Construction of a 6,000 bird ‘free range’ egg production unit.

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

The Senior 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, including a recommended additional condition. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Perlman, a resident, spoke in objection.  Miss C Harness, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

Farmers did need to diversify.  However, he noted that the Land Agent had raised concerns about the viability of the proposed scheme.  Two schemes for a 12,000 bird egg production unit on the site had previously been refused.

He was an enthusiast for the AONB and the AONB Unit had concerns about the Scheme.  The NPPF paragraph 14 and footnote 9 and paragraph 115  provided  grounds for refusing the application.

The AONB unit had accepted that the building would be well screened.  However, it was concerned about the impact on the local character of the landscape and the detrimental impact on the experience of visitors to the area.

The highway infrastructure was poor.  Even with the proposed restriction on the size of vehicle servicing the development to 26ft a significant size of passing place would be needed to permit a tractor and trailer to pass in the opposite direction.  Six passing places were proposed and he was concerned about the cumulative impact on the AONB. 

This was a large intrusion on the AONB and an attractive hamlet.

There was concern that the development might contribute to an increased risk of flooding.

The development would create odour, noise and nuisance.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Farm diversification should be supported.

The restrictions on access were acknowledged.  However, this was to be expected given the location of most farms.

Unsurfaced and unmaintained passing places had in effect already been created by general use.  The creation of properly constructed passing places would be of benefit to all road users.

The proposed restriction on lorry size was necessary.

The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had commented in the report that, “the change in visual impact would be negligible.”

There was debate as to whether the flood risk would be increased.

In response to questions officers commented that the Section 106 Agreement would ensure that passing places would be constructed to the appropriate standard and would enable the Council to ensure that the egg production Unit could not begin operating until the passing places had been constructed.  The Agreement would also limit the size of the lorries collecting eggs to 26ft. No control could be exercised over vehicles already servicing the site.  Enforcement would be reliant on local monitoring. The design of the free range area would be subject to condition and had not been indicated on plans.  The area could be easily accommodated within the landscape and standards were specified by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs. 

Some concern was expressed about the viability of the scheme but it was noted that that was a matter for the applicant and not a material consideration for the Committee.

Concern was expressed about the effect on the AONB and the impact of the number of such developments across the County as whole.  It was unfortunate that other avenues for farm diversification were not being explored.

There would be smell.

Concern was expressed about the visual impact of the fencing that would surround the Unit.

Account should be taken of the reduced scale of the application.

There were no material grounds for refusing the application.

The firm involved in the egg collection had high environmental and animal welfare standards.

The Development Manager emphasised that the fundamental principle was that the proposed use of the land did not itself require planning permission.  The applicant could also build fencing 2m high across the farm without permission if he wished.  Because an application had been submitted for the egg production unit there was an opportunity to exercise some control over the development through conditions.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns and requested that the Unit should not be permitted to operate until passing places and flood alleviation measures were in place.  He also requested that there should be conditions to manage the highway management implications of any construction works.

RESOLVED:That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement restricting the  type and size of vehicles delivering feeding stuffs and collecting eggs from the site and securing the provision of 6 passing places, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES: