Erection of 4 no. broiler buildings, agricultural storage building, 2 no. control rooms, 10 no. feed bins, hardstanding and access improvements and drainage attenuation pond.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with officers authorised to attach amended conditions as necessary.

(Erection of 4 no.Broiler buildings, agricultural storage building, 2 no. Control rooms, 10 no. Feed bins, hardstanding and access improvements and drainage attenuation pond.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  This included the design and layout of the poultry units together with associated infrastructure, including the storage building which would incorporate the biomass boiler noting its position and size.  Surrounding residential properties were identified including listed buildings.  Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted comments from the Environment Agency included in the update that the odour assessment provided in the planning application (including the Environmental Statement) went beyond minimum guidance.  He also drew attention to noise issues as reported in the response from the EA and the recommendation as set out in the update to include an additional condition in respect of the slab level.  He commented that the Environment Agency had already issued a site permit, which covered issues such as odour, noise, dust and residential amenity, and that the permit was administered and monitored by the Agency.

It was noted that following a Judicial Review a decision to grant planning permission for this development at Penrhos Farm, taken under delegated powers, had been quashed (by Consent Order) in the High Court.  The matter had therefore been brought before the Committee for determination.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Smith, of Lyonshall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs H Hamilton, an agent speaking on behalf of an objector, spoke in objection.  Mr R Williams, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The topography of the site and the impact on neighbouring properties were important considerations.

·         It was difficult to determine such applications.  He noted that 79 letters had been received in objection to the application and 78 had been received in support.

·         A number of factors had to be balanced: the contribution the development would make to the local economy; whilst people might not be comfortable with the method of farming it did provide an affordable supply of meat; and the impact on the amenity value of the area.

·         The site was in general discrete.  Penrhos Court, a listed building, was some distance away.  The site would, however, be in view of Penrhos House and he had sympathy with the objection of the resident.  He suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, particular care was taken to ensure that proposed condition 11 set out in the recommendation in the agenda papers, relating to screening and landscaping, provided for enhanced landscaping to the north and north west of the site.

·         He also requested that the proposed condition 6, requiring a Manure and Site Management Plan, should provide that no manure should be spread on the field closest to Penrhos House.

·         If the Committee was minded to refuse the application it would need to identify reasons.  All the issues raised in objection appeared to have been addressed.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The farming industry was facing difficulties and production of chicken meat was one of the few growth areas.  The Parish Council had highlighted the economic benefits of the development and supported the application.

·         Modern poultry units were of much improved design with better emission controls and the adverse impact of odour would be limited to the clean out and disposal periods which were of about two days duration. 

·         The site was already screened to a degree and the development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

·         The positive contribution of the development outweighed any negative impacts.  The application represented sustainable farming.

·         Regret was expressed about intensive farming methods, although it was acknowledged that these were employed in response to the market.  Concern was expressed about the cumulative impact of such intensive poultry unit developments in the County and the potentially detrimental effect on tourism, a key component of the County’s economy.  Clarification was sought on the Council’s planning policy on such developments, noting that with an increasing number of neighbourhood plans likely to come forward an overarching policy would be important. 

·         The Principal Planning Officer commented that policy E16 in the Unitary Development Plan related to intensive livestock units.  The Development Manager confirmed that this was a saved policy to which some weight could be attached. 

·         Concern was expressed about the impact on the residential properties within 400m of the site and clarification on policy E16 was requested.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that if a proposed development was over 400m from a residential property the applicant could subject to certain criteria give prior notification and did not have to submit an application for planning permission for certain agricultural buildings.  He referred to Policy E16 which stated:  “Proposals for residential or other protected buildings within 400m of established intensive livestock units will be subject to special consideration. Such proposals, which would as a consequence be subject to significant adverse environmental impact will not be permitted.”   The policy had the effect that if an intensive unit were proposed within 400m of a dwelling this too should be subject to special consideration.  The Development Manager noted the importance of considering whether the development had a significant adverse environmental impact.  That consideration further needed to be weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         Concern was expressed about the scale of the roofscape.

·         The land did rise and it was questioned where the feed hoppers would be located.  The Principal Planning Officer replied that there would be 10 hoppers located at the bottom end of the site and identified their position on the plans and displayed the photographs of the site and the surroundings.. A Member expressed concern about this location.

·         The access to the site appeared to be directly opposite Penrhos House.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the access road entrance was opposite the entrance driveway to Penrhos House.  However, the entrance was some distance from the dwelling itself as the plans showed.

·         It was noted that in the update the Environment Agency had suggested that delivery lorries should be fitted with silencers.  It was suggested that heavy vehicles leaving the site would generate noise and it was questioned how this could be policed.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the Environment Agency’s Environmental Permit included some noise management provisions.  Noise as a result of construction on site could be addressed if considered necessary by the attachment of a suitably worded condition to any approval notice.  It was also noted that the site was alongside the A44 and so certain restrictions were not considered reasonable or necessary.

·         An observation was made that, whilst Lyonshall Parish Council supported the application, Kington Town Council had objected to it.  It was stated that the application site was on the edge of Lyonshall Parish and had a greater impact on Kington and its residents.  The town relied on tourism and the site would, for example, be visible from the Offa’s Dyke path.

·         Concern was expressed about the potential effect on water courses and the absence in the County of a phosphate management plan.

·         It was noted that the Environment Agency had issued a permit for the site.

·         There were no planning policy grounds on which to recommend refusal.  There were no significant adverse impacts and there were material considerations in support of the application.

·         A number of comments were made about conditions to be attached to a grant of planning permission including a proposal that there should be a condition to regulate working hours during construction; and that the conditions suggested by the local ward member relating to screening should be supported.

·         It was questioned whether a condition on hours of working on site should be imposed.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that given the nature of the business, location of surrounding dwellings, and animal welfare and husbandry issues an hours of working condition on balance was not considered necessary.

·         It was questioned whether the proposed colour of the roof, slate blue, was appropriate or whether another colour such as dark green would make the site less visible.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the Landscape Officer had requested slate blue.  The applicant had requested dark green.  It was noted that there was scope to address this in the relevant condition as set out in the recommendation.

·         In addressing the Committee the applicant had referred to the use of solar panels on the building.  The Development Manager clarified that no reference had been made to these in the application and the provision of panels was therefore not a relevant matter for the Committee.  If the application were to be approved and the development completed solar panels could be installed as permitted development.  A condition could be attached to remove this right, to ensure that the approved colour of the roof was not affected by the installation of panels.

·         A Member commented that whilst the site was described in the report as relatively flat, in his opinion on the site visit it had appeared relatively sloping.  Clarification was sought on the proposed additional condition relating to slab levels.  The Principal Planning Officer replied that the condition would require a datum point on which to set the levels for the development and ensure that the development was sited at an appropriate level within the landscape.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He requested that consideration be given to attaching conditions on landscaping and manure spreading, as he had mentioned earlier, together with conditions on working hours during construction and slab level.

It was noted that the recommendation printed in the agenda papers authorised officers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and any other further conditions considered necessary.  There was therefore authority to incorporate the additional conditions that had been highlighted during the debate, as summarised by the local ward member, and also consider the colour of external materials and the removal of permitted development rights in relation to solar panels

RESOLVED: That for the reasons set out in the report and expressed during the debate officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant full planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary, in particular relating to landscaping and manure spreading, hours of work during construction, slab levels, the colour of external materials, and removal of permitted development rights for solar panels.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.10 am and 11.15 am.)