Proposed erection of two poultry buildings, new access and conversion of building to house biomass boiler.

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

(Proposed erection of two poultry buildings, new access and conversion of building to house biomass boiler.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Pendleton, of Birley with Upper Hill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs Pritchatt, a local resident neighbouring the development, 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 MJK Cooper, spoke on the application.

He commented that there were a number of issues for the Committee to consider: the scale of the development, its proximity to a neighbouring development, drainage, access and odour.  He welcomed the fact that a peer review of the odour assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicants had been carried out.  He also observed that the applicant had done much to address issues that had been identified.  He thanked the Parish Council and Mrs Pritchatt for their comments on the application.

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

In support of the application

·        It was stated that the proposed development was close to an A road and to the processing plant.  The proposal was to be cut into the hill and did not have an adverse landscape impact.

In objection to the application

·        A number of concerns were expressed about the Environment Agency’s capacity to ensure that the conditions in the Environmental Permit were adhered to.  It was noted that paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that local planning authorities should assume that pollution control regimes, such as the Agency, would operate effectively.

·        A concern was expressed about highway safety.  It was observed that the speed limit on that stretch of road was often ignored and, whilst classified as an A road, the character of the A4110 was more like a B road at several points.  Large vehicles removing waste and water would present problems.

·        Such developments did create noise, dust, pests, traffic and odour to the detriment of neighbours. The problems were intensified during the cleaning out process.

·        Whilst manure from such developments might be considered a valuable crop fertiliser, it was also a major contributor to pollution of the county’s water courses.  Pollution levels were prohibiting housing development in some locations.

·        It was asked whether the dust from the farming operation could be washed into river courses by rain.

·        The impact on the amenity of Yew Tree Cottage and Micklegarth was of particular concern.  The proposal appeared contrary to policy SS6 noting the reference to conserving and enhancing assets, local amenity, air quality and tranquillity

·        The EA had stated that the application had no effect on the Special Area of Conservation.  It was asked if they had done some baseline testing.

In response to questions officers replied as follows:

·        The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) confirmed that paragraph 122 of the NPPF stated that local planning authorities should assume that pollution control regimes, such as the Agency, would operate effectively.  The Agency had informed him that they had the power to revoke environmental permits in the event of non-compliance but the usual practice was to seek to solve the problem through discussion.

·        In relation to the manure management plan and a concern as to whether this was sound given that manure would be disposed of on land outside the applicant’s ownership, seemingly contravening the requirement at paragraph 4.6 of the report, the PPO noted that a permit had been granted.

·        The report referred to an average crop cycle of 33-37 days.  However, the farming press was now suggesting that a 19 day crop cycle would be feasible.  This would have implications for the proposed development. In reply officers observed that the Committee had to consider the application before it.  A condition could be added to regulate the crop cycles.

·        In response to a suggestion that the 40mph speed limit be extended the PPO commented that this was not within the Committee’s gift.

·        It was not known whether the development would bring additional jobs.

·        The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the odour modelling had taken account of the clear out process.  The Environment Agency's benchmark for moderately offensive odours was a 98^thpercentile hourly mean of 3.0ou_E/m³ over a one year period.  This meant that there was the potential for that level to be exceeded for 2% of that period.

·        Asked whether the possibility of locating the units further from the two dwellings nearby had been considered the PPO commented that the location had been assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment.  It had been determined that locating the development with the existing farm complex minimised landscape impacts.

·        It was not considered that the increase in traffic using a well-established access represented a ground for refusal.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the peer review of the applicant’s odour assessment and the independent odour assessment had indicated odour levels would be lower than those stated in the applicant’s own assessment. The Transportation Manager considered that the capacity of the road to take the additional traffic was acceptable.  Many other issues raised in the debate were regulated by the Environment Agency.  The NPPF stated that the Council must assume that their arrangements would operate effectively.  A planning inspector, as in the recent application at Moreton–on–Lugg, would say that there was no case for refusal of the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He highlighted the need to give appropriate weight to concerns about odour and the impact on neighbouring property and requested that the application be considered on its own merits.

A motion that the application be approved with an additional condition regulating crop cycles was lost.

It was proposed that the application should be refused having regard to the following policies; SS1, SS5, SS6, SD1 and MT1, relevant NPPF paragraphs and related policies on waste management. 

The Lead Development Manager commented that he required further reasoning and evidence to be advanced for refusal to enable the council to defend an appeal and the potential for costs to be awarded against the council.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.35 and 11.56)

The following principal reasons for refusal were advanced:  ability to control the disposal of waste on land outside the applicant’s ownership, the potential for odour levels to exceed the Environment Agency’s benchmark levels for 2% of the time with consequential adverse effect on residential amenity and, in that context, concern about the potential for the frequency of the crop cycle to be increased.

The Lead Development Manager commented that he considered that the reasons would be difficult to defend at an appeal and there was a risk that costs would be awarded against the council.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and 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 concerns about the ability to control the disposal of waste on land outside the applicant’s ownership, the potential for odour levels to exceed the Environment Agency’s benchmark levels for 2% of the time with consequential adverse effect on residential amenity and, in that context, concern about the potential for the frequency of the crop cycle to be increased and the view that the proposal was therefore contrary to policies; SS1, SS5, SS6, SD1 and MT1, relevant NPPF paragraphs and related policies on waste management.