Erection of two poultry units, feed bins, widening of existing access, new access track and associated development.

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

 

(Erection of two poultry units, feed bins, widening of existing access, new access track and associated development.)

(Councillor J Stone was fulfilling the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 R Barton of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms A Haydock, 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 members for relevant wards Councillors J M Bartlett and J Stone, spoke on the application.

Councillor Stone made the following principal comments:

·        He expressed concerns about highway safety, noting the objection made by Brightwells who had themselves been refused a comparable access onto the A49.  He was surprised that Highways England had no objection given the local traffic conditions.  He welcomed the clarification in the update of the condition to avoid right hand turns onto the A49 and the requirement for a traffic management plan.  He asked whether special markings could be put on the A49 and whether pedestrian safety on the public footpath was satisfactory.

·        He highlighted the other concerns expressed in representations made by Leominster Town Council and Kimbolton Parish Council, the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust, and the WoodlandTrust as referenced in the report.

·        The proposed development did fall within Flood Zones 2 and 3. It was essential that there was assurance that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective.  He referred to the Environment Agency’s comments on page 14 of the agenda papers that questioned in terms of a sequential approach whether the site was the most suitable location for the poultry units. 

·        Regard should also be had to the impact on West Eaton Nursing Home.

Councillor Bartlett made the following principal comments:

·        The site was clearly vulnerable to flooding.  Whilst some issues had been addressed many matters remained to be resolved. The proposal represented an unacceptable risk to the River Wye.  In accordance with paragraph 102 of the NPPF an exception test was required.  She considered that the requirement that wider sustainability benefits to the community should outweigh flood risk had not been met.

·        She referred to the provision in the Leominster Town Neighbourhood Development Plan, based on the County’s former Unitary Development Plan, seeking to regulate agricultural development and livestock farming with which she noted the proposal was in conflict.  The development was visually intrusive with an adverse impact.  Regard should also be had to the cumulative impact of such developments, noting the proposed development to the west of Baron’s Cross.

(note: the Lead Development Manager clarified that whilst the NDP had been signed off by Leominster Town Council with a view to it progressing to Regulation 16 stage the NDP Manager had confirmed by email during the meeting that it had not as yet been formally received by the Council.)

·        Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advocated the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.  Eaton Hill was considered a valuable asset within the NDP and part of the site was within a wider area identified in the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan as a Minerals Safeguarding Area.  Paragraph 120 of the NPPF also required that unacceptable risks of pollution should be prevented.

·        The Woodland Trust had highlighted the adverse impact on Easters Wood.  Paragraph 118 of the NPPF stated that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighed the loss.  In this case the benefits did not outweigh the loss. 

·        The report quoted policies RA6 and E1 in support of the proposal’s contribution to employment.  However, the proposal would have the opposite effect.  It would create one job but, for example, jeopardise the proposed dementia village at West Eaton nursing home (up to 60 jobs).  The site was on the edge of the town.  Odour and particulates would be discharged into an area close to a severe air management zone where no further adverse impact should be permitted.

·        The proposal was not good enough for such a sensitive area despite the many attempts to modify it and too many issues still remained to be resolved.  It should be refused or deferred until the outstanding issues were addressed.

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

·        The site was in the flood plain.  The phosphate levels in the River Lugg already exceeded permitted limits and were considered by the Wye and Usk Foundation to be at a critical level. The proposal represented too much of a risk.

·        The report stated that floor levels of the proposed building were to be above modelled levels of flooding but the reliance that could be placed on models given the nature of recent flooding events was questioned.  The PPO commented that the level was above that predicted in a 1 in 100 year flood event with an allowance for climate change of 35% above the modelled level.

·        A member commented that in the event of a flood electrical services would be likely to be cut off and the birds would suffocate.

·        The amended conditions regarding the access were welcomed.

·        Whilst the report stated that concerns raised about the application in relation to flooding and other matters had been answered by the Environment Agency or the local planning authority it was asked if consideration had been given to locating the site on higher ground with appropriate landscaping.  In reply the PPO stated that this option had been discussed but landscape officers had considered that the impact would be too detrimental.

·        The proposal was close to the Town and would have a considerable impact on a large number of people, both residents and visitors. 

·        The benefit to one sector of the economy had to be weighed against the multiplicity of interests in the wider area.

·        The NPPF contained a presumption in favour of such development.  It had been advised that the concerns that had been raised could be dealt with by conditions.

In response to questions the PPO commented as follows;

·        There was no intention for there to be any markings or signage on the road.  A traffic management plan would be submitted.  It was possible that signs could be displayed within the site itself advising no right turn permitted, for example.  There was no reason for pedestrian safety to be compromised.

·        All surface water from the site would be captured within the attenuation pond permitting particulates to settle.  Consultees considered the proposals satisfactory.

·        Condition 12 restricted permission to the growing of pullets only. 

The Lead Development Manager highlighted that there were no objections from the statutory or internal consultees.  He considered that there was a risk of an appeal against any refusal of planning permission and, as in the case of a recent appeal at Moreton–on-Lugg, that costs would be awarded against the council.  The question of phosphate levels in the River Lugg would be addressed by the Nutrient Management Plan.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Stone commented that with the amended condition 7 the access should be suitable.  However, he remained unconvinced about the site’s suitability; economic benefit to Leominster appeared minimal and the environmental impact was adverse.  The concerns about flooding and the issues identified by the town and parish councils remained.  The application should be deferred or refused.

Councillor Bartlett commented that too many outstanding questions remained. She questioned the soundness of the technical assessments that concluded, in theory, that issues such as flooding could be addressed, and whether the responses could indeed so readily be summarised as “no objection”  Even if technically feasible this did not mean it was a good site in planning terms.  The site was in a very sensitive area having regard to economic growth and wellbeing, detracting from rather than enhancing the economy.  It was not in the right place.  At the least the application should be deferred.

Councillor Shaw proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation with additional conditions as set out in the update sheet.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.)

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

 

2.         B01 – Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

3.         C09 – Details of cladding (agricultural and industrial buildings)

 

4.         Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit the following information to the local planning authority for their written approval:

 

a)         Detailed drawings of the proposed attenuation pond and surrounding bund including plans, cross sections, design water levels, freeboard, invert levels, top of bank levels, inlet structures, outlet structures, and high level overflow.

b)         Detailed drawings demonstrating the level-for-level flood compensation for all works that result in loss of the existing floodplain for the 1 in 100 year event with 35% climate change.

c)         Detailed drawings of proposed outfall structures to the receiving watercourse.

d)         Demonstration that there is sufficient capacity within the pumping station in the event of a 24 hour pump failure

e)         Evidence that the Applicant has sought and agreed permissions to discharge foul water from the site with the Environment Agency

f)          A Flood Emergency and Evacuation Plan

 

Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere and to comply with Policies SD3 and SD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

 

5.         Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 70.00mAOD in line with Revision 2 of the FRA dated 27 October 2016 (Section 8.3) with flood resilient techniques incorporated to a level of 70.30mAOD (Section 8.4) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

 

Reason: To protect the proposed units from flood risk for the lifetime of the development and to comply with Policies SD3 and SD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

6.         Prior to the commencement of development details of the septic tank and raised mound soakaway system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In order to protect the water environment of the local area and to comply with Policies SD3 and SD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

 

7.         Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use the applicant shall submit a Traffic Management Plan for the written approval of the local planning authority. The plan shall particularly provide details of arrangements to ensure that vehicles entering the site do so from a northerly direction and exit in a southerly direction only so as to avoid right turns on the A49(T).

 

            Reason: In order to ensure that the free flow of traffic on the A49(T) is ensured in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

8.         No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The plan shall include the following details:

 

a.         Wheel cleaning apparatus which shall be operated and maintained during construction of the development hereby approved.

b.         Parking for site operatives and visitors which shall be retained and kept available during construction of the development.

c.         A noise management plan including a scheme for the monitoring of construction noise.

d.         Details of working hours and hours for deliveries

e.         A scheme for the control of dust arising from building and site works

f.          A scheme for the management of all waste arising from the site

g.         A travel plan for employees.

 

The agreed details of the CMP shall be implemented throughout the construction period.

 

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of properties within the locality and of highway safety in accordance with Policies SD1 and MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

           

9.         All planting detailed upon the Landscape Mitigation Plan by Haire Landscape Consultants – Figure 2 Revision B shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development or first use of the building for agricultural purposes (whichever is the sooner). Any trees or plants that within a period of ten years of their planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the landscape, in accordance with policies SS6, LD1, RA6 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031.

 

10.       The recommendations for species and habitat enhancements set out in the ecologist’s report from Turnstone Ecology dated August 2016 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme shall be carried out as approved. A five year plan for habitat establishment and for management should be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.  The plan shall be implemented as approved.

 

An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and 2012 amendment).

 

            To comply Herefordshire Council’s Policies LD2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity, LD3 Green Infrastructure of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 – 2031 and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

 

11.       No as-dug excavated materials (soils, subsoils, overburden, minerals etc.) shall be removed from the land-holding or sold on to third parties.

 

            Reason: To safeguard mineral reserves and because such removal would constitute minerals extraction which would require specific consideration by the Local Planning Authority under saved Policies S9, M2, M3 and M5 of the saved Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

12.       The building hereby permitted shall only be used for the growing of pullets and not for any other form of poultry related production (e.g. broilers).

 

            Reason: The processes / activities associated with different forms of poultry related production have materially different environmental impacts that would require assessment.

 

13        If the development hereby permitted becomes redundant for the keeping / rearing of poultry a fully detailed scheme (including timescales) for the decommissioning of the facility, demolition of the buildings and restoration of the land to its former state shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within six months for their written approval.  No work pursuant to this condition shall commence until the Local Planning Authority has given its written approval. In the event of the development becoming redundant for the keeping / rearing of poultry, the approved decommissioning and restoration scheme shall be fully implemented;

 

            Reason: To safeguard the countryside from unnecessary large scale redundant developments and to comply with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework

 

2.         It is brought to the landowner/applicant’s attention that the application site is identified under saved Policy M5 of the saved Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007) as an area where there is the potential for sand and gravel deposits. If sand deposits are found during construction of the development and is of such a quality that you wish to prior extract this mineral resource you are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority.

 

3.         Any waste leaving the site shall be disposed of or recovered at a suitably permitted site in accordance with the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010. Where possible the production of waste from the development should be minimised and options for the reuse or recycling of any waste produced should be utilised.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 15.45 and 15.57pm).