Proposed erection of two agricultural buildings, feed bins and associated development for pig rearing.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of two agricultural buildings, feed bins and associated development for pig rearing.)

The Case Officer 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Hall, of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Crippin, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Clark, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor WC Skelton, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·         He invited the Development Manager to indicate on the slides on the screen where other buildings were situated in relation to the Scheme and commented on the distances involved.

·         Vehicles would be unable to use the junction by the church.

·         The applicant had been farming for a number of years, was settled in the community and was seeking to diversify the business.

·         The Council had approved a similar application some 4 kilometres away at Quebb, near Eardisley.  A 1900 pig unit at Wigmore had been approved in 2011.  He had visited both farms and outlined to the Committee how the operation worked.

·         The site at Wigmore used a passive ventilation system which worked well. There had been no dust emitted.

·         The main objections related to pollution, dust and smell.  He had been unable to detect smell or odour once over 50 metres away from the units.

·         The site was served by narrow lanes.  If the application were to be approved traffic should be required to avoid going through the village itself.

·         The waste management plan would be important.  Residents needed to be assured that with a waste management plan in place their amenity would not be affected.

·         He noted that the farm at Wigmore he had visited ran a successful bed and breakfast operation within 100 metres of the pig units.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         Key issues were the odour from the site and the removal of waste.  If the site were to be approved a travel plan would be required that prevented any waste being transported through the village of Almeley.  The way in which dirty water from the site was to be managed also needed to be clearly prescribed.

·         In relation to odour, the response from the Environmental Health Officer had stated that it was not considered that the estimated level of odour would result in any significant loss of amenity.  The prevailing wind should blow odour away from the village.

·         The proposed development, which in scale equated to a factory, was simply too close to Almeley.

·         The proposal was not sustainable.  It potentially involved the transportation of a considerable amount of waste from the site requiring a large number of heavy vehicle movements along very narrow lanes.  The transportation of materials to the site would also involve a lot of traffic.

·         The Committee lacked the information it needed to make a decision.  In particular the Committee had not had sight of the manure and waste management plan.  There were also a number of other matters referred to in the proposed conditions that were central to the application and the Committee needed to see these before it could consider it.  These included the habitat plan, noise management measures, drainage proposals, the operation of the roof fans and the transport plan. Changes to the proposal were continuing to be made.  The committee update, for example, contained a new proposal on the management of waste.

·         The transportation of waste was of particular concern.  Moving the manure off site did not remove the need to consider the environmental impact, noting the poor condition of the River Wye and the risk to the Special Area of Conservation.

·         The application demonstrated the need for a supplementary planning policy governing applications for intensive operations of the kind proposed to assist the Committee.

·         It was of concern that the development was at the maximum scale permitted below the threshold that would require an environmental permit.  It was suggested that the Environment Agency’s lack of formal objection did not carry the weight attributed to it in the report.

·         Natural England had originally objected to the application.

·         The site did not appear to plan to use the passive ventilation system that had been used to good effect at the sites visited by the local ward member.

·         There were alternatives to intensive farming.  Intensive farms had an adverse effect on animal health and welfare, and caused pollution through dust, smell and noise leading to a loss of amenity.

·         The late suggestion that all manure could be removed off site did not include the removal of dirty water.  The estimates of the quantity involved varied significantly.

·         Greater weight should have been given in the report to the adverse impact of noise generated from pig farms.  The Environmental Health Officer commented that the evidence in the report suggested that an automated feeding system would be used.

·         There was demand for manure from farms in the County and the removal of all the manure off site would be possible.

·         There was a need to support the British pig industry.

·         It was noted that the applicant could convert his existing buildings to pig farming without seeking planning permission.

The Case Officer observed that the comments of the Environment Agency were set out in full in the report.  He remained of the view that these represented no objection. Natural England had originally objected to the application.  However, the application had been revised and Natural England no longer objected.

The Development Manager commented that the technical advice from officers was that the proposal was acceptable.  Technical concerns that had been expressed during the processing of the application had been addressed.  If Members considered that they required additional information in order to make a decision it was open to them to defer determination of the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

A motion that determination of the application be deferred was lost.

A number of grounds were advanced for refusing the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication, based on the Committee’s view that the following should be the reasons for refusal: policies SD3, SD4, SS1, SS6, SS7, MT1, and LD2, and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework in particular paragraph 109.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.42 am and 11.48 am.)