Proposed construction of six poultry houses and feed bins, ancillary works, erection of biomass boiler building and single storey ancillary building, amendments to existing vehicular access and associated landscaping.

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

(Proposed construction of six poultry houses and feed bins, ancillary works, erection of biomass boiler building and single storey ancillary building, amendments to existing vehicular access and associated landscaping.)

(Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest.)

The Development Manager 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.

He added, further to the published update, that two more letters of representation had been received.  One of these had been a letter from the applicant’s agent in response to points raised by members of the Committee on the site visit.  The other had been from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

The applicant’s agent had commented in relation to drainage that the scheme included an extensive surface water management system.  Regarding odour a permit was already in place for 12 poultry units and the biomass boiler.  All matters relating to emissions and waste that would be produced from the site had been considered as acceptable and within the thresholds permitted by the Environment Agency.

The CPRE had expressed concern that the phosphate content of chicken manure was contributing to very serious pollution problems in the County’s rivers.  They had also referred to a document on the government website describing “pollution control outside of environmental permitting regulations” stating that pollution matters outside the installation boundary were not covered by environmental permit and were therefore a matter the Planning Committee needed to consider. 

The Development Manager highlighted a slide in his presentation containing an odour modelling plan, showing the area that would be affected to varying degrees by odour.

He also drew attention to the Environment’s log of complaints and its response to those complaints set out at appendix 1 to the report.

In relation to the impact of the development on the setting of listed buildings he referred to the comments of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) as reflected at paragraph 4.9 of the report.  He remarked that that the Conservation Manager had had the opportunity to assess these matters, however no objection to the application had been received from him.  The Development Manager added that the visual impact of the development was limited given the distance between the development and the two listed buildings to which the Conservation Manager had referred and the fact that a modern housing estate lay between the development and those buildings.  He did not consider, having had regard to the provisions of the relevant legislation, that the development had a substantial or significant impact on the listed buildings causing them significant harm,

The applicant had amended the application following officer comment on landscape and drainage and the consultation on these amended proposals was reflected in the report.  There were no significant issues to resolve in relation to either drainage or environmental issues, only matters of detail.

In order to ensure that the conditions attached to any planning permission, if granted, were tailored to be specific to the site, rather than simply relying on the standard conditions set out in the recommendation in the report he requested that, in the event of an approval,  officers be given delegated authority to finalise the detailed wording of any conditions.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Cooper, Chairman of Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Young, 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 were invited to speak on the application. 

Councillor PE Crockett, one of the two local ward members, was unable to attend the meeting.  Arrangements had been made for Councillor WLS Bowen to speak on her behalf.  He made the following principal points:

·        Three Parish Councils had expressed their reservations and requested that the application be refused.

·        The development would have an adverse visual impact.

·        The odour and smell from the development was a concern especially when the sheds were being cleaned out.  The proposed doubling of the size of the site and the planned rotation of cleaning of the two sites would mean the cleaning-out would take place more frequently.

·        There appeared to be no restriction on the time during which deliveries of feed took place. 

·        The biomass boiler would require 1500 tonnes of fuel a year to be delivered to the site.

·        There was concern about the safety of the access off the A49, upon which he was aware Councillor Guthrie proposed to elaborate.

·        The company had been slow to implement tree planting conditions imposed under the previous permission.  If planning permission were to be granted it would be important that tree planting conditions were firmly enforced.

·        The health of the chickens was a concern.

·        The proposal was in the Moreton Brook catchment which currently failed the Water Framework Directive target for phosphate. 

·        Whilst it was stated that foul water was to be removed from the site, it had to be asked if this simply transferred the problem.

·        Local residents should be entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.

·        Attendance at public meetings about the issue had been high indicating the level of concern about the issues.

·        He requested that the application be refused.

Councillor Guthrie, the second local ward member, made the following principal points:

·        Consideration needed to be given to whether the development was agricultural or industrial.

·        The scale of the development and its cumulative impact was unacceptable.  It would exacerbate the noise and odour problems affecting the local community. 

·        It would have an adverse effect on the Cuckoo Corner campsite tourist facility.

·        She referred to the foreword of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that sustainable development should mean change for the better.  The local view was that the proposal did not represent sustainable development from their perspective.

·        She also assessed the proposal in relation to the three dimensions of sustainable development described in the NPPF asserting that it failed to fulfil the criteria.

·        The A49 was a busy, fast and dangerous road.  There had been two fatal accidents in the vicinity of the farm access. Highways England and the Police were proposing a new speed enforcement regime.  The cumulative effect of housing and other development on traffic volumes needed to be considered.

·        The modelling of the area that would be affected by odour and the degree of that effect did not reflect the reality of the actual experience of local residents.  She read extracts from a number of letters of objection describing the unpleasant effects of the odour.

·        Noise was another concern.  Log cutting to provide fuel for the biomass boiler was extremely noisy and was taking place at 7am.

·        The development was in the open countryside and on grade 2 and grade 3a agricultural land qualifying it as the best land as defined by the NPPF and to which safeguards should therefore be applied.

·        She highlighted the concerns expressed by the Wye and Usk Foundation at paragraph 5.5.2 of the report that the development would contribute to a rise in phosphate levels in the River Wye and that levels were already a problem.

·        The proposal was contrary to the NPPF and a number of saved UDP policies which she detailed.

·        The environment and the quality of life of local residents should be protected and the application refused.

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

·        The Council should request the Highways Agency to make improvements to the A49.

·        It was noted that the development would create two additional jobs.

·        It was suggested that consideration should be given to using technologies to burn chicken manure to fuel the biomass boiler thereby reducing vehicle movements and noise.

·        The proposal would exacerbate a situation that was already problematic.

·        The impact on tourism needed to be considered.

·        Account needed to be taken of the cumulative impact of the development.

·        The effect of increased phosphate levels in the County’s rivers was a major concern.  The Moreton Brook catchment area already contained an excess of phosphates

·        Whilst not a planning consideration the welfare of the chickens was a concern.

·        There were concerns about the effect of the development on the health of local residents.

·        The access to and from the A49 was satisfactory with good visibility.  An extension of the 50mph speed limit would be welcome as would signs warning motorists of the movement of heavy vehicles.

·        There should be restrictions on the hours during which log cutting and other noise generating activities could take place.

·        The NPPF referred to the need to improve places where people lived.  The proposal would have a serious, negative impact on residential amenity.

·        Paragraphs 109, 110 and 120 of the NPPF were relevant setting out the need to protect the landscape and minimise pollution.

·        A concern was expressed about how waste removed from the site would be regulated.  The Development Manager commented that movement of waste from the site was subject to licence and controlled.

·        The authority had responsibilities to discharge under the EU habitats directive and could not take the view that certain pollution matters were simply the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

·        The visual impact of the site was not acceptable.  It was clearly visible from higher ground.

·        A number of detailed concerns were expressed about the odour modelling and how the latest model compared with the models produced for earlier developments on the site.  The experiences of the local residents and the views of local ward members suggested that the model did not reflect the reality.  The Environmental Health Officer Environmental Protection commented that improvements in building design and construction might account for some of the differences from previous odour models.  He confirmed that the model took account of both the existing development and the new proposed development.

·        It was suggested that UDP policy E16 – Intensive Livestock units was relevant and represented a ground for refusal in addition to the range of policies Councillor Guthrie had identified.

·        The proposal appeared contrary to policy E13 in that there surely was an adverse impact on amenity and the environment and the proposal was not well related to existing development in terms of scale.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the effect of a development on the County as a whole.

·        There was a concern that a number of complaints made to and logged by the Environment Agency were unsubstantiated and disproved by the record.

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

Councillor Bowen requested the Committee to consider the negative impact upon the amenity of residents of further development mindful of the impact of the existing development.

Councillor Guthrie noted the adverse impact of the development on the County as a whole as well as the effect upon local residents and rivers.

The following grounds for refusing the application were advanced:  NPPF paragraphs 9, 14 and 17 relating to residential amenity, paragraphs 109, 110 and 120 relating to pollution, saved policies E13 and E16 of the UDP and the cumulative effect in the landscape.

The Development Manager commented that in his view the Committee’s concerns about odour and pollution supported by policy E16 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF represented the strongest grounds for refusal.

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 odour and pollution supported by policy E16 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.40 am and 11.50 am.)