Erection of a barn egg unit for fertile egg production at White House Farm, Watery Lane, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, HR3 5TB.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning 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 procedure for public speaking Mr Gardiner of the Archenfield Campaign spoke in objection to the application and Mr Morgan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member Councillor PD Price, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·           The significant issue relating to the application concerned the impact of the proposed structure on the landscape. The planting and hedges that had been proposed as part of the application would help to mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape. The barn proposed in the application was recessed into the hillside which reduced its impact on the landscape.

·           The view of the landscape officer had changed during the application process. At first there had been no objection and the application was likely to be determined by delegated, officer decision. Following objections from the Archenfield Campaign the officer had raised an objection.

·           Elements of the report from the landscape consultant (Carly Tinkler), on behalf of the Archenfield Campaign, were question and it was felt there were certain inaccuracies which could be misleading. The location of the application site was within the Wye Valley but there were consistent references in the report to the Golden Valley. The reference to the deer park was also questioned which was considered to be at a significant distance from the site.

·           A large barn, on higher ground than the application site existed at Upper Broadmeadow Farm, close to Archenfield. The area was a rural and agriculture landscape where structures of this type were found.

·           There were limited long distance views to the application site and contrary to the statement in the landscape report it was not felt that the development could be readily viewed from popular, long-distance paths nearby. The report had stated that users of the local footpaths would be adversely affected by the development but these paths were only rarely used and mitigation could be implemented including the planting of hedgerow.  

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

·           The barn proposed in the application was for agricultural purposes located in a rural, agricultural setting. It was a rural enterprise which would support the local rural community and agriculture in the area.

·           The area in which the development was proposed was not a busy tourist area, the local footpaths were not regularly walked. The application site was not adjacent to a village. The proposed development when viewed from the higher ground at Bullens Bank would be recessed in to the foot of the hillside and the proposed paint colour would mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape and wider panoramic view to an acceptable level.

·           The significant level of mitigation proposed, including planting and painting of the barn, would offset the impacts of the development on the landscape. The lack of an objection from Natural England was considered significant.

·           The potential noise from crowing cockerels from the barn was raised.

·           The proposal was contrary to the NPPF which stated that development should protect or enhance the natural environment. The application site was located in an area which was proposed for AONB status and was close to a national park. The proposal was considered contrary to SS6 and LD1 of the Core Strategy which sought to conserve and enhance the landscape.

·           The scale of the building was of concern, its industrial appearance and the impact upon the quality of the landscape.

·           The area did benefit from tourism and the development would not assist the economic and strategic objectives of the county to increase visitor numbers.

·           The adequacy of the road network serving the site, particularly with HGVs accessing the site during construction and ongoing operations. The significant distances involved in the transportation of feed to the site and the exporting of eggs was raised.

The principal planning officer responded to the comments of members that the potential noise from cockerels had been addressed in the report and was not felt to pose an unacceptable impact upon amenity. In addition it was commented that the report submitted by the Landscape Consultant on behalf of the Archenfield Campaign was not claiming views from the Deer Park but rather described the character of the wider landscape before focusing on significant viewpoints.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He commented he had significant concerns regarding the report submitted by the Landscape Consultant on behalf of Archenfield Campaign. The production of phosphates through chicken manure would be a valuable resource given the general shortage of the material. The miles involved in the transportation of food to the site and export of eggs was how the food network across the country operated. The size of the building in the application was governed by the contract that would be in operation which specified the inputs and outputs required in production.  

Councillor DW Greenow proposed and Councillor BA Baker seconded a motion to approve the application on the grounds that: the impact of the development on the landscape character and appearance was not considered adverse; and the mitigation proposed, including the landscaping scheme and colour of materials would adequately limit any adverse impacts. The motion was carried: 9 votes in support and 6 votes against.

The principal planning officer outlined a number of conditions to attach to the permission including: time period for commencement; compliance with submitted plans; implementation of works to the vehicle access onto the C1208 and the provision of the vehicle turning area; grampian condition securing implementation of planning permission 170836 prior to commencement of the development, thus improving visibility onto the B4348; implementation of landscaping scheme & maintenance for ten years; delivery hours condition; building only to be used for fertile egg production; drainage condition; construction & environmental management plan condition; and colour of materials condition. The committee agreed the conditions and requested that any further conditions be agreed in consultation with the chairman of the committee and the local ward member.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to any conditions considered necessary by officers on the basis that the the impact of the development on the landscape character and appearance was not considered adverse; and the mitigation proposed, including the landscaping scheme and colour of materials would adequately limit any adverse impacts.

1.45 p.m. – Councillors Norman and Hyde left the meeting.

(The meeting adjourned between 1.45 p.m and 1.55 p.m.)