Agenda item

 

 

Fields 9820, 7800 and 0005 Melton Road, Ab Kettleby

 

Applicant:           Sunrise Poultry Farms Ltd - Phillip Crawley.

Location:             Fields 9820 7800 And 0005, Melton Road, Ab Kettleby.

Proposal:             Erection of free range egg laying unit including site access and associated works.

 

Before the application was introduced, The Chair put it to Members that the Applicant has the opportunity to speak. He informed them that there would be one objector speak and suggested it may be inconsiderate not to suspend standing orders to allow a balanced presentation.

Cllr Holmes proposed to permit the Applicant to speak.

Cllr Greenow seconded the proposal.

A vote was taken. The members voted unanimously to suspend standing order to allow the Applicant to speak.

(a) The Development Manager (LP) stated that:

The application is a full planning application for the erection of a free range egg laying unit including site access and associated works.  The building would be rectangular with a length of 140 metres and width of 20 metres, the height to the eaves is 3.6 metres and to the ridge is 6.3 metres.  The proposal includes feed storage hoppers with a height of 7.6 metres; areas of hardstanding and a new access from the A606 Nottingham to Melton Road which would in turn close the existing gated agricultural accesses.

It is considered that the proposal is in line with both local and national policy and would not have any undue adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety and has been designed to respect the character and appearance of the locality.

As such the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Chair elaborated upon a request for additional information regarding floor levels, submitted at the Site Visit. He pointed out that there is no significant cutting in other that to achieve levelness.

                (b) Mrs Ann Williams, an Objector was invited to speak and stated that:

• It is not an appropriate site for an intensive free range chicken farm.
• Agricultural building, much bigger than others in the area.
• Smells, noise and vermin will blight the amenities of residential properties.
• Site is close to a family home.
• Risk of disease entering site via pedestrians using the nearby public footpath.
• Site is large enough for 40,000 birds. There is no assurance numbers may increase to this.
• Light pollution.
• Risk of pollution to nearby brook, therefore harmful to wildlife.
• Will be harmful to appearance of rural setting of a conservation village.
• No ecological impact statement.
• Predator proof fencing will prevent free movement of wildlife.
• Harmful landscape, views, amenities and biodiversity. This is in contrary to up to date policies.
• Contrary to NPPF Chapter 15, items 170,174,175,180.
• Contrary to Melton Local Plan, EN3a page 46 with specific mention of this locality and policy EN2 104, 105 (b), (f), (i), (k), (l).
• Contrary to Ab Kettleby Draft Neighbourhood Plan Fig.6 Policy BE2 c,g,h – Policy T2, Policy env8, number 8, Fig.18. Policy env 5, fig.12.
• False information given on questions 6 and 12 of application.
• Disagreed with Officer’s report. Not enough attention to the effect upon people and ecology.
• 39 objections. No supporters.

 

A Cllr questioned how Mrs Williams determined that this was an intense business.

Mrs Williams stated 40,000 plus birds is classed as intensive farming, and the land is big enough for this. So may grow to this in the future.

                (c) Phillip Crawley, the Applicant was invited to speak and stated that:

• This is a family run business with very dedicated team members.
• The business strives to produce eggs in the correct manner and be as environmentally friendly as possible.
• Buildings will blend in with the landscape, materials and colours have been chosen specifically to aid this.
• Substantial tree planting, with species mix TBC. 5 % additional planting on site, with rapid growth species chosen. This will help to blend and screen the building.
• Site is at least 300m from public road. Only gable end will be visible until trees can provide screening.
• Multi tier construction which will support removal of manure twice per week to prevent fly nuisance.
• Nearest residential properties approx. 360m away from site so far away enough to not create noise or dust nuisance.
• Best available technology will be used to prevent noise and pests. Own site monitor who will assess every 2-3 weeks to ensure all pests are under control.
• There is growth in the demand for free range eggs.

 

A Cllr asked that if there was 1 full-time and 1 part-time worker. Did that mean there would sometimes be nobody there?

Mr Crawley explained that standard staffing hours were normally 7am-5pm. The site would operate 7 days so part time staff were needed to work the hours a full timer cannot.

A Cllr made reference to Mrs Williams’ concern about perimeter fencing. He questioned whether pedestrians would be able to enter the site.

Mr Crawley stated that they would not be blanking off any public footpaths. He explained that 1.2m fencing is not favoured, and instead 6ft deer netting would be used.

A Cllr asked if pedestrians could have access to the chickens.

Mr Crawley stated no. They wouldn’t want that.

A Cllr asked for clarification on biosecurity measures for the site, and how they will be recorded and managed.

Mr Crawley explained they work with APHA, DEFRA, Freedom foods. No perimeter. There would be foot dips around the building and at times of risk a wheel wash on driveway.

A Cllr expressed concerns for the size, particularly the length of the building. He asked if it needed to be that long, and could 2 smaller buildings not be used?

Mr Crawley stated that the shed was designed in light of the field. The birds will roam one side of the building which slopes downhill. This would promote natural land drainage and avoid land becoming wet and boggy. End on end deign with central collecting area. Side by side would be possible but the ridge would become higher and prominence greater. Chickens would range both sides too.

A Cllr suggested an incinerator be used rather than a bin to get rid of smells more quickly.

Mr Crawley stated there was a good chance an incinerator would be installed on site, as he had just  had one audited, and agreed it was a good idea.

A Cllr questioned whether the other sites had accommodation with them.

Mr Crawley stated that some do and some don’t. It’s not included on this application as they do not see it necessary for a site with holding 32,000.

The Chair mentioned Mrs Williams’ reference to the pollution of the stream, and asked what level of threat he saw that as, and what measures would be taken to prevent damage to the stream.

Mr Crawley stated he didn’t perceive any threat to the stream. At the end of each term, sheds would be washed down. At the end of each building there would be a sunken wash tank (holding capacity 2-3 thousand litres). When pressure washed down into tank, they’d capture the dirty water, not slurry. This would then be spread onto land away from stream.

The Development Manager wished to clarify a couple of points from the objector. Neighbourhood plan for Ab Kettleby reached public consultation stage at May 2018 so could be afforded very small weight at this point. Then made reference to page 14 of the Committee Report and the Environmental Health section, specifically covering noise, odour and light. The Development Manager stated that there are alternative powers available in monitoring through separate legislation to that of the planning dept.

A Cllr referenced the legislation. She questioned how it would be known that the number of birds had grown from 32,000 to 40,000 and when would the legislation kick in.

The Development Manager explained that there didn’t need to be a certain number reached. If members were concerned of noise, odour etc., there are other legislations that could have more prescriptive powers than planning.

A Cllr asked how it would be known if numbers had grown.

The Development manager stated it would be an ongoing dialogue with applicant. There would be a record keeping process as a business and these would be requested.

The Chair invited Mr Crawley to give additional information regarding this.

Mr Crawley clarified that the buildings maximum capacity is 32,000. 16,000 per air space and he would not be allowed to keep any more than this. The building would have to be made bigger to accommodate more.

Cllr Botterill proposed to permit the application. He stated he thought it was a sound plan.

Cllr Baguley Seconded the proposal.

A Cllr expressed how pleased they were that the demand for free range is growing.

Mrs Williams requested to speak.

The Chair explained it is not usually permitted and put the decision to members. He reminded members that the Applicant had been allowed to add a point of clarification.

Mrs Williams reiterated her concerns about wildlife. She questioned whether the contraventions had been looked at.

The Chair explained that the Officer compiling the report would have taken note of the issues and this is part of their considerations when coming up with recommendations.

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services highlights the 1^st page of the report and the Local Plan’s most relevant policies to the application. He explained it didn’t have mirrors of the policies people may have been used to about proving need. Quoted EN1, and explained that was the purpose for site visit. Policy SS2, in terms of rural development, should follow national guidance which says we should support rural enterprises at every opportunity.

 A Cllr suggested viewing other developments similar to this to better people’s understanding, as they are becoming more popular.

The Chair stated we must respond to the changing scenery of applications

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services added EN3a states this is not applicable as we’re not creating green infrastructure. EN3 part a, relates to new or enhanced green infrastructure corridors which is not what were dealing with on this application. EN2, is an aspirational policy that seeks to encourage bio and geo diversity improvements into any proposal  in rural area. It is your judgement as to whether this is making such a contribution. But to clarify, failure to contribute is not contrary to the policy. It’s just not fulfilling aspirations. Shortcomings identified by Mrs Williams; failure to enhance the most ecological sensitive areas. This is not one of those. Failure to contribute to wildlife networks, failure to promote the use of fencing which incorporates holes for the use of wildlife. Impact on local wildlife and geological sites.

A Cllr expressed  his concern that there had been ample opportunity for the questions to have been put forward before tonight or included in the 3 minutes given. More time could’ve been given to officers. They stated it was disrespectful to suggest Officers haven’t given decent consideration to Local Plan Policy. They requested to move to vote.

The Chair queried whether the Cllr meant for the business to be put.

The Cllr stated he would like the business be put.

The Chair stated that the proposal had already been seconded, they needed to approve that the business be put. This was put to members.

A vote was taken. 8 members proposed the business be put.

The Chair stated that precluded debate and goes straight to vote. He added, that doesn’t preclude amendment/alternatives. It was asked whether members were happy in light of the queries raised with the implications of policies, if not, to then defer to ensure they are.

A Cllr stated they ought to know. They look after the people they represent. They continued to query the trees.

The Chair stated there could be no more debate.

The Solicitor to The Council explained that on the issue of policy, it was not a requirement for officers to go through each policy. It was a requirement for officers to look to see what they think is material and then bring them before you. Officers had done this in their reports. Policies were itemised that were material. With regards to debate, the majority voted for business to be put so that should be given effect.

A vote is taken. 8 members proposed to permit the application and 2 voted to not permit the application.

Permission granted.

Determination: The proposal comprises an agricultural building within the countryside. The proposal is supported in principle in policy terms by adopted, and national planning policies. The proposal would not have any undue adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety and has been designed to respect the character and appearance of the locality.  As such, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the Local Plan policies referred to above and principles of the NPPF. There are no material considerations present which it is considered would justify a departure from the Development Plan.