Site for poultry managers dwelling.  

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation

(Site for poultry manager’s dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Whittal, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Bolderson, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        When the poultry units had been approved there had been over 100 objections, together with objections from local parish councils.   In contrast, the application for the poultry managers dwelling had attracted 23 letters of support, from residents, Allensmore Parish Council and Clehonger Parish Council, veterinary professionals and other experts.

·        It was relatively uncommon to see poultry units of this scale without a manager’s dwelling.  This was due to the type of operation, their size, the need for security and management of animal welfare.  Both the Madley and Kingstone poultry units had manager homes on site and they were just as close, if not closer to available housing stock.

·        There had been no objections from consultees.

·        The officer’s report outlined that in relation to Policy RA3 and RA4 of the Core Strategy there was considered to be a functional need for there to be somebody based close to the site; it was clear that the proposed dwelling was for a full-time employee based on the scale of the investment and enterprise, establishment and viability requirements were proven; and the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit.  The only question for the Committee therefore to consider was over whether a manager needed to reside on the site itself

·        She gave two examples where the Committee had recently agreed that there was an essential need for workers to live on site.  She noted that there had been other applications for managers dwellings that had been approved by officers under delegated authority.

·        The applicants had always envisaged providing the manager with a dwelling on site, believing this to be by far the best means of ensuring animal welfare and site security.  They considered there was an essential need for the manager to be housed on site for the following reasons: to comply with the Defra code on chicken welfare – when alarms go off or there are system failures, it often needs an immediate response.  The difference in minutes when responding to alarms at different times of the rearing cycle, can make a massive difference on livestock welfare;  managers living on site are able to monitor smell and noise more closely and potentially detect and resolve issues before alarms are triggered improving the overall welfare of the birds;  access roads to the farm had been affected and at times closed during recent flooding events and past snow falls.  A manager living in a dwelling in Clehonger, as suggested by the agricultural business consultant, would have to contend with these issues.  Minutes lost in such an event could have a significant impact on the welfare and even life of the flock; the applicant had had numerous security issues on site.  A manager was needed on site to ensure security and bio-security; and it would eliminate driving backwards and forwards to alarms which could go off 2, 3 or even more times during the night.  It was unsustainable to require this level of commitment from the manager.

·        The Applicant was willing to accept the normal recommended conditions applied to such applications such as an agricultural tie.  In addition, the development would benefit from sustainability measures such as ground source heat pumps and solar panels. 

·        The application would benefit the chickens, the farm as a whole and the broader community. 

·        The application caused no landscape, ecological, drainage or highway harm.  The only issue at dispute was whether the agreed functional need had to be met on site.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application there was a consensus that there was an identified functional need and that accommodation could not be provided in an existing building.  The presence of a manager on site for a poultry unit, available at short notice, was essential to ensure its good management, animal welfare and security.  The scale of the particular unit was also noted.

In addition, there were no local objections.  Both relevant Parish Councils supported the application. The council had generally supported the provision of such dwellings for poultry units and had also supported their provision for other farming enterprises.  The proposed house was not a dwelling in the open countryside but would be a dwelling with an agricultural tie close to the poultry units. It was consistent with policies RA3, RA4, RA6, SS5 and E1. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated the functional need for accommodation to be provided on site.

The Development Manager commented that each application had to be assessed on its own merits.  The Committee was clearly of the view that there was a functional need, the remaining question was whether this could be met by existing accommodation as argued in the report.

Councillor James proposed and Councillor Phillips seconded a motion that the application be approved on the grounds that there was an identified functional need, that accommodation could not be provided in an existing building and the proposal was consistent with Core Strategy policies RA3, RA4, RA6, SS5 and E1. The motion was carried unanimously with 14 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted on the grounds that that there was an identified functional need, that accommodation could not be provided in an existing building and the proposal was consistent with the Core Strategy policies RA3, RA4, RA6, SS5 and E1, and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers authorised to detail the reasons put forward for approval by the committee and attach any conditions considered necessary by officers.