and local distinctiveness.

Make a check-list of all the issues, the evidence to be submitted and howor where you will obtain it. This might include:

� A market report and evidence of need for the product(s) from amenity and building conservation organisations, local builders, roofers, architects, and the public;

� A report on the suitability of the rock and the viability of the quarry;

� Other supporting evidence such as employment prospects; � Site plans at several scales showing the operations

including working and storage areas (emphasise the small scale), buildings, restoration plan, access routes and water courses;

� A description of the operation including hours and methods ofworking and a restoration plan;

� Methods for controlling effects such as noise from machinery and preventing the contamination of land or water

� How you will respond to or deal with objections - consider a public meeting or an article for a local paper to explain what you are proposing and why;

� Ownership certificates and notices.

Ask the minerals planner to advise on other evidence that might beneeded. If you need to, obtain any supplementary documents or reportssuch as an environmental assessment.

Complete the application form and assemble all the supportingdocuments.

4 Submit the application and pay the fee.

TechnicalSTONE SLATE QUARRIES ORDELPHS

Editors note: - In Volume 2 issue 1 the article ‘Stone Slate NationalBriefing’ created a lot of interest, as can be seen from the letters pageand so we have agreed with Terry Hughes, the chairman of the StoneRoofing Working Group and the primary author Andrew Sierakowski, toreproduce over the next 4 issues ‘A guide to making a mineral planningapplication for stone-slate production’ This guide has been produced bythe Stone Roofing Working Group, and is published jointly by the StoneRoofing Association and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

A guide to making a mineral planning applicationfor stone-slate production

Part 1In this issue1. Overview2. Introduction3. The Purpose of this Guide4. Using an Agent5. First Steps – Locating a Source of Roofing Stone6. Is the Rock Suitable for Stone-Slate Production7. Is Planning Permission Required

Overview

Britain is fortunate in having a wide variety of roofing sandstones andlimestones that have contributed to the regional distinctiveness of ourtowns and countryside. Unfortunately, many of these are no longermanufactured with the result that we are losing historic roofs at analarming rate. In an effort to stem this loss, English Heritage’s Roofs ofEngland campaign is encouraging the re-opening of small, stone-slatequarries or ‘delphs’ to supply local markets.

Before you can open a quarry or delph you must obtain planningpermission from the local council. This can appear to be a more difficultprocess than it really is, so don’t be put off. Help and support are availablefrom many organisations and if the various steps are approachedmethodically with a clear plan of action in mind you will find that theprocess is straightforward. This guide sets out the stages in preparing anapplication and where to go for help and advice.

Every council will have a Local Plan that is intended to ensure that themarket for stone products can be satisfied without unacceptableconsequences. So if there is a demand for the products then the mineralplanning process will normally support its supply. A planning applicationshould:

� demonstrate the demand for the stone-slates and the size of the market;

� explain how the rock will be quarried and the slates manufactured; and,

� explain how any impacts on the environment or neighbours will be controlled or eliminated and how the quarry will eventually be restored.

If your proposals are sensible, and realistic and provide sufficient detailyou have every chance of succeeding.

Action Check List

1 Finding a source of roofing stone and market research -

� Is the landowner willing?� Is the rock suitable for stone-slate production?

Undertake trial pits and trial splitting.� Is the market big enough to support your business? � Prepare a business plan. The council’s business or


1. Introduction

1.1 The roofs and walls of our historic buildings reflect the geology of thesurrounding landscape and demonstrate local skills in using availableresources. The results have created the ‘vernacular’ or traditional localbuildings which we now cherish.

1.2 In many parts of the country, stone-slate roofs are a fundamental partof vernacular buildings. But for years, their existence has been underthreat. Modern man-made slates and tiles have replaced limestone andsandstone slates. As a result, stone-slate quarries or delphs have closeddown and local sources of materials have disappeared.

1.3 In a few areas (such as the Cotswolds, South Wales and the SouthPennines), this trend has begun to be reversed and there has been arevival of stone-slate production. But in many parts of Britain, where stoneroofing was once commonplace it is now almost impossible to find asource of new locally produced material. Meanwhile, the number of stoneroofs dwindles as they are destroyed to maintain other buildings.

1.4 In an attempt to address this situation, a ‘Roofs of England’ campaignwas started by English Heritage - the government’s historic buildingsconservation agency for England. As a continuation of the ‘Roofs ofEngland’ project, a working group was established to continue theinitiative at a national level.

1.5 Set up in 1999, the Stone Roofing Working Group (SRWG) is madeup of professionals with an interest in stone-slate production, stoneroofing and historic building conservation. The group works at a nationallevel and aims to:

� promote and revive the stone-slating industry and � provide a forum for developing specialist advice on all

aspects of stone-slate production and stone-roofing repair, restoration and construction.

1.6 The SRWG has been looking at how to stimulate the development ofnew stone-slate delphs. This is particularly important where none nowexist, or where there are insufficient sources of supply in terms of the type,quality and quantity of stone slates available. This guide has beenproduced as the first part of this initiative.

1.7 The extraction and production of stone slate was traditionally - and isstill - low tech and small scale. This means that the capital investmentrequired is minimal compared with other types of quarrying. Traditionaluses of stone-slates tend to be very localised, so large-scale productionis unlikely. Because the potential market is relatively small majorquarrying companies tend not to become involved. Instead, most existingsources of stone slate have been developed by farmers and landowners,or by specialist companies quarrying with the agreement of thelandowner.

1.8 The SRWG sees this type of small-scale production as the best wayof increasing the range and supply of new stone slate. This guide istherefore aimed particularly at landowners but will also be of interest toanyone else considering setting up in production.

2. The Purpose of this Guide

2.1 Despite the revival in stone-slate production in some areas, theSRWG is concerned that appropriate guidance and advice has not beenavailable to those people wishing to make an application for planningpermission for a new delph.

2.2 This guide aims to help you to prepare an application and takes youthrough the process of seeking planning permission. It is not intended tobe a substitute for using a professional agent but does aim to provide

information on what the process involves.

3. Using an Agent

3.1 Making a planning permission application can require a considerableamount of information, details and plans, so it is recommended that youuse a professional agent. You will probably require some specialist advicein investigating and developing your proposal, even before you makeyour application. There are a number of minerals planning consultantsand surveyors who specialise in this type of work and who will have anin-depth knowledge of the minerals planning process.

3.2 If you do use an agent, ensure that they have the relevantprofessional background and experience - minerals planning is aspecialist field even within the planning process. For advice on specialistsin your area, contact the Stone Roofing Association at the address givenin Appendix 5 ‘Addresses and Further Information’ at the end of thisguide.

4. First Steps - Locating a Source of RoofingStone

4.1 So, if you are interested in stone-slate production or think you mayhave suitable stone on your land, what are the first steps and where doyou start? In practice, interest in stone-slate production tends to begineither with awareness of a potentially suitable source of stone or with aneed to find a particular type of material.

4.2 Indications that you are in a stone-slate area are usually fairly self-evident. Most obviously you will probably be aware of stone roofs onsome of the buildings you see and pass everyday. In some places,relatively few such buildings now remain but there may be other clues.The presence of drystone walls, made from thin, flat (or fissile) pieces ofstone, often indicates areas of stone-slate production.

4.3 You may already own a building that has, or once had, a stone roof.In that case, you have probably had difficulty finding suitable slates torepair it. Perhaps you had to buy or re-use second-hand stone-slatestaken from another building.

4.4 It’s not always easy to find a potential source suitable for stone-slateproduction, but the following pointers may help you:

- Most types of stone slate are found close to the surface. There may beclearly visible outcrops of fissile stone on hillsides; look out for these inupland areas;

- In arable areas, such as parts of the Cotswolds, pieces of fissile stonemay be turned up when fields are ploughed;

- The material for drystone wall field boundaries will usually have beenquarried or even ploughed up in the immediate vicinity. So they give agood indication of where fissile stone may be found;

- Your local Council’s Historic Buildings Officer may know places whichhave (or once had) drystone walls or buildings with stone-slate roofs.These may indicate that stone-slate quarries or sources of fissile stonewere once present. Historically, stone-slates were not carried over largedistances.

- Find out where there are old and existing quarry workings and look atthese. If you don’t know where they are, look at 1:50,000 and 1:25,000Ordnance Survey maps. These have quarries marked on them. Oldermaps of your area may be especially useful for showing quarry sites. TheDavid and Charles reprints of the original Ordnance Survey maps datingback to the 1830s can be very helpful. One of the best places to find oldmaps is your County Archives. Local libraries may be another source.

- Finally, if you don’t mind paying for information, the British GeologicalSurvey (BGS) has produced detailed 1:50,000 geological maps of the

Technical


whole country. These can be ordered through good map shops or directlyfrom the BGS. Geological maps are published in two series Solid andDrift. You need maps from the Solid series that show the rock below thesurface. They won’t show quarry sites, but are useful for telling you thetype of stone you are dealing with. The BGS also holds unpublishedinformation on the location of old stone-slate delphs, but again you mayneed to pay for this. Their details can be found in Appendix 5 - ‘Addresses& Further Information’.

4.5 Having done your initial homework, you should have some idea ofwhere to begin searching for fissile stone. The next stage is to get out andstart looking at the possible sites or areas you have identified. You mayhave to examine several sites before you find any promising stone.

5. Is the Rock Suitable for Stone SlateProduction?

5.1 When you think you’ve found a source of fissile stone, the next stepwill be to investigate its potential for use as a roofing material. For this, youwill need expert advice either from a consultant who specialises inbuilding stone or from the Stone Roofing Association (SRA).

5.2 If you don’t own the land and have not already done so, you will needto contact the landowner and start talking to them about your interest inthe stone. If you don’t know who they are, ask locally. Failing that, searchthrough the Land Registry (in England and Wales) or the Land Registeror Register of Sasines, if you are in Scotland. This will cost you a fee. Forcontact details see Appendix 5.

5.3 You will almost certainly need to dig a number of small trial pits to findthe extent and depth of the material. But unless you have experience, it’sprobably worth arranging to do this in conjunction with a visit from yourconsultant or the SRA.

5.4 Your initial trial pits may not contain good quality or suitable fissilestone, or it may not be present in a viable quantity. Reinstate the pits andtry again elsewhere. Review your search area if you continue not to findfissile material.

5.5 It should not be assumed that just because a stone is fissile that it willbe durable. Seek advice from a geologist or the SRA about how toassess the quality of the rock.

6. Is Planning Permission Required?

6.1 When you identify a viable quantity of fissile material suitable forstone-slate production, approach the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA)for your area. You should ask them whether planning permission isrequired, the likelihood of obtaining it, and what’s involved in making anapplication. As a general rule, any proposal to develop a new stone-slatedelph will require planning permission.

6.4 The only exception to this will be when extraction is for agriculturalpurposes. This is known as ‘permitted development’. (If you are a farmer,you may be familiar with the concept of agricultural permitteddevelopment.) In this case, planning permission is not required where thestone is to be used on an agricultural building on the farm where it isextracted. This may include use on agricultural dwelling houses. Thestone extracted must not be sold for use anywhere else.

6.5 There are some restrictions on what qualifies as agricultural permitteddevelopment. Most importantly, all processing must be undertaken on thefarm or holding from which the stone is extracted and excavation mustnot take place within 25m of a classified or trunk road or (in Scotland)within 25m of a railway line. Full details of what constitutes extractionunder agricultural permitted development is set out in Appendix 1.

6.6 Trial pits and exploratory work which will takes less than 28 days donot usually need planning permission. However, check with your localMPA before starting these, so that they can tell you definitively whether

permission is required. Even if it is not, it’s best to ensure that they areaware of what you are doing.

7. Other Permissions, Licences and Consents

7.1 There are other permissions, licences and consents that you mayneed to obtain before you commence extraction. These are notspecifically required for stone-slate production, but your operation mayaffect things that are regulated, for example by creating a discharge to awatercourse, felling trees, and the stopping-up or diverting a public rightof way. Your MPA can advise on whom to contact about these.

7.2 As well as the permission of the owner of the land or mineral rights,don’t forget that you will also need to get the permission of the owners ofany of the land over which you propose to take access to the extractionsite. This is likely to include the local Highways Authority - your CountyCouncil or Unitary Authority.

7.3 You probably won’t not need any other permissions, licences andconsents until after you’ve obtained planning permission. But it’s worthcontacting the relevant authorities or agencies to find out theirrequirements in case these affect your planning application or vice-versa.

In the next issue8. Who should an Application for Planning Permission be made to9. Pre-Application Discussions with the Mineral Planning Authority10. Development Plan Policies11. Pre-Application Consultation with other Agencies12. Submitting your Planning Application13. Preparing a Geo-Technical Report14. Preparing a Market Report15. Buildings, Plant and Machinery16. Restoration and Aftercare Proposals

© Terry Hughes & Andrew Sierakowski 2001-2

Technical

Reader enq 070


Technical

Reader enq 005

Reader enq 009

Reader enq 010

Reader enq 006

Reader enq 008

Reader enq 007


Double up on those ValvesBefore it s too Late!

By David Hughes - Building Design Manager ADAS

The Environment Agency has recently become concerned abouta growing trend in the failure of single sluice valves on above-ground slurry stores that cause major water pollution incidents.Under the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and AgriculturalFuel Oil) Regulations 1991 it is a mandatory requirement to usetwo lockable valves in series on slurry store outlets. But manysystems were installed before the 1991 requirement and it isestimated that there may be around 5,500 ageing valves still incurrent use. This means that large numbers of these valves maynow be wearing out and becoming “time bombs” waiting to spillthe entire contents of the store.

ADAS carried out a detailed survey of 16 farms whereproblems had occurred with sluice valves. Typically a valve 10years old or more with limited, if any maintenance, slowly seizesthroughout the winter. The lever is lifted on the first dry morningand with luck the failure happens then and the valve remainsclosed. Inconvenient but not catastrophic! However, this studyshowed that the more serious incidents occur when the valveopens without too much trouble. A complete failure then occurswhen an attempt is made to close the valve. It tends to jamagainst the flow of slurry or debris in the valve or nearby pipe.Quite naturally the operator perhaps swings hard on the lever totry and close the valve but a component in the lever assembly,pipe joint, valve shaft or blade just breaks up. The lever maywell flop about uselessly and there is nothing to stop the escapeof the entire contents of the store!

The study concluded that valve failure could be attributed toseveral different causes. Poor installations, ageing, corrosionand lack of maintenance can all play their part. TheEnvironment Agency has also reported an increase insuspected acts of deliberate vandalism. But the overwhelmingconclusion is that two lockable valves instead of one offerssubstantially increased protection. Where two valves areinstalled in series, if one valve fails for whatever reason then theother will prevent a major incident.

New valves can cost anything from about £760 for onegalvanised valve, for adding to an existing single valve in goodcondition, up to around £2800 for a pair of stainless steel valves.Plus any labour costs for bolting them on.

Regular maintenance should include operating the valves aboutonce a month. Again you need two valves to be able to do thisall year round. Fully inspect the valves annually as part of thechecking and cleaning of the slurry tank. A full service by the

valve manufacturer or local agent should also be carried outabout every 5 years.

A comprehensive section on valves has now been drafted andapproved for BS 5502 part 50. This will give detailed guidanceon the installation and maintenance of sluice valves when it ispublished.

In the meantime ADAS has also produced a technical note(Construction Guidance Note number 010) on the subject, whichis reprinted here for members in its entirety. This too gives a lotmore detail on installing and maintaining the valves.

The whole series of ‘CGN’ technical notes, as listed below, areavailable free from ADAS on 01626 892638 or by [email protected]. Alternatively your RDBA secretaryhas them all in stock too, free to members on 01449 676049 orE-mail [email protected]. The useful general informationleaflet on ‘Organising Contracts for Farm Waste Structures’ willbe sent out automatically with every request for technical notes.

The series now includes technical detailed notes as follows

CGN001Above-ground circular concrete and rectangularweeping-wall slurry stores

CGN002Earth-banked slurry stores

CGN003In-Situ Concrete Slurry Stores

CGN004Above-ground circular steel slurry stores

CGN005Silage clamps and effluent tanks

CGN006Sheep Dip Handling Facilities and Drainage Yards

CGN007Chemical and Pesticide Stores

CGN008Separation of Clean and Dirty Water. Dirty Water Storage. Yard Area Construction.

CGN009Bunds for Agricultural Fuel Oil Tanks

CGN010Sluice Valves on Steel and Concrete Circular Above-Ground Slurry Stores

CGN100 Organising Contracts for Farm Waste Structures

Or visit the ADAS Web site - for details of these and otherpublications on.

www.farmbuildings.co.uk OR www.adas.co.uk/buildings ORwww.rdba.org.uk

Technical

The broken valve

The result of the broken valve - slurry running down the road


Countryside Building Magazine


Countryside Building Magazine

�


The Harmony Centre A farm diversificationproject Part 1

Main service providers:

Environmental HarmonyTel: 01986 784500 Fax: 784700

East Wood ServicesTel/fax: 01502 478165 e-mail

Water conservation & alternative sanitation inc. Sun-Marcomposting toilets

Rainharvesting SystemsTel: 01452 772000 Fax: 770104 Web: www.greenshop.co.uk

WISY and rain water goods; dual flush toilets

Solar Energy AllianceTel: 01502 515532 Fax: 561399 Web:[email protected]

net.com Wind Generators, PVs, Controllers and batteries

Hanson Concrete ProductsTel 01550 776009

Septic Tanks

BMC Contracts LtdTel: 01948 665321

Storage/effluent tanks

David Gillett, his brother Tony and sister Joan are partners inWalpole Hatch Farm at Walpole in Suffolk, it has been in thefamily for several generations and is a mix of arable andlivestock, having a herd of cows which has been built up sincethe 1950’s with calves reared on the farm. Situated on a hilloverlooking the Blyth valley and located close to the markettown of Halesworth, the farm has small fields and goodhedgerows over its 240 acres which cover a Northerly facinghillside.

As with all smaller, traditional family farms the economics ofmaintaining and running it as a successful business haveworsened in recent years as milk and grain prices have fallen.This national trend has coincided with David developing his

interests in complementary therapies such as Kinesiology andsaw him starting his own unique form of environmental healthcare through the company ‘Environmental Harmony’, foundedand run with Jacqui Beacon. This business, now with worldwide connections and customers, has largely replaced David’sinvolvement in the day to day operation of the farm.

The Harmony Centre itself is a project that has taken 10 yearsto come to fruition and has passed through a series of difficultstages on the way. Originally intended as a communal centrefor complementary therapies and drawing upon localpractitioners, the derelict wooden framed building wasavailable in a favourable location away from the main farmbuildings and readily accessible from a road. Early meetingsfailed to result in sufficient support for this development and sowithin the last two years David decided to go ahead with therebuilding to create a centre from which he could research,develop and make his products, which have proved sosuccessful in dealing with environmental stress.

The involvement of a national group of designers in order tofacilitate the process actually delayed the start of buildingworks as they failed to provide the necessary support in thetime required. Although it was necessary to use them in orderto facilitate the grant application and planning permission,meetings with the appointed Architect led nowhere. Thisnotably included him applying parts of a standard specificationfor holiday cottages, completely disregarding David’s veryspecific requirements for the use of the building. Faced withthis lack of commitment he decided instead to use a localsurveyor Mick Revens who had worked previously with thechosen builder Roger Ives, both of whom were interested inthe objective of the project and keen to undertake the works.

The specification for the Centre was very important to David inorder to prevent magnetic fields and material resonancesinterfering with his research. This meant that materials had tobe inert and environmentally friendly wherever possible andrequired careful research to assess their potential. Concreteflooring and foamed insulants could not be used, especially inthe workshop and therapy room floors. Of special significancewas the electrical system; not only did shielded wiring andspecial light fittings have to be ordered but radial circuitry wasused instead of a normal ring main.

The power itself had to be derived from solar sources toprovide an autonomous supply. This was not a siting problemdue to field space available around the site and the location ofa large cattle barn on which to fix solar panels. However, thePhotovolatic Panels (PVs) and 10 KW wind generator had stillto progress through the planning process as the autumn

Technical

Plan of Harmony Centre


commencement date drew nearer.

My own involvement started in March last year when I wasasked to assess the possibility of having an on-site sewagesystem; the key to it being that it should be simple and selfcontained. This led me to much research into the best way totreat and infiltrate effluent into the heavy clay soil, which wasto prove difficult to work in through the following winter months.Using a 4800 Litre, two chamber, concrete septic tank as thebasis of the system, it soon became obvious that there wouldhave to be a 12 volt solar powered pump to lift and distributethe effluent and a very limited number of ways in which it couldbe leached. We eventually decided upon an imported bio-filtermodule, offering tertiary treatment, which avoided the problem

of soil permeability altogether, as we could then dischargedirect into a roadside ditch with Environment Agency consent.With planning consent approved and some design details stillbeing resolved works at the site commenced in mid Septemberlast year, 3 months later than originally planned. The first jobswere to remove the interlocking clay roof tiles, strip the rottenFE boards from the 4” studs and generally make good thestructure. As the building is in a conservation area strictplanning rules were applied which included having the originaland bare minimum of windows overlooking the hillside; thiswas to maintain the overall appearance which had changedlittle since if was built in the 1920s.

A brick plinth which supported the timber work had becomecracked in places due to settlement and required renewal butthen trial holes showed that the footings below were minimal.At this point the Building Inspector decided that thefoundations were inadequate and so insisted on underpinningthe majority of the building which had originally been alightweight barn and single storey stables! Three and a halfweeks of extra work then ensued which took place in some ofthe wettest weather imaginable.

As the underpinning was going on David and I considered the

drainage and sewer pipe runs from the centre to the septictank and ditches. As we dug a trench across the building for apipe to take the wash basin - grey water – from the front facingtherapy rooms it was also decided that no rain water should bedirected into the nearby pond which was already flooding anarea downhill. In order to resolve this problem we decided tolay two additional pipes in the same trench, one for rain water,the other for roadway runoff and collect the former in anunderground tank to recycle for use in the toilets. This had

been suggested previously but not progressed due to the factthat the farm has its own bore hole and a supply already pipedto the centre and cattle troughs in surrounding fields. Onceunder the building the runoff pipe joined the tank overflow andallowed just one drain to the ditch partly using the same trenchas the septic run.

The rain water system is designed to collect water from thewhole of the building, which is 32 meters long and 7 meterswide giving 224 square meters of roof area. To do thisstandard plastic 6” guttering with 2.5’ down pipes wereinstalled to single collection points in the centre of each side.The front collection point links with the rear under the sub-floorso that it is possible to have all the water feeding into a singleWISY filter module prior to the rain water tank. In this way it ispossible to collect and filter most of the 100,000 litres ofaverage yearly rainfall.

The WISY primary filter used here is a below ground WFF 100and like all such modules has a cylindrical stainless steelscreen over which the water spirals. Most cleaned water isdrawn through the screen whilst the leaves, moss. dirt andother foreign items wash down with @10-20% of the remainingflow going into the overflow drain. Filtration is to 0.18mm at amaximum of 1.5 litres/second from roof areas up to 200 squaremeters; larger units are available. Filtered water stored in thecool and dark will remain fresh provided that the inlet givessufficient aeration.

When collecting rain water it is important to know the averagerainfall and roof area in order to correctly size the pipes andstorage capacity. To calculate the yield per year the formula touse is: roof area (s/meters) x drainage coefficient (0. 75) x filterefficiency (0. 9) x average rainfall. This can then be matched tothe total water requirement which will undoubtedly exceed rainwater supply, so it is best to have a dedicated system forcertain appliances such as toilets and/or washing machines.Once the yearly demand has been calculated the followingformula can be used: rain water demand x 21 days divided by365 days - to give the storage capacity needed to overcome adrought period of <3 weeks. In this case 68,000 litres of filtered

Technical

Hanson / Albion 4800l Septic tank - 2nd day of installation

Rain water system with Wisy WFF 100 filter


water are theoretically available for toilet flushing.

There are now several manufacturers who make good off-the-shelf rain water systems complete with pump, float switches,filters), control and indicator panels but in this case we puttogether a tailor made system. The storage tank is a 700gallon/3,150 litre one piece GRC tank which is rigid and selfsupporting so not needing an additional concrete surround.The relatively lightweight meant that it was off loaded andinstalled using the farm fork lift but given the availability ofsurplus concrete from foundation works an 8” slab was putover the top to protect against floatation as it is sunk into achalk and sand gault.

With a pumped system there is a choice between a direct feedto the appliances or a feed to a small header or ‘break tank’ inthe roof. In either case it is possible to have a mains or otherwater supply as a secondary, back up, in case the primarysupply runs dry. If the secondary supply is from a water mainthe roof tank must be a break tank in order to conform to thenew Water Regulations

In the Harmony Centre the header tank is about 80 litres with a¾ “ ball valve fitted in the normal way but having an extendedfloat arm to delay operation until the water level falls to a pre-set, secondary supply level. A Stuart Turner MK2 electrical floatswitch is also fitted in series with the submersible pump tosupply rainwater on demand. When there is no rainwateravailable from the storage tank the system defaults to thesecondary (farm) supply, simply due to the float differential inthe header tank.

To make the most of the rain water it was originally intended toinstall dual flush valve toilets which have been available in theUK for many years but until January this year were illegalunder the Water Bylaws. This was partly because poorlydesigned dual flush siphonic toilets had been allowed prior to1987 perversely leading to increased water usage. So the oldWater Bylaws prevented this aspect of water conservation,which is now possible under the new Regulations, offeringdirect economic benefits to metered users. In this instance,single 6 litre toilets were installed, due to some concern aboutpublic usage and carrying distance, allowing a potential of upto 25 flushes using stored rain water per day.

Dual flush valve toilets have two distinctly marked buttonsgiving 3 and 6 litre flush volumes. The trap is smaller than ontraditional WCs ensuring a forceful and effective flush, with thesmaller volume used for urination. An internal (pandischarging) overflow is usual, as now allowed on siphonicWCs.

This brings me back to the septic tank and biofilter. The system

is designed to be very simple and robust and relies on timeddosing of the light weight media in the biofilter tank with amajority re-circulation of effluent to the pump chamber. Regulardosing achieves a high degree of treatment and develops anactive aerobic bacteria colony within the media.

The septic tank itself has a patented outlet filter, which holdsback organic matter within the second chamber. Such filterstypically have 1/16” slots through which the effluent flows andgradually develop a bio-film of anaerobic bacteria, which

contribute to the filtration. During evaluation tests they haveachieved from 40 to 90% reduction in Total Suspended Solids.Excess bacteria are able to slough back into the chamber andare periodically washed off when the septic tank is serviced.Commercial sized filters are also used very effectively ingrease traps.

The two cubic meter biofilter stands within a storage shed builtin the same style and feather edged board as the HarmonyCentre itself. At the present time the system is working wellunder a light loading as the Centre is not yet in regular use butis designed to treat up to 1,700 litres per day. A manualoverride switch increases the dosage and discharge rate asneeded and an independent alarm warns of system failure.The 42 Watt Photo Voltaic Panel and 110 A/h battery haveworked well through the long summer days of excess daylight,showing that such applications are feasible where no mainssupply is available and an economic option on remote sites(less than a similarly sized 230 volt sewage treatment plant).

In conclusion it must be said that some interesting aspects ofthe project have yet to be completed such as the main solarsystem using a wind generator and PVs, due to be completedthis year. Other aspects of the building including the heatingsystem will be considered in a subsequent article which willalso deal with the other unusual products and systems used inthis building. Meanwhile, David has started to move in and isglad that he rebuilt this redundant building when he did eventhough it has been a heavy personal financial commitment. Hehopes that it will meet the needs of a permanent home forEnvironmental Harmony and generate some new and regularemployment on the farm he loves.

In part II to be published in the next issue I will explain the useof green construction materials and systems and providedetails of the insulation products, the levelling of the unevenfloors, under ground pipe work, non toxic paints and theheating and power systems.

Adam EastEastwood ServicesKitty Mill, Wash Lane,Wenhaston, Halesworth

Technical

Old shed and grain silo prior to demolition and installation ofthe septic tank

The Harmony centre - rafter fixing in progress


Introduction to theINSULATION OF FARMBUILDINGSIntroductionInsulation can save the farmer money, either directly or indirectly,and it often receives little or no publicity on new build or existingfarm buildings. The heat retention of a building is simply expectedto happen, and much more efficiently than it used to do. Ownerssimply cannot afford to put more heat into a building just tocompensate for an inordinate amount of heat loss; the days whena few more kilowatts pumped in ‘don’t really matter’ have all butdisappeared. The profits are not there to waste these days, that is,if they ever were.I expect this to be the start of a series of articles on insulation. Infuture articles I will look at the implications of the increase ininsulation values given in the revision to Part ‘L’ of the buildingregulations on barn conversions, the implications of the low airpermeability requirements and the different ratings for differentfuels used for power and heating.

Advantages of InsulationOlder buildings were made from a single skin of traditional materialsuch as stone, admittedly quite thick, whereas newer structuresgenerally have a lighter and thinner construction. There are manydirect advantages of insulation and some of these may be listed:

· Internal temperature more stable and easier to control· Lower fuel costs· Lower livestock feed costs· Less expensive heating or cooling equipment· Less maintenance and replacement costs associated

with heating equipment· Protection from frost· Less condensation and draughts improving comfort· Less solar heat build up

What is Insulation?Insulation can be defined as a ‘barrier to the natural flow of heatfrom an area of high temperature to an area of low temperature’.(Chudley, 1999). Usually this flow of heat is from the inside to theoutside, but it could easily be the other way round when thebuilding is a cold store for example. The transfer of heat mayoccur in three ways:

· Conduction. This relies on closely packed molecules in abody. Solids are the best at this, with metals being a goodexample. Gases are a poor conductor, and still air can beused as an insulator eg the thermos flask.· Convection. This is the transport of heat by themovement of material. Eg a flowing liquid or a current of air.This is set up when particles become less dense as they are

heated, and so rise setting up circulation.· Radiation. This phenomenon occurs when heat istransmitted without raising the temperature of whatever ittravels through. Radiation is usually important at hightemperatures or when conduction and convection arenegligible.

In practice, all three occur in a building, since heat will beconducted through the fabric, and then dissipated on the outsidesurface by convection and/or radiation. The amount of heattransfer really depends on the temperature difference, thethickness of the material, time, the total area and the insulationvalue – see later.

Definition of Terms UsedThe following are some definitions that might be useful whenthinking about whether or not to insulate a farm building:

· Dew point. This is the temperature to which moist airmust be cooled for condensation of water vapour to occur.· Interstitial condensation. When condensation occursunseen within the structure or material. This obviously needsto be avoided since it could lead to serious degradation of thebuilding’s material through dampness, damage and reductionin the effect of insulation properties.· Surface condensation. This is the deposition of moisturewhen humid air meets a cold surface. It can normally beprevented if the U-value is 0.5W/m2K or less. We caneliminate condensation by having a ‘vapour check’ on thewarm side of the insulation. Vapour is turned back into thebuilding where ventilation will remove it. Some insulationmaterials resist moisture and can therefore be used without avapour check. It will be appreciated that if an insulatingmaterial becomes wet, it rapidly loses its insulation properties.See figure 1.· Temperature lift. This refers to the difference betweenthe internal temperature of an environment, and the outsideair temperature.· Thermal conductivity. This can be represented by thesymbol λ, and it measures the insulation properties of aparticular material. The lower the λ value of a material, theless heat it will conduct, and the better the insulation. Theunits of λ are W/mK.· Thermal resistance. This is given the symbol R, ‘asrepresentative of a material’s thermal resistance achieved bydividing its thickness in metres by its thermal conductivity, ie R= m/λ or m2K/W.’ (Chudley, 1999). The larger this value, thebetter.

Technical

Photo 1, A well insulated agricultural roof


· Thermal transmittance. This is called the U-value, and isone with which many people will be familiar. It is a measure ofthe amount of heat that will pass through one square metre ofthe structure when the temperature difference from inside tooutside is one K. Its units are W/m2K. There are minimumstandards applicable to U-values, and consideration canalways be given to improving them eg when the site isparticularly exposed, the building is kept warmer than usual, orwhere fuel is especially expensive. Note that to improve theinsulation value, means lowering the U-value. The mostrecent edition of the Building Regulations (part L) is particularlyconcerned with the conservation of fuel and power.· Surface or standard resistance. These are values givenfor surfaces and airspaces. They may vary with buildingelevation, the direction of energy flow, surface emissivity andthe degree of exposure. They are given in the same units asthermal resistance, R. For example, Rsi = surface resistanceinside.· The Building Regulations do not impose any requirementfor the thermal performance of agricultural buildings. Table 1shows the recommended U-values for walls and roofs ofagricultural buildings as given in BS5502.

Example Calculation of U-valueImagine a potato store constructed of brick (215 mm thick), λ =0.84W/mK, with 50 mm of spray-on polyurethane foam, λ =0.023W/mK. Take Rin = 0.120m2K/W, and Rout = 0.060 m2K/W. Thevalues may be set out in a table that allows for ease ofcomputation.

λ Thickness, m (in metres) R(m/λ)Brick 0.84 0.215 0.256Foam 0.023 0.050 2.174Rout 0.060Rin 0.120Total R 2.610

Now U = 1/R (which can be verified if one looks at the units for R)Thus U = 1/ 2.610U = 0.38 W/m2K

This is only a simple example, but it is relatively easy to work outfurther exercises where for instance the number of ‘layers’ of thebuilding is increased, or where the U-value is given and it isrequired to find the thickness of insulating material. Insulation MaterialsInsulation materials are made from a wide range of materials, andthey are available in many forms. You only have to take a tripdown to your local builders merchants to verify this. There isusually a direct relationship between density and insulating value ie

the lower the density, the higher the insulating value. Examples ofinsulating materials in common use are:

· Insulating concrete· Loose fills, including exfoliated vermiculite fine glass

fibrewool, mineral wool and cork granules.· Boards. Types include metallised polyester lined

plyboard, woodwool slabs, expanded polystyrene boards,thermal backed (expanded polystyrene/extruded polystyrene) plasterboard and fibreboard, polyurethane, polyisocyanurate and phenolic.

· Quilts. Made from glass fibre or mineral wool bonded or stitched between outer paper coverings for easy handling.

· Insulating plasters. Factory produced premixed plasters, which have lightweight perlite, and vermiculite expanded minerals as aggregates, and requires only the addition of clean water before application.

· Spray on polyurethane foam.· Composite panels – usually metal faced filled with

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam or polystyrene foam.· Foamed cavity fill. The cavity is filled with urea-

formaldehyde resin foamed on site. (from Chudley, 1999).

Selection of MaterialsAs well as the insulation value of the material that has beenchosen, consideration must be given to factors such as:

· Physical strength· Cost· Fire and flame spread· Resistance to pests· Condensation and moisture resistance· Low λ value· Non-toxic material· Water application· Ease of cleaning· Ease of installation and repair

ConclusionsInsulation is one of those subjects that receives very littleconsideration, that is, until something goes wrong, or appears to gowrong. By understanding what is meant to happen when all isinstalled correctly, one can go about choosing the best insulationmaterial for your application. At the end of the day, it will mostdefinitely be money very well spent.References

1. Chudley, R (1999) Construction Technology. 3rd edition.Longman.2. Barnes and Mander (1991) Farm BuildingConstruction. Farming Press.3. DOW Construction Products. Commercial leaflets andpersonal communication.

Technical

Photo 2, A well insulated piggery


Reader enq 011

Reader enq 012

Reader enq 013


Contact:Contact:

David AndersonDavid AndersonTel: 01888 551666Tel: 01888 551666

Fax: 01888 551376Fax: 01888 551376

e-mail:[email protected]:[email protected]

Low CostSimple InstallationQuick BuildMaintenance FreeHigh Quality Materials Used ThroughoutSupplied In Kit FormRange Of Colours :- White

BlueBiscuitGreenSilver Translucent

Manufactured To Withstand Extreme Weather Conditions

You could be advertising inthis space

17000 of your potential customerscould be reading this.

Contact Jason to discuss your requirements on 028 975 19178


Reader enq 016

Reader enq 017 Reader enq 018


Reader enq 019 Reader enq 020 Reader enq 021


Robotic milking› The futuretoday?

By Ian Ohnstad – Mi lk ingTechnology Special ist , ADAS

Automat ic mi lk ing systems (AMS) have beeninstal led on commercial dairy farms at anincreasing rate in recent years. Claims for reducedlabour demand, improved social l i fe, improved mi lkqual i ty, increased yields and improved animalwelfare have combined to arouse both interest andexpectat ions wi th in the dairy industry.

The idea of automat ing the complete mi lk ingprocess has been around for the past 25 years.However, i t has only been in the last 10 years thatmachines capable of commercial exploi tat ion havebeen avai lable. There were around 300 systemsoperat ing on commercial dairy farms in Europe in1999 and i t is est imated that th is number wi l l haveincreased to at least 1000 by the end of 2001. Thecountr ies showing the greatest uptake of thetechnology are character ised by high labour costs,high y ie ld ing cows and a predominance of smal l tomedium sized fami ly run farms.

Unl ike convent ional mi lk ing, where cows are herdedto be mi lked, the AMS rel ies on the mot ivat ion ofthe cow to present hersel f for mi lk ing a number oft imes each day. The idea that cows l ike beingmilked and move freely to the AMS is veryatt ract ive. However, studies have demonstrated thatwhen cows are given a choice between feeding andbeing mi lked, they wi l l a lways choose feeding.

In studies where cows were given free access to anAMS, which did not include automat ic dispensing ofconcentrate, they quickly stop at tending. As soonas feed was introduced, ei ther in the mi lk ing stat ionor in an area, which could only be accessedthrough the AMS, the f requency of v is i ts rapidlyincreased.

Therefore, when planning and designing successfullayouts for AMS mi lk ing, i t is important to ut i l ise thecow’s desire to eat. I t has been suggested thatcows could be mot ivated to move by restr ict ingwater intakes al though i t has now beendemonstrated that th is mot ivat ion is not strong andany at tempt to l imi t water raises ser ious wel fareconsiderat ions.

Economic eff ic iency dictates that each mi lk ing stal lis used as intensively as possible. In i t ia l ly i t wasfel t that the most effect ive way to achieve highut i l isat ion was to employ a system of one-way cowtraff ic . Most cows are fed a forage based rat ionwith addi t ional concentrates fed in the AMS. Thedesire to eat e i ther forage or concentrate can beused to draw cows through the system.

Using a system of one-way gates, for a cow ly ing incubic les to eat forage, she is required to enter apre-select ion area where depending on the intervals ince her last v is i t to the AMS, she is ei theral lowed to enter the AMS and be mi lked or givenaccess to the feed barr ier.

A typical cow wi l l achieve her dai ly dry matterintake in around seven feeds. This is l ikely toequate to around three vis i ts to the AMS each day.

Recent researchnow favours f reeaccess to bulkforage, wi thconcentratesdispensed bythe AMS. Thetransi t ion f romconvent ionalmi lk ing to anAMS involvescomprehensivechanges for bothcows andoperator andusual ly leads toa per iod ofstress for both.The length ofthe t ransi t ionper iod var iesfrom farm tofarm but can be

Technical

anything up to 12 months. This per iod is oftenunder-est imated by new users of AMS.

The AMS is not sui table for a l l cows. Unsui tabletemperament, udder conf i rmat ion, teat p lacement orsize can mean in many casesup to 10% of the herd wi l lrequire cul l ing to make thesystem a success.

I f there is a problem with anAMS, i t is usual ly associatedwith ei ther poor cow at tendanceor poor c luster at tachment. Inmany cases, insuff ic ientthought is g iven to the designand layout of the system andthe dai ly management to keepcows mot ivated to at tend. Poorat tendance is often l inked toand can give an ear ly indicat ionof other problems such aslameness or metabol icdisorders.

Poor c luster at tachment is oftenfound in conjunct ion wi th poorat tendance. I f 20% of the herdhas not at tended for 12 hours,they should be manual lybrought to the system. In anattempt to mi lk th is group ofcows more quickly, the operatorwi l l often over-r ide the AMS andattach the c luster manual ly.However, successful at tachmentrel ies on the AMS locat ingteats, f ix ing the co-ordinatesand remembering the locat ion.I f the uni t is at tached manual ly,th is memory cannot developand at tachment wi l l deter iorate.

Automat ic mi lk ing is acommercial real i ty. There aremany good examples of farmsapply ing the technologysuccessful ly and reaping thebenef i ts of increased yields,improved herd heal th andimproved qual i ty of l i fe. Thereare however also examples offarms who have yet to see the


claimed advantages and further work is needed toident i fy areas of weakness to ensure futureinstal lat ions prove successful .

With thanks to Ful lwood Ltd, for the use of their

Technical

Reader enq 024


Technical

ROBOTIC MILKING SYSTEMHIGH TECH IN AGRICULTURE

Since 1995, the LELY group has sold in excess of 1,200 ASTRONAUT® robotic milking systems around the world, including mostEuropean countries, Canada, Japan and Australia. With this number of users, they claim that they are today the world leader forrobotic milking. They put this success down to their dedication to market a reliable product, which they continuously strive to improve by addingnew features that meet the demand of their customers. Above all, however, they firstly put great value into supplying a reliable 24-hour service backed up by qualified personnel.Secondly, they knew through experience that changing from conventional milking towards robotic milking means a totally differentapproach of the farm management -as was the case when farmers changed from milking manually to parlours. They are alwaysworking pro-actively to provide information and support for their customers to get the most out of the system they have purchasedfrom them. For this they monitor cow yields, milk quality figures and udder health.Today, they are able to claim a high level of user satisfaction because of this approach that goes far beyond just supplying aproduct. At LELY, they stimulate and initiate visits to customers, and organise so called user group meetings in which they discusswith their customers ways and ideas to improve our system. They are happy to invite anyone who has questions to visit sites -subject to Foot & Mouth restrictions -and to talk with current users.They are convinced that robotic milking will become the method generally accepted as the norm, as it reduces the need formanual labour and improves the well being of the cows. In combination with ever-improving sensor techniques which will controland improve the quality of the work, it is a matter of time and experience gained.

Reader enq 025


When is Consultation not Consultation -When it is carried out by GovernmentDepartments

We all know that the rural economy has got to be re-organised,it is not working.The first thing that needs to change is DEFRA, theGovernment say that they understand this and so have starteda consultation process. Let us hope that they take the correctdecisions.Trying to set policies, which everyone will agree with, whichencompass biodiversity, organic food, improved efficiency,lower cost food, sustainability, free access to the countryside,GM crops, etc, etc, is obviously impossible, but policies needto be set.

My experience of past consultations by GovernmentDepartments such as the HSE and MAFF is that they are notas effective as they should be, I hope that DEFRA will bedifferent.

The HSE decided some time ago that the old advice onworking at height was out of date. They therefore decided torewrite the advice as HSG33 and gave it to a well meaningHealth and Safety professional to write the draft. Once thedraft was written it was sent out for comment, when thecomments came back they were considered by the Health andSafety experts and some amendments made and the adviceissued. Although overall the advice is good, because theHealthy and Safety experts had rejected the advice from theroofing experts, there are some areas where the advice iswrong.

This meant that a number of trade associations in the roofingindustry have spent the last three years fighting against someof the advice, when what was really needed was for all TradeAssociations in the industry to go out and promote the advice.This problem occurred because the Health and Safety expertsdid not know enough about the subject they were providingadvice about.

A typical problem was advice concerning translucent rooflights.A number of deaths and serious injuries are caused each yearby people falling through them, so the HSE took the decisionthat it would be best if they were designed out of roofs. Thisobviously ignored the many good reasons why it is oftennecessary to have translucent lights in a roof.

If the HSE had known their subject better or had followed theadvice given at the consultation stage by the industry expertsthey would have known that only certain types of rooflight aredangerous. Other rooflights are on the market that are strongerthan the surrounding roofing materials and certainly strongenough to stop a person falling through them. So the HSEwould have been far better to advise against the ‘unsafe’ rooflights rather than trying to stop all roof lights being used. Theywould then have the support of the industry associations whowould have been delighted to support the HSE in promotingHSG33. As it was they were forced to argue against some ofthe advice.

So, DEFRA, do not fall into the same trap. I know that you willnot be able to satisfy everyone all the time, but it is importantthat with any policy you set you bring on side as much of therural community as possible, if not we will all end up in a worsemess than we are now.

I suggest that you communicate closely with the experts andso when new policy or advice is needed in a particular area,you contact the associations, unions and other interested and

knowledgeable parties working in that area and ask them tojoin a committee chaired by DEFRA to write the policy oradvice. In that way the best policy can be evolved and thoseinvolved in the policy making can then have ownership of itand can go out and promote it.

If you write the policy or advice and then send it out forcomment those that do comment will still see it as DEFRA’sadvice or policy and it will therefore be far easier for them tocriticise it than if they were involved in its formulation. Whatever you do, do not trying to impose DEFRA’s view as the HSEis so keen on doing.

Opinion

Reader enq 026

Reader enq 027

Reader enq 028

Reader enq 029


The Implementation of NationalPlanning Policy Guidance(PPG7) in relation to theDiversification of Farm Business.

We have recently been sent the executive summary of the researchcarried out by Land Use Consultants in association with the University ofthe West of England, Bristol and the Royal Agricultural College Enterpriseon behalf of the DETR now DTLR.

The research on the diversification categories found that the planningapplications were in the following proportions:

l 31% - Tourism l 17% - Equestrianl 10% - Storage/haulagel 10% - Officesl 8% - Manufacturing

It also found that remote rural areas have over six times the number ofapplications for farm diversification per head of population, compared to theurban fringe, highlighting the importance of farm diversification to theeconomy of remote areas.

On average farm diversification makes up 1.5% of all planning applicationsbut this varies from area to area going up to 5.1% in National Parks. It isconcerning to note that a number of local plans have not taken on board allthe advice on diversification in PPG7 (1997).

The research found that 90 to 95% of applicants for diversification hadreceived some form of advice (other than from the LPA) before submittinga planning application. 60% of applications are made on behalf of clientsby professional advisors.

The average approval rate for farm diversification applications is 83%, withthe national average for all planning applications 88%. The highestapproval rates relate to tourism (85%) and equestrian activities (84%) andthe lowest approval rates were for storage and haulage (71%). There aresome marked differences of approval rates if the age of the building isconsidered, with 28% of applications for diversification activities involvingmodern farm buildings being refused, compared to 13.5% for traditionalfarm buildings. This difference is even greater in accessible rural areas.

They advise that: “The over-riding message that emerges from thisresearch is the need for greater clarity of purpose for farm diversificationand its role in wider rural diversification. This clarity of purpose is required atall levels, in defining the parameters under which farm diversification shouldoperate; what it should deliver at the local level and for whose benefit; andclarity and consistency in the communication between LPAs and thefarming community”.

They recommended that:

1: The Government should consider the feasibility of providing a clearer,but flexible, definition of sustainable farm diversification, which, amongstother things, addresses issues of scale of development and the differencesbetween farm diversification which is and is not attached to a working farm.

2: National policy guidance should clearly acknowledge that differentapproaches to farm diversification may be required to achieve sustainabilityobjectives in different areas – responding to the different needs andpressures of different areas.

3: DEFRA/DTLR and the Countryside Agency at the national level, andlocal authorities at the more local level, should consider how the range offarm plans now being produced in support of farm business developmentand environmental protection might be used in support of planning

applications for farm diversification.

4: LPAs should develop a clear vision for the integrated rural developmentof their rural areas, based on a rigorous understanding of local social andeconomic, as well as environmental, needs. This may require furtheremphasis in PPG7.

5: LPAs should have clear criteria-based policies for farm diversificationwhich reflect local needs and which differentiate, where appropriate,between the types of diversification activity appropriate in different types ofrural area. This information might be better provided as SupplementaryPlanning Guidance.

6: Subject to any clearer national definition of sustainable farmdiversification, development plans should address the scale ofdevelopment appropriate to their rural area and how (if at all) farmdiversification activities should relate to a working farm.

7: The value of pre-application advice should be fully taken into account inany Best Value review of LPA services.

8: Within LPAs there should be consistent linking of pre- and post-application advice.

9: LPAs should consider training for development control officers in farmdiversification, or the identification of a specialist officer to deal with inquiriesand applications.

10: LPAs should establish clear coordination with other bodies offeringassistance and advice on farm diversification, such as DEFRA, localEconomic Development Departments, the FarmBusiness Advisory Service and the Rural Enterprise Scheme.

11: Local authorities, the Regional Development Agencies, DEFRA andother relevant bodies should consider establishing first stop shops whereapplicants can gain planning and economic development advice underone roof.

12: LPAs should develop closer partnerships with the farming communitythrough agricultural or farming fora, or regular liaison meetings betweenplanners and the farming community.

13: LPAs should consider producing written advice (a leaflet or similar) thatexplains how farm diversification applications will be dealt with and theissues that will be taken into account in their determination reflecting localcircumstances.

14: LPAs should take planning advice out to the farming community,perhaps through planning clinics, or the work of agricultural liaison officers,or by working with those who are already in close liaison with the farmingcommunity, for example, planning advisors operating under the RuralEnterprise Scheme.

They go on to say that: “In making these recommendations it is realisedthat it would not be appropriate or practical for all LPAs to follow all therecommendations directed at them to the same degree. It will be forindividual local authorities to decide the actions which are most appropriatefor them depending on local circumstances. Under the ERDP, the ActionPlan for Farming, the Rural White Paper and the response to Foot andMouth Disease there are a broad range of activities being undertaken by awide range of organisations. In many cases the actions identified abovecould and should be shared as part of these initiatives, rather than falling tolocal authorities alone”.

The above look to me to be a sound set of recommendations, I only hopethat they are acted upon and the final paragraph does not give too manyLAs a loophole to avoid doing any thing.

Copies of the full report may be purchased (price £24) from the DTLRPublications Sales Centre, Cambertown House, Goldthorpe IndustrialEstate, Goldthorpe, Rotherham S63 9BL (phone 01709 891318).

Technical


Timber Industry Awards2001

I was luck enough to be invited to the presentation of the aboveawards at the Carpenters Hall.The range of projects from the hi-tech roof of the courtyard roof ofPortcullis House to the repair of a 15th century lychgate, viabridges and a new dais and alter for St. Paul’s Cathedral was

inspirational and showed the vast range of uses for timber.

The photograph of some of the hundreds of entries shows therange of projects that were on display.

Possibly the most interesting and thought provoking part of thedisplays was the vast differences of design and construction thatcan be accommodated by using wood in different ways. Thebridges highlighted this for me; from the very tightly designed, widespan, Glulam arch in the bridge at Black dog Hill, Wiltshire,designed by Mark Lovell Design Engineers, for North WiltshireDistrict Council, to the use of natural timber logs in the footbridge,conkers, the National Forest, Leicester, designed by Faulks PerryCully Rech Architects, for Heart of the National Forest Foundation.The winners of the various categories are listed below. All shouldbe congratulated on the very high quality of their design andoutstanding craftsmanship.

Major Projects – Winner – Canterbury Cathedral Education CentreAssessors Special Award – Winner – Lodge Park, Sherebourne,GloucestershireSmaller Projects – Winner – The Khoan & Sullivan Gallery ofChinese Painting, The Ashmolean Museum OxfordEnglish Heritage Awards – The Lychgate, St Leonards Church,HestonSoftwood in use Out of Doors – Leighton Redwood Chalet,Welshpool, Powys

There were 140 entries on display in what was fairly crampedconditions and so I could not give as much time to each display asI would have liked, which was a shame. If I am invited again nextyear I will have to make a point of arriving early or leaving the restof the day free.

I did not see an entry from a typical farm building, possiblebecause none of the categories really covered this type of buildingand there is a feeling that design and aesthetics are probably morehighly marked than functionality.

May be a new sponsor is required for a new category of‘Working Farm Building’, where function, layout and cost are

Back IssuesListed below are the previous Issues of Countryside Buildingand the main articles they contain.

We normally sell back copies for £5.00 each, but unfortunatelywe have run out of copies of all issues in Volume 1 except fora few of Issue 4.

Volume 1

Issue 4This was the Journal that was – The foundation anddevelopment of the Association FragilityCalf Housing UpdateNew Farm House in the Scottish BordersConvert to Survive Part 11Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings to B1Business use – Part 111, Costs & GrantsThe Price of Good Design: The Cost of Bad designThat was the Year that was – Cow Cubicles How andWhere did they OriginateSlurry Separation and the Organic farmerThe Greenbelt isn’t Working

Volume 2Issue 1

That was the Year that was – Farm Buildings andCattle SlurryNational Dairy Farm Assured scheme (Edition 2) –Interpretation on Building DesignStone Slate National BriefingHousing in the Countryside – a 21st Century ViewSheep HousingTraditional Farm Buildings: An Investigation into theLack of Support to Retain them in agricultural Use.Pig Housing in SomersetThe History and Repair of Steel Windows

Technical

Reader enq 030


New Concrete mixes for farmersRMC Readymix has produced a complete range of concrete mixes for farmers, backed up by the latest expert guidance in a specially prepared collection ofbest practice guides.

The range includes products designed to provide farmers with a mix that is both economical and which is guaranteed to meet or exceed the British Standardsfor concrete mixes in Agriculture and all relevant quality assurance standards.

Each concrete mix has been given a brand name, reflecting the growing emphasis on statutory regulation and farm assurance schemes and this will helpfarmers identify the appropriate product for common concrete applications such as dairy parlours, livestock housing, slurry stores and silage clamps.

The best practice leaflets have been prepared in consultation with independent specialists from leading colleges and other centres throughout the UK, as wellas experts from the supply industry and provide the sort of practical guidance that is needed for fast, easy and efficient completion of the job.

Readymix Stockfloor is a durable, hardwearing concrete suitable for use in livestock units. Readymix Stockfloor can be finished to provide a non-abrasive andslip resistant surface, which can be readily cleaned. The high quality concrete is designed to satisfy the standards of hygiene in today’s livestock housingincluding the Food Safety Act and Quality Assurance Schemes.

Durable, Strong, Safe, Easy to place, Hygienic

Readymix Liquitite is a dense, durable concrete designed to meet the very aggressive environment found in an agricultural liquid storage facility both above andbelow ground. Readymix Liquitite aids in the provision of an impermeable structure that complies with the current pollution control guidelines set out by theEnvironmental Agency.

Durable, Strong, Dense, Easy to place,

Readymix Multistore is a durable and load bearing concrete floor designed for both general and specific storage needs. With a good structural design and theuse of Readymix Multistore, a hygienic storage facility can be created providing a barrier between ground water and the stored material.

Strong, Durable, Hygienic, Practical

Readymix Farmpave is a high strength, durable concrete for use on external paved areas subject to the constant loading and scraping imposed by farmvehicles and machinery. Readymix Farmpave is designed to resist damage from frost and the aggressive conditions found in an agricultural environment.

Strong, Durable, Attractive, Practical

For information and technical advice on agricultural concrete applications, freephone RMC Readymix on 0800667 827, or e-mail [email protected]

Technical

Reader enq 031

RMC Readymix is proud to support its partnersin agricultural construction .

The RMC Group is the world's leading supplier ofready mixed concrete.

RMC Readymix offers a total service foragricultural construction, where customerservice, technical performance, logisticalsupport and quality compliance is critical.

For Information on Agricultural Concrete Solutions

call us onFreephone 0800 667 827

Or E-mail us at [email protected]

Or visit our websiteWWW.RMC.CO.UK



Reader enq 032

Mixer Pumps, Stirrers, Seperators, Aerators, FlushingSystems, Umbilical Equipment, Spreaders, Tanks,

Pipe work, Spears and Service.

THE COMPLETE SLURRY SYSTEM

Whatever your slurry problems JPS can design a system to giveyou an effective, efficient and reliable solution. For further information please contact our sales office.

Tel:01522 519800 Mobile:07836 665704E-Mail [email protected] / www.jpsystems.co.uk

Reader enq 034

Reader enq 033

Reader enq 069

Reader enq 036

Reader enq 035


Setting the Planning Scenefor those consideringdiversification in to horsekeeping!

David J Wood, Managing Director of AGRIQUESTRIANCONSULTANTS

Little more than a hundred and eighty years ago the horse and horserelated modes of transport was the only way of travelling from oneplace to another or to deliver bulk materials and manufactured goodsfrom the manufacturer to the consumer (other than canal and rivertransport). In addition the bulk of agricultural cultivations and theharvesting of crops was carried out using horse drawn ploughs,cultivators, mowing and harvesting machinery.The horse was in fact the prime mover with a larger proportion ofheavy breeds, i.e. Shires, Clydesdales, Clevelands, Percherons,Suffolks, etc., in use.The advent of steam power and subsequently the internalcombustion engine has seen the demise of horse related transportwhich brought about a rapid decline in all horse numbers up to theend of the Second World War, but mostly at the expense of theworking horse.The last fifty years however has seen a steady increase in ridinghorse numbers, particularly in the last twenty years, and anaccompanying increase in horse riding and horse related sports andevents of one sort or another.Three recent surveys of independent origin and radically differentmethodologies suggest that the horse population of Great Britain isclose to 600,000. A large proportion of these, some 300,000, can beidentified through the records of various equine organisations,although this estimate may include some element of double counting!A further survey found that 3.3m people rode regularly, (more thantwice per month), whilst 600,000 of these rode three or more timesper week. In addition certain equine sports attract a substantial non-mounted participation. Hunting with 390,000 followers a year. HorseRace meetings which attracts over four million spectators. The trendin both riding and non-riding participation over the last ten years hasbeen generally upwards, particularly in the case of the former.Based on BHS & MAFF/DEFRA estimates of the feeding andwelfare requirements of horses and ponies suggests a conservativeestimate of land area used by equines is that about 500,000 ha isdevoted directly to horse maintaining and breeding and a further300,000 ha to the production of feedstuffs.A TBA, (Thoroughbred Breeders Association), study estimates thatland use devoted to stud farms amounts to 117,000 ha, bycomparison equine land use is therefore almost twice the areadevoted to horticultural crops.The primary equine industry employs around 50,000 individuals withthe ancillary industries accounting for a further 15,000. Studentsstudying courses devoted to a career in equine related employmentnumber at least 11,000. These figures exclude much of the voluntarywork and the labour of individuals looking after their own horses.Identifiable turnover of primary equine activities is estimated at morethan £ 350 million whilst a further £ 450 million is generated byancillary industries. In financial terms this makes the equine industrybroadly equivalent to the office machinery sector.Against this background of continual growth of horse numbers, ofhorse riding and participation in horse events, horse owners, thosewishing to own horses, those wishing to ride together with theirEquestrian Consultants/Advisors are confronted by a Planningsystem, which relies greatly upon criteria, standards and definitionssome of which were laid down over fifty years ago.At present there seems to be no overall National policy guidancerelated specifically to horses andhorse riding other than a miserable pair of half columns in Planning

Policy Guidance. PPG.7. (AnnexeF), and two lines in the latest Rural White Paper. (Our Countryside:the Future - A fair deal for RuralEngland.).On 30th March 2000 the Prime Minister held a Farming Summit at10, Downing Street at which he announced the Action Plan forFarming.Annexe A of the Plan includes two important paragraphs....

One significant rural-based industry centres upon horses; itprovides important opportunities for the diversification offarm-based activities. The Government has assignedMAFF/DEFRA the responsibility for working with the horseindustry to help develop its potential for rural-basedemployment.

The Government will revise planning guidance to giveclear encouragement to diversification, for example to re-use redundant farm buildings and to encourage small-scale horse enterprises on working farms.

This will be taken forward in the first instance by a specialPlanning Conference hosted by Nick Raynsford, (the thenMinister for the Environment), which will look at a range ofdiversification issues.

I attended this conference as the RDBA representative and took theopportuunity to raise the question of the definition of ‘Agriculture’ andits relationship to the ridden horse. (See below). Whilst sympatheticto my views the Minister indicated that such revisions would requireprimary legislation in relation to the Agriculture Act which was not onthe Governments timetable at present.However, as a direct result of this Seminar and as announced in theHouse of Commons Hansard in March 2001, revisions were to bemade to PPG.7. These revisions were published in fall in a previousedition of Countryside Building and are also available on the DofE’swebsite at: www.planning.detr.gov.uk.Although we had assurances from the then Minister that hisdepartment were writing to every LPA to inform them of theclarification of certain parts of PPG.7., these do not appear to havebeen incorporated, as yet, in to changes in Local Plan Policies.We all know and appreciate the policies which relate to theprotection of the rural scene, the Green Belt, Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty and of High Landscape Value, but where horserelated developments are concerned we have widespreadinconsistencies in the application of these policies even to a certainLocal Planning Authority, in refusing a planning permission for alivery yard, suggesting that a horse related development wasinappropriate development in the countryside!The problem appears to start with the legal position of what horsekeeping is.The definition of Agriculture is set out in Section 336(1) of the Town &Country Planning Act 1990.,and states......

‘horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming,

the breeding and keeping of livestock (including anycreature kept for the production of food, wool, skins andfur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land),

the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land,market gardens, and

the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary tothe farming of land for other agricultural purposes.’

In the planners’ eyes, under present laws, the keeping of horses isnot an agricultural activity except where that horse is a grazinganimal, is a working horse or is destined for the horse meat market.If you consider this definition as being old fashioned it is notsurprising since it was taken from theAgriculture Act 1947 (Section 109), which in turn was based upon

Technical


the description, which has varied very little, in previous AgriculturalActs of 1875., 1883., 1906 & 1920.The status of the horse in agriculture was established by a Judicialdecision nearly forty years ago -Rutherford-v’s-Maurer -Queens Bench 1962.However a contradictory decision was also made in the same year— Belmont Farms-v’s-Minister of Housing & Local Government,when it was held that the breeding and keeping of horses was notan agricultural activity because the ridden horse was not included inthe.. ..”creatures kept for the production of food”.... (Working horseswere exempt since they were included in the “use in the farming ofland”).The B.H.S. held that the grazing of horses was an agricultural activityand supported two Oxfordshire farmers in an Appeal to the HighCourt - this decision being referred to as The South OxfordshireDistrict Council, (S.O.D.C.)-v’s- Secretary of State for theEnvironment, T.B. Underwood & P.B. Lance Queens Bench Dec.1980.The S.O.D.C. had required them to apply for planning permission tograze horses and then had refused the application. This was thenfollowed by an Enforcement Notice to cease this activity. Lord JusticeDonaldson & Mr Justice Kilner Brown vindicated the B.H.S.interpretation.These definitions are summarised in Planning Policy Guidance.PPG. 7.,Annexe F: Para. F.3., Development involving horses.In addition the General Development Order 1995, Schedule 2.,Pt.6.(3). states.....When it comes to animals, the Order has no regard to the nature ofthe creature but only to its function. Take the horse. Planning lawrecognises six types of horse.....

1. The working horse. Keeping and breeding them is anagricultural use (livestock bred or kept for the purpose of itsuse in the farming of land.).

2. The racehorse. Keeping and breeding them is not anagricultural use of land because they are not livestock keptfor agricultural production (though he may graze).

3. The recreational horse. Keeping them, as opposed tograzing them, (See 4 below), is not an agricultural use ofthe land, so that there may be a material change in the useof agricultural land when it is sub-divided in to ponypaddocks, when shelters are provided or when farmbuildings are converted to livery use. The keeping of arecreational horse on agricultural land may mean that theland use has changed to a recreational use; or it mayresult in a mixed agricultural/recreational use.

4. The grazing horse. The use of land as grazing land isan agricultural use, so that the use of the land for grazingany of the above horses is agricultural; but not the use ofthe land for keeping them.

5. The residentially incidental horse. The keeping of ahorse within the curtilage of a dwelling house may, thoughnot an agricultural use, be incidental to the enjoyment of adwelling house and thus permitted by Section 55.(2).(d).

6. Horsemeat. Human consumption of horsemeat iscommon in other European countries, and the breedingand keeping of horses for food production would clearlyconstitute an agricultural use of land.

Confused? So was I at first!There is a wide disparity in the amount of supplementary planningadvice on equestrian based developments given by LPA’s. Thesevary from literally nothing in the Local Plan Policy of a North WestEngland LPA, (this is very surprising since this LPA has a substantialslab of Metropolitan Green Belt under its control), through to adetailed booklet, entitled Horse Related Development, published bya South Midlands LPA.

Many farmers are diversifying in to equestrian based enterprises orexpanding upon small established units, many of which have beenset up without Planning consents for changes of use of both existingbuildings and land.One particular area where planning problems exist relates to theprovision of residential accommodation for equestrian/agriculturalworkers, in a mixed farming/equestrian scenario it is often the casethat turnover generated by the equestrian enterprise and the needsof horse welfare may not be taken in to account when meeting the‘Functional’ and ‘Financial’ tests set out in PPG.7. Annexe I.Some LPA’s, I am pleased to say, do not take this view and apply thepolicies equally to both agricultural and equestrian developmentsand dwellings, but the same ‘Tests’ will be applied.Except in Green Belt areas there is hopefully a presumption in favourof the applicant.PPG.7., remains the central guidance, in spite of its manyshortcomings. In particular, where equestrian developments areconcerned,..... PPG.7.Annexe F. Para. F.5., states........... Within theframework set out in PPG. 7, the Government wishes to see apositive approach towards planning applications for horse-baseddevelopment which respects the rural environment.It is perhaps ironic that the fundamental changes which haveemerged in central government agricultural policy, particularly therecent revision, though small, to PPG.7. has occurred within ageneral planning policy which largely depends on the predominantuse made of land, particularly in the Green Belts, being agricultural, aconsideration which has remained virtually unchanged since the firstcircular on Green Belts was issued in 1955.The latest edition of PPG.2., re-affirms the policy and makesparticular mention of PPG.7. , and to its likely influence on the ruraleconomy.To this end therefore it must follow that in a difficult and uncertainagricultural climate proposals in sensitive locations which have theeffect of both maintaining land for farming, or related, purposes oughtto be afforded the highest priority in terms of assistance if thecountryside is not simply to become neglected and, as aconsequence, take on a derelict and unkempt appearance.Without apology I quote Mr John Gummer, one time EnvironmentSecretary, who urged planners to....” help develop the countryside asa place where people could work as well as live... Planners have anenabling role to play, not a restrictive one.”New jobs and opportunities are needed in the countryside just asmuch as in towns and urban areas. Just as towns wither awayphysically, economically and socially when deprived of investmentand development, so too does the countryside.It is to the Local Planning Authorities that the government looks tobreath fresh life in to the countryside through their developmentplans, their policies and planning decisions and not to stifleenterprise.The New White Paper examines the economic, social andenvironmental changes that are taking place in the countryside todayand builds upon the principles set out in the Governments’Sustainable Development Strategy.It covers all aspects of living, working in and enjoying thecountryside, promotes economic development whilst protecting whatmakes our countryside unique.The nature of the countryside is changing though, its inhabitants aremore mobile and rural economic activity is becoming increasinglydiverse. Recent population flow statistics show a steady increase inmany rural populations. Increasingly more and more people fromtowns and cities are visiting and enjoying the countryside and takingpart in country pursuits including horse riding.This reflects in increasing development and other pressures on thecountryside which has wide implications for Local Government,housing services, the planning system and conservation policies, allof which must adapt to the changing nature of Rural England..A diversified agriculture will remain the dominating influence on theappearance of the countryside as it has in the past. The countrysideas we see it today has been created mostly by farmers and landowners.Undoubtedly the DEFRA will play an increasing role in the

Technical


development of the new policies but it must be done without mufflingthe voice of British Farming and horse owners.The replacement of County and District Councils by single UnitaryAuthorities will continue to dilute farming’s political influence, even inthe Shire counties.MAFF has been swallowed up in to a new department, yet furtherdiluting farmers’ influence on National policies affecting both theirland and livelyhoods.There will be little support for the farming lobby from the CLA whoseem to favour such a policy, whilst the NFU will sit on the fence asusual wringing their hands but taking very little positive action,consensus politics being their usual approach.We really need an opportunity to indicate what we will have to dealwith in the future and for DEFRA in conjunction with ADAS, the NFUand other professional organisations, together with farmers to beconsidering how restructive policies can be maintained yet have theflexibility to meet future needs, not only of the UK but the wider EC.David J Wood is the Managing Director of AGRIQUESTRIANCONSULTANTS, who specialise in the design and construction ofagricultural and equestrian building and act as Town & CountryPlanning consultants and expert witnessing.Member of FBA/RDBA since 1959. Past Chairman of RDBARetained by British Horse Society as Architectural, design andplanning consultant.Author of a number of BHS Advisory booklets.David has agreed to supply a number of articles for future issues ofCountryside Building, in which he will deal with the design, layoutand construction of equestrian building facilities, both new build andconversion. He hopes with the approval of his clients to include casestudies, which will continue the ‘planning’ theme.References.The economic contribution of the British Equine Industry. BHS.Planning Policy Guidance PPG.7.( 1997.) The Department of theEnvironment/DEFRA.

Technical

Reader enq 039

Reader enq 040

Reader enq 071


Reader enq 041

Reader enq 043

Reader enq 042


The RDBA 2001 WinterConferenceSustainable Development in the CountrysideImplications on DesignThursday 15th November 2001The Royal Hotel Ross on Wye

The conference commenced on the Wednesday evening at7.30 with 26 of us sitting down to dinner, our thanks to EternitUK Ltd for sponsoring much of the Wine for the evening. Thiswas a great start to the conference with good food, wine,company and a marvellous speaker. Our thanks also to A JLowther & Son Ltd, who sponsored the speaker, Dick Brice,who regaled us with stories and songs about the localpersonalities and people of the Forest of Dean.Following the meal we adjourned to the bar, where typical ofan English hotel we found that although it was only 11.00pm, itwas closed! So we had to move to the lounge and purchaseour drink via the night porter, which did not seem to slow theflow too much. All in all a great evening, with some of the fittermembers, I am told, finally calling it a day and retiring at4.00am.

An early start in the morning to organise the room and set upfor the AGM at 9.00am. Minutes of the AGM can be seenelsewhere in Countryside Building.

During the AGM those that had not joined us for the nightbefore began arriving until at the start of the conference therewere approximately 45 delegates.

The Conference

Welcome and Introduction bythe RDBA Chairman DickCoates FRICS

Dick welcomed all the delegatesand advised that there were anumber of trade stands at theback of the hall that the delegatesshould visit during the breaks. Hethanked the Exhibitors for takingspace and helping to defray the

costs of the Conference. He thanked the speakers in advance for what he was sure wasgoing to be an interesting, informative and enjoyable day.He then introduced the following bullet points on sustainability,which were in the delegates pack but stressed that they were

not fully comprehensive and should only be thought of as abasis for discussion.

Sustainable Development is...” development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs”. BrundtlandCommission 1987

Sustainable Development is not just another name forenvironmental protection. It is concerned with issues, whichare long term, and the effects which are irreversible. A newapproach to policy making is required which does not tradeoff short-term costs and benefits but regards some aspectsof the environment as absolute constraints. LGMB 2996

In practical terms it must be consciously & deliberatelyplanned for at the feasibility stage: -

� Efficient functional use for present requirements� Flexible design to allow for future change� Durable design to give long life with min. maintenance� Effective design to minimise running costs esp.

energy� Respect welfare of both occupants and operatives� Create an attractive working environment� Reduce consumption of natural resources esp. energy� Substitute renewable resources for non renewable� Utilise any recycled materials/resources available� Select materials/construction techniques that are

‘green’ - low energy to make or transport, reusable, & zero pollutants.

� Minimise production of wastes� Reuse & recycle wastes in environmentally friendly

way� Ensure zero pollution in operation� Preserve/enhance wildlife & ecosystem diversity &

variety� Protect our archaeological, built, & natural heritage.� Safeguard all physical assets that once damaged

would be impossible or very difficult to restore or recreate.

Dick then introduced the first Presentation:

Sustainability in Rural Development

David Eager, The Countryside Council for Wales, FfordPenros, Bangor, LL57 2LQ, Phone: 01248 385500, Fax: 01248 355782

David is a geographer-planner with extensive experience incentral and local government countryside planning andmanagement.

Presentation

David presented the award-winning LANDMAP landscapequalities information system, national design guidance on ruralplace-making, and sustainable rural design. He explained thatthe land map is made up of 8 different ‘layers’, which are listedbelow:

� Landscape Character Areas� History & Archaeology� Culture� Earth Science� Biodiversity� Visual & sensory Aspects� Landscape Function� Landscape form

National News


He explained how the information was obtained, evaluated,managed and used.

He also explained that more information could be obtainedfrom the booklets published by The Countryside Council forWales.

The Role of Historic Building Conservation

Dr. Judi Loach, Welsh School of Architecture, Bute Building, King Edward VII Ave., Cardiff, CF10 3NB, Phone: 029 20876189

Judi Loach studied architecture at the ArchitecturalAssociation, where she was encouraged to follow her interestsin building conservation; in particular she became involved inthe recording of traditional rural buildings, and won ascholarship to support research into conservation of traditionalrural buildings, comparing practices in Britain and Holland.She then took her doctorate in architectural history at theUniversity of Cambridge, for which she spent a yearresearching in France, where she took a certificate in buildingconservation.

After holding posts as Research Associate and ResearchFellow at Cambridge she took up the lectureship inarchitectural history at the school of architecture in OxfordBrookes University. She is currently Senior Lecturer in theWelsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University. She sits onthe steering committees of several amenity groups concernedwith historic buildings and serves as a member of theDiocesan Advisory Committee for Llandaff Diocese.

Presentation

This presentation began from the premise that conservingexisting buildings is inherently more sustainable than buildingnew ones, but some of the lessons arising - value of localcharacter, use of local materials - are equally applicable to newbuild in rural areas. The presentation addressed the issue ofcriteria for selecting buildings for conservation or conversion,within the specific context of sustainable rural development,and defines the key criterion as local specificity.

Rural development which reuses historic building stock(including for business uses) in such an appropriate way mayentail higher capital costs, and constrain choices. Yet it islikely to result in lower revenue costs, and prove moresustainable.

Sustainability and the Rural EnterpriseScheme – Opportunity & Conflicts

Huw Lloyd-Jones, Food Farming and Rural DevelopmentDirectorateGovernment Office for the South West, 4th Floor, The Pithay,Bristol, BS1 2PBPhone: 0117 9001841, Fax: 0117 9001905

Huw is a Senior Rural Development Advisor on Food Farmingand Rural Development

The Food, Farming and Rural Development Team of theGovernment Office for the South West (GOSW) was createdby the re-organisation of MAFF on 1st April 2001. Within theregion we have a central role in promoting the Government’sAgriculture Strategy and taking forward debate on CAP reformand the future of agriculture post-FMD. We also have a key

role in overseeing implementation of the Rural White Paper(RWP) and the England Rural Development Programme(ERDP) in partnership with the Countryside Agency and theSW RDA. More specific areas of work covered by the teaminclude land-use planning, the “food chain” and rural stress.

Presentation

“No-one made a greater mistake than (s)he who did nothingbecause (s)he could only do a little.”Edmund Burke

1. Sustainable Development

� What is “Sustainable Development” – looking at various definitions

� Landmark developments in policy and theory� Examples of sustainable and non-sustainable

development in various sectors� United Kingdom strategy and progress� Government machinery� The use of indicators to monitor development

2. The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES)

� The Rural Development Regulation� The England Rural Development Regulation� Gains and losses� The Rural Enterprise Scheme� Help with Planning Advice

Design Advice TowardsGreener Buildings

Martin Cook RIBA, Energy TechnicalCentre, BRE, Garston, Watford,WD2 7JRPhone: 01923 664000, Fax: 01923664010

Martin Cook is a Project Manager inBRE’s Energy Technology Centre.He has specialised in energy

efficiency at BRE for several years. During this time he hasdealt with virtually all building types and most aspects ofenergy and environmental consultancy.

He was a principal architect and project manager in privatepractice before joining BRE. This involved him in the inception,conception, and execution of most building types

Presentation

Martin told us about the new initiative – Part of theGovernment Sponsored Energy Best Practice Programme,which will give:

� One day of free energy and environmental consultancy

� Additional 30% grant support for specialist consultancy on larger contracts

He answered the question why do we need design advice:

He provided details of a number of projects that had beensustainably designed and looked at alternative energy sources:Solar Power – Photovoltaics, Passive Solar Heating,Harnessing the power of the wind, Thermal Energy Storage, aswell as discussing greywater recycling and rainwaterharvesting.

National News


Sustainability in Action - A PracticalApproach to Innovative Construction

Jonathan Hines BSc BArch, Architype Ltd, The Studio, BellVue CentreCinderford, Gloucestershire, GL14 2ABPhone: 01626 32 5648, Fax: 01626 32 5605Jonathan is the Managing Director of Architype Ltd – anArchitectural practice with an urban (London) office and a rural(Gloucestershire) office, working through out the country,Architype is one of the UK’s leading experts in ecological andsustainable design. Architype has particular practical expertise in low energydesign, natural ventilation and in environmentally sustainablematerials. Projects range from £150k to £15m and are mainlyin the social sector, including community and village halls,school buildings, health centres, arts and leisure buildings andhousing. Jonathan Hines is involved in a number of nationalinitiatives and research projects in sustainability and the use oftimber in construction.PresentationWhat sustainability actually means?He believes that there are two key issues – social sustainabilityand ecological sustainability which should be addressed inbuilding projects:� Social sustainability: Involving users and localcommunities in the development of building projects,developing ‘ownership’ and shared solutions� Ecological sustainability: Designing buildings whichreduce their negative impact and enhance their positiveenvironmental impactPractical ExamplesThe techniques for user involvement and the model forsustainable design was illustrated through a number ofpractical examples of successfully complete projects aroundthe UK, for a wide range of uses including communitybuildings, village halls, schools, offices and housing.

British Timber: A NaturalChoice

Carey LewisFederation of Small Business

Carey Lewis, Educated at NeathGrammar School and LoughboroughCollege. Twenty-five years in the truckindustry both in the UK and

Internationally, working at all levels up to importership GeneralManager. Expertise in special application vehicles, dieselpower systems and low volume production methods.Founded Froben Ltd in 1991, and diversified into hardwoodssector in 1998. Froben continues to do work in the vehiclesector but increasingly the company’s activities are focused onthe development of native hardwoods and their downstreamvalue addition.Froben also offers an administration analysis service to SME’sCarey Lewis is active with the federation of Small Business,Britain’s largest business representation organisation, as Chairof the Industrial South Wales and Powys Branch, Vice Chair ofFSB Welsh Policy and is heavily involved in all levels ofObjective One in Wales, also a Member of theEntrepreneurship Action Panel for Wales Trade International

Presentation

� Introduction and lessons that can be learned from the low volume manufacture of vehicles.

� The Price, Quality, Availability, Factor� Lack of suitable premises for quality value addition in

the hardwoods sector� Business birth and incubation� Business development potential� The development of the physical cluster� The structure of the Cluster� Concept of buildings� Conclusion

Farm Buildings: Implications on Design

Dick Coates FRICS, University of Plymouth, Seale Hayne,Newton Abbot, TQ12 6NQ, Phone: 01626 32 5648, Fax: 01626 32 5605

Dick is the Associate Senior Lecturer in Agricultural Buildingsat Seal Hayne University of Plymouth and an AgriculturalBuildings Consultant. As a Designer he has won four CLA Farm Buildings Awards.He regularly has articles published in agricultural publications,is the Technical Editor of New Farm Buildings in Devon – ADesign Guide (in preparation), has commenced the updatingand rewriting of the Rural Buildings Pocket Book, with the aimof publication in late 2002 and is the author of Chapter 25 ofthe Agriculture Notebook (20th Edition with publishers now).He has been a Council Member of the RDBA for many yearsand its Chairman for the past year.

Presentation

� Demand: Agricultural Holdings: Otter Valley Example� Building Types: with/without environment control:� Building Design is the skill : in choosing the attributes

to suit the function, siting & appearance with/for specific materials & type of construction.

� Design Influence: Polite/ National not vernacular� Designers: What do you want?� Design Focus� Sustainability

Environmental Assessments and RuralBuildings

David Pollard, Landmark Environmental Ltd, 101 Ashleigh

National News


HouseHarris Knowledge Park, Garstang Road, Fulwood, Preston,PR2 9ABPhone: 01772 713555, Fax: 01772 713444

As Technical Manager for Landmark Environmental Ltd. DavidPollard is responsible for project management and developingopportunities in the UK and overseas. An ecologist at heart healso represents the company with a commercial awareness,giving whenever possible a broad based approach, such asseminars and providing expert witness. Landmark Environmental Ltd. is an Ecological andEnvironmental Management Consultancy specialising inProtected Species Survey and Mitigation, Ecological Surveys,Habitat Creation and Management, Impact Assessments andEnvironmental Education through seminars and training.

Presentation

David discussed the current issues surrounding developmentin the rural sector� Direct habitat loss� Severance� Disruption to local hydrology� Pollution into local watercourses

Monitoring Impacts

Legislation Regarding Development

Protected Species Legislation

Species Concerned

Environmental Harmony:Including the Barn Owl

David Ramsden, The Barn OwlTrust, Waterleat, Ashburton, Devon,TQ13 7HUPhone: 01364 653026

David is the Senior ConservationOfficer for the Barn Owl Trust, whichhe co-founded in 1988 and has beenemployed by it since 1990.

He has been a trustee of the Devon Wildlife Trust since 1995.Author / co-author of various reports, government guidelines,one (published) scientific paper, Booklets and leaflets.

The Barn Owl Trust is a registered Charity and is the primarysource of information on barn owls nationally.It has a grass-roots origin – Involved in major projects involvingpractical, advisory and population monitoring work acrossDevon and Cornwall.Research project subjects include; barn conversions,reintroduction, major roads, diet and foraging behavior.Provision of educational resources including; lectures, talks,videos, packs, leaflets etc.

Presentation

David discussed Barn owl; introduction, habitat, decline, siteloss, planning issues and gave recommendations. His talkincluded tapes of the calls of all British owls and so we nowknow what a barn owl sounds like, he also showed a numberof photographs of the different owls.One of his main points is that in this clean and well-orderedcountryside that we are creating, with many of the old barnsbeing converted and upgraded, there are few places left for the

barn owl to nest. In manyareas this is one of thereasons why it is indecline. The remedy isrelatively simple and notvery expensive. Duringthe conversion a holeshould be left in the gableend of the building toallow entry to a nestingarea.Details of the size of thehole and the nesting arearequired were given, theycan also be obtained fromthe literature supplied bythe Barn Owl Trust, attheir address above.

Conclusion

Dick then summarised the conference by saying that it was inour own best interests and the best interests of generations tocome that we build sustainably but the one message that cameacross from the conference was that this was not too difficultnor too expensive if we planned for it, at an early stage.We needed to take sustainability on board and check theimplications, whether it was to renovate an old building ratherthan build new, take advantage of the local topography, ensurethat as many of the materials used were from locallyrenewable resources or decide on the source of the energyrequired to run the building, etc. This planning was the key;sustainability is not a bolt on option. He thanked all the presenters and the delegates for making itsuch an interesting, informative and enjoyable conference andbrought the Conference to a close.

We still have a few delegate packs available at a cost of£20.00, please contact the National Secretary for details.

With thanks to the Exhibitors who helped to defray thecosts of the Conference:

ATSS (east Anglia) LtdATSS House, Station Road East, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP141RQ Phone 01449 674944 Fax 01449 678678 Web sitewww.atssea.co.ukFor all your office needs from, computers to printers, frompaper to paper clips

Farmplus Construction Ltd Shay Lane, Longridge, PRESTON, Lancashire, PR3 3BTPhone 01772 785252, Fax 01772 782944 Web sitewww.farmplus.co.ukTimber framed buildings, cattle and sheet housing, kennels,feed stores, implement sheds, designed, built and erected toyou requirements.

Landmark Environmental Ltd101 Ashleigh House, Harris Knowledge Park, Garstang Road,Fulwood, Preston, PR2 9ABPhone 01772 713555 Fax 01772 713444, Web site www.land-mark.co.ukAn Ecological and Environmental Management Consultancy

National News


Traditional Farm Buildings:AnInvestigation into the Lack of Support to Retain Them in Agricultural Use.Part II: Historic Building GrantsDick Coates FRICS: Associate Senior Lecturer in AgriculturalBuildingsJames Sims Williams & Adrian Matthews: BSc Hons. graduates inRural Estate Management. Seale Hayne Faculty, University ofPlymouth.Situation Summary from Part IThe situation in the survey of National Park farm buildings onlyrevealed the tip of the iceberg. Only two thirds of such buildingswere retained in agricultural use. Table 2 showed the breakdown ofthe origin and current use. Table 3 indicated the small proportionthat had been adapted for new agricultural use. The farmstead agerange in Table 4 showed an astonishing over 50% were pre 1800,and included some more expected answers to associatedproblems. The last figures however were very revealing: 21% werelisted, 64% not listed, but the farmers concerned were unsureabout the remaining 15%!Sources of Fund Support in England

English Heritage GrantsIn 1992 English Heritage found that of England’s 500,000 ListedBuildings, 29,250 were agricultural buildings of which only 644were Grade 1 or II*. Only Grade I and outstanding examples ofgrade II* are eligible for English Heritage grants. So this might beof interest to less than 2% of owners! The amount of grant issubstantial, around 40% – but the quality of the work must be thevery best.English Heritage “Town Scheme”/Conservation AreasPartnership Grants In the excellent Brunskill RW 1999 Traditional Farm Buildings ofBritain there is an example of best practice in the Barns & WallsConservation Scheme begun in 1989 in partnership betweenEnglish Heritage and the Yorkshire Dales National Park under the“Town Scheme”, quoting 250 barn renovations already completed,and work in progress on the remaining 470 field barns in the targetarea – to remain in agricultural use. Such schemes apply toselected buildings, both listed & unlisted within a specifiedconservation area. Ideal for farm buildings.Historic Building Act GrantsThis is the usual title denoting its origin under the Local Authorities(Historic Buildings) Act 1962 although the powers have since beenincorporated into the Planning (Listed Building & ConservationArea) Act 1990. It is also sometimes known as a ‘thatching grant’ inthatch areas as that became its main use in some authority areas.180 ‘rural’ local planning authorities were surveyed resulting in 99usable responses (our thanks as always for their time). Thefindings could be summarised as follows:-� 31% have ceased to offer the grants & had no plans

to reintroduce.� 19% of the above had previously offered such grants.� Only 3% had plans to reintroduce – funds permitting.� 75% of all participating authorities have a budget of

less than £30,001 (average budget£23,462) – see chart.

� All such authorities offered grants for the structural repair of listed buildings.

� A few added any historic fabric. Two thirds also included buildings in a conservation area and a few added other designated areas or other schemes (i.e. ESA or CSS).

� None appeared to honour the choice given under Section 57 (1) (b) to contribute to ‘a building in their area which is not listed, but appears to them to be of architectural or historic interest’. Although we have since found Dartmoor National Park uses this option.

� The amount of grant varied from 10% to 75% (2 councils).

� Some vary the amount according to the work. E.g. 40% thatching or 60% structural.

� The total amount per award varied from a maximum

of £500 to no limit (12 councils).Some totals varied according to the work or building use e.g.agricultural £1,300, or commercial £800. They might also be variedaccording to status; listed or not.� The variation in favour of uneconomic use was rare,

and is not addressed by the Act.� Offers are withdrawn once the majority uses up funds.

16% deferred payments.� Some allowed for a staged scheme to reapply in next

financial year.� No evidence was found of the interest free loan option

in the Act under Section 77.· Any eligibility criteria did not include means testing of

the applicant.

Countryside Stewardship: Optional provision is made within ascheme for the structural repair of traditional farm buildings for anup to 50% grant. Unfortunately with such limiting funds and lowpriority very few grants were awarded. However with the launch ofthe England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) in October2000 the funding situation has improved especially for the regionaltarget areas - If these include the restoration of traditional farmbuildings as one of the key stewardship objectives.Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA): up to 80% grant may beavailable under MAFF Work Code 10 for eligible buildings. Themaintenance of traditional buildings is conditional on any oneentering into an ESA scheme using traditional materials and styles.Any new construction work on the holding will also require specificconsent. This is the highest level of grant of any scheme, but isonly applicable to those in an ESA, and is subject to local criteriaincluding competing for available funds.Landfill Tax: Although targeted at the natural, built and social

Technical

Maximum % repair grants available from local authorities


environments and included under Category E there is a problemwith application criteria. It might be possible for a local charitableconservation body to apply and administer funds for a particulararea, providing there was no individual gain (not so difficult toprove with a redundant building with no conversion value) That stillleaves a further difficulty of access – unless the public gain wasaccepted as solely landscape value. The government are alsotrying to steer 65% of the funding towards waste recyclingEducation, R & D. Opportunities may be restricted to locationswithin a 10? mile radius of a landfill site. Onyx Environment Trust isa distributive Environmental Body (see www.onyxenvtrust.org)Local Heritage Initiative: (Heritage Lottery Fund through theCountryside Agency) Not suitable for grant funding but would helpa local body investigate the rural built heritage of their area.

Your Heritage: (also Heritage Lottery Fund) should be moreapplicable, but is also geared to more public projects. A localapproach might reveal an opportunity.Other Sources: Let us hope that SPAB or another suchorganisation will pick up the quite excellent publication: “Sources ofGrant for Building Conservation.” published until recently byCathedral Communications. It lists the many worthy charitableorganisations that may be interested in helping especially thosethat target certain regions. Local Authorities are also becomingmuch more active. Teignbridge District held a funding awarenessseminar recently, and had 150 people attending!

Conflict of Encouragement to Change of Use 1. Planning Policy: Some of the issues are discussed in:Jan 2000 Dartmoor National Park: Local Plan First Alteration 1995-2011: Issues Papers. See also: (Note that PPG 7 encouragesconversion to B1 use in preference to residential (see CountrysideBuilding as above) & does not insist on proven redundancy.) � What if the business use presumption can not be

applied- not being currently part of the Park policy? � Attempts to control the residential conversion have not

been supported on appeal (losing 7 out 11). � Attempts to define traditional Dartmoor buildings are

not being recognised.� Sporadic & isolated residential development is

prejudicing the special qualities of the Park.� On the other hand substantial buildings are an

economic asset & should be put to the most beneficial use compatible with their surroundings.

The question Dartmoor therefore asks is:-(a) Is the underlying principle of policy clear enough? Shouldthe prime question be: Does the structure need to be conserved?If the answer is affirmative, then a sequence of preferred usescould be applied:

1) Agricultural use2) Employment generating uses3) Farm diversification uses inc. holiday use4) Full residential use

(b) How can it be ensured that these conversions preserveor enhance local character & amenity?

(c) Can the conversion of traditional buildings lead tosustainable improvements to the local economy?From this you will gather that Dartmoor is trying to grasp the nettleposed by conflicting policy guidance to preserve its best agriculturalvernacular heritage in its existing agricultural use. 2. Grants: It is relatively easy to get a much more substantialgrant to convert: see Countryside Building Vol. 1 Issue 4:“Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings to B1 Business Use: Part3: Costs & Grants”. Areas of greater landscape merit are also likelyto be in less favoured economic areas and therefore more likely toget a grant to convert!3. VAT: The continuing failure of the government to redress theanomaly that taxes repair and preservation, but not alteration oflisted or new/replacement residential buildings smells only of votes- without a whiff of sustainability!ConclusionIt is clear from Part I that we still possess a substantial remnant ofour rural vernacular heritage, and that these buildings can and willhave an agricultural role to play in a proportion of survivingholdings. However since writing Part 1 the RDBA has had aconference on the meaning of sustainability in building design(reported elsewhere in this edition). It became clear that wedecision-makers have a duty of careful audit before embarking onany development. That includes the reuse/sympatheticrepair/conversion of existing buildings for agriculture as the mostsustainable option. The conference also touched on the speed andeffect of the changing farming patterns that is going to abandonsmaller family holdings.In the English Heritage 1992 report on listed structures; ‘Building atRisk’ there are many relevant remarks:-‘If no action is taken those at risk will gradually disappear:demolition by decay.’‘The survey also shows that a buildings chance of survival is likelyto relate to its location.’In a draft paper for discussion on historic farmsteads EnglishHeritage included the following:-‘The threat so clearly posed to the traditional buildings of thecountryside presents a seemingly impossible dilemma, for whist onone hand farmers can not be expected to shoulder the burden ofmaintaining buildings which have little or no use, the countryside islosing a vital and irreplaceable asset, Furthermore, only a verysmall proportion of these buildings can be protected throughlegislation’‘..farm buildings survive as repositories of the crafts and skills oflocal building materials & techniques.’‘..Because there are so many farm buildings surviving theirexposure to the ongoing rate of demolition or obliteration provokeslittle reaction.’Action Plan?An action plan needs to be developed, and the RDBA is the idealforum for discussion on the options:-� Nation wide Survey of Farmsteads (organised by

SPAB? funded by the Heritage Fund?)� Planning Problems addressed as highlighted by

Dartmoor NP.( CA, RTPI, CLA, & others)� VAT levels altered to favour the sustainable option.� Historical Building Grants biased (& increase!) in

favour of vernacular farm buildings.� Substantial increase in education in repair of

traditional buildings (by SPAB?) and scope for sympathetic agricultural reuse opportunities (by RDBA?) - both backed by research into best practice.

In the meantime we must bid adieu to many characters of ourcountryside that have seen so much change over two or morecenturies. The remaining field barns (with some notableexceptions in the Parks) will be the first to go:-

Goodbye old friends!

Technical



Reader enq 044



Ghyll House Publishing Ltd

For all you printing and publishing needs

Contact Chris on 01449 677500 for prices

We’re big enough to deliverSmall enough to care

Mon

oUp to A3

Photo

Quality

Printing

Letter headings

High quality

scanning from slide

or printGreetingsCards

Spot

colour

FullColour

Business

CardsNews letters Leaflets

BrochuresMagazines

Programmes


The Whats New page will be a regularfeature in Countryside Building. If you

have anything you wish to share with ourreaders, please call 01449 677500 / 02897519178 and for as little as £95+vat we

can ensure that your information isprovided to our 2 0 ’ 0 0 0

r e a d e r s .Reader enq 57




countryside building issue 1 volume 2

Documents

building regulations

farm buildings

stone slate minerals

stone slate national

therdbarural design

roofing industry

opinions of therural

h s campaign