Proposed erection of 4 nos. poultry buildings, associated feed bins, hardstandings and access road.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of 4 nos. Poultry buildings, associated feed bins, hard-standings and access road.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  This included a proposed addition to conditions 16 and 17 set out in the recommendation. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Barrett, Clerk to Foxley Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs P Powell and Mr D Palmer, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr J Davenport, the applicant and Mr T Powell, the farmer who would run the poultry unit, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The application raised a number of complex issues and he had consulted widely to gain an understanding of them.

·         He highlighted the consultation summary at section 4 of the report.  He observed that there were no objections from the statutory consultees or from the internal consultees provided certain mitigating action was taken.

·         Foxley Group Parish Council had raised no objections.

·         Bishopstone Parish Council had opposed the application. However, he considered that the grounds for their opposition were addressed by measures proposed in the report.

·         The National Farmers Union supported the application, commenting on population growth and the demand for chicken meat. 

·         Cargill made a significant contribution to the local economy.

·         The Campaign to Protect Rural England had asked that consideration be given to the impact on tourism.  In his view the letter of support referred to at paragraph 5.7 of the report demonstrated that poultry sheds were not incompatible with tourism.

·         The points raised in letters of objection were addressed within the report.

·         The Environmental Permit had been issued for a development of up to 250,000 birds.  The planning application was for 180,000.  Any increase in the size of the development would require a further planning application.

·         The reduction in food miles, sustainability and traceability of food, animal husbandry and health benefits of chicken meat, noting consumer confidence in British chicken,  were arguments in support of the application.

·         The diversification would sustain a respected family business and secure its future.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Concerns from residents about the proximity of the development to their residences were acknowledged.  However, the technical evidence set out in the report and the comments of the Environment Agency suggested that the application could and should be supported.  The officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

A number of points were advanced as grounds for refusing the application and a motion for refusal was moved and seconded:

·                Details of the application had kept changing.

·                There were a number of properties in proximity to the development within 400 metres of the proposed site boundary.

·                The development was in conflict with tourism and the holiday business run from Shetton Barns.

·                There was concern about a lack of information in the application and whether procedures had been followed.

·                There must be a more suitable site within the estate.

·                Leaf fall would remove screening making the site more visible.

·                The type of heating used in the poultry sheds, which was not yet confirmed, would have a bearing on the amount of odour generated.

·                It was questioned how water could be discharged from the proposed attenuation pond into the Yazor Brook, as proposed, when the adjoining landowner had indicated they would not permit the necessary link to cross their land.

·                The site was susceptible to flooding.

A number of further comments were made in debate:

·         With reference to the Environment Agency’s comment at paragraph 4.3 of the report, paragraph 1, and the Agency’s consultation with the Council’s Planning Services and Environmental Health, it was asked what was meant by the phrase “ no issues were received.” The Environmental Health Officer commented that where there was no existing permitted activity it was not possible for the Authority to comment on such consultations.   As he had previously stated, the Environment Agency could suspend or revoke a permit.

·         Appropriate consideration had been given to the possibility of identifying an alternative site within the estate.

·         The development would contribute to the local economy.

·         Providing chickens locally to supply Cargill would contribute to animal welfare and reduce road transport.

·         Chicken manure was also a useful product.  It was noted that it was proposed that removal of manure from the site would be governed by condition.

·         It was not accepted that the development would have an adverse effect on tourism.  Technology had made the management of noise and odour much more effective. 

·         The assessments of noise and odour had been based on no property being within 400 metres of the site’s boundary.  It was asked whether sufficient account had been taken of the fact that there were properties within 320 metres of the development. The Environmental Health Officer commented that even if properties were within 200 metres of the development the assessment was that noise and odour levels would be acceptable.

·         Clarification was sought on the respective roles of the Environment Agency and the local authority in enforcing noise and odour controls.  The Environmental Health Officer commented that any issue of nuisance would be controlled by the Environmental Permit and it would be the responsibility of the Environment Agency to take any enforcement action.  The Agency had confirmed that it had the power to suspend or revoke a permit.   The Head of Development and Environmental Health added that the statutory nuisance provisions would not apply to any of the operations covered by the Environmental Permit.  They would apply to aspects of the development not covered by the permit.  He was not aware of a permit for a poultry unit having been revoked but the Agency had the power to do so.

·         The Head of Development Management and Environmental Health confirmed that if the applicant wanted to increase the size of the development, beyond the 180,000 birds specified in the planning application, a further planning application would have to be submitted and new noise and odour assessments undertaken.

·         Looking to the future, the Council’s planning policies needed to take account of the conflict between intensive farming and tourism and the cumulative impact of such developments.

·         There should be a nutrient management plan to ensure that the waste from such developments was not having an adverse effect on water quality.

·         Appropriate weight needed to be given to the development’s impact on local businesses and residents.

·         The type of development in question was inimical to animal welfare. 

·         Tourism generated far more income for the County’s economy than agriculture did.  It was wrong, as in this case, to promote one business to the detriment of another. 

·         The Environmental Health Officer commented that whether radiators or mobile gas heaters were used would have no significant bearing on odour.  If the system being used was causing a problem the Environment Agency could require a different method to be used.

·         It was noted that, as stated in the update, in terms of access to Yazor Brook for drainage, if necessary, other alternative access points were available and could be considered under the relevant drainage condition.

·         The Development Manager had provided clarification of the development’s location in relation to neighbouring properties in his presentation.  He commented that the policy that special consideration be given to proposals where residential or other protected buildings were within 400 metres of such a development had originated in the permitted development order.  Any development where relevant types of property were within 400 metres of such a development required planning permission.  It did not mean that such development was prohibited but that special consideration needed to be given to it.

·         The Planning Lawyer clarified that the reason the previous approval of the application had been quashed and the application had been brought before the Committee was because there had been procedural error.  The merits of the application had not been tested.  She cautioned that, of the grounds advanced for refusal, the suggestion that there had been insufficient detail provided and that there had been changes to the application would be difficult to defend given that expert opinion had addressed such matters. If any issues could be addressed by condition an application should not be refused on those grounds alone.

·         It was suggested that officers should be requested to establish, in consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, whether additional or strengthened conditions were necessary in respect of the heating system to be used and odour management and noise management plans.

The Planning Lawyer commented that the Committee had to consider the merit of the application before it.  It had been advised that there were acceptable enforcement powers available to the Environment Agency and the Council.  Expert opinion had identified little concern about the development.  Those issues that had been raised could be addressed by conditions. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the applicant had supplied all the details that had been requested and had consulted widely.  Odour would rarely be detectable.  The tourism business referred to was upwind of the prevailing wind.  Tourism and farming were not mutually exclusive.  The site was surrounded by mature trees.  There were no planning grounds for refusal.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant full planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary, in particular exploring, after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, whether any additional or strengthened conditions were necessary in respect of the proposed heating system, and odour management and noise management plans:

INFORMATIVES:

(The meeting adjourned between 11.30 and 11.40am.)