Agenda item

The Chairman introduced a planning application for proposed new poultry rearing units and associated works.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer gave an update to the Committee on the application as there were some matters that had happened after the publication of the agenda.  WLDC had been contacted by the National Planning Casework Unit on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  The Secretary of State did not intend to take any action if the Committee were minded to refuse planning permission, but if they had been minded to approve the application, the Secretary of State would wish to consider whether to call the application in using a call-in policy.

 

There had been a further comment from a third party, a representative from Cornwall concerning the ammonia emissions from poultry farms.  The third party put forward that poultry farms were responsible for 14% of the UK’s total ammonia emissions.

 

The Applicant had not registered to speak at the Committee, but had given a precis (through their Agent) to the Planning department.  The following points were highlighted:

 

·         The Agent claimed there had been ample time for WLDC to request further information;

·         In their view Regulation 25 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations required the Local Planning Authority to request further information if they don’t think a reasoned conclusion can be made.  In their view there was no time limit on how many times this could occur;

·         In relation to Regulation 25, no decision can be made within 30 days of receiving further information.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer then responded to these queries:

 

·         A formal request for further information was made to the Applicant in July, as contained in the committee papers.  Further information was received in September and the statutory 30 day consultation period undertaken.  It was not open for this 30 day period to be cyclical for an indeterminate period, the Council has a statutory time limit by which to determine the planning application;

·         In October, WLDC requested further clarity on certain points, but this was not a formal request under Regulation 25. The letter did not purport such, and the additional information submitted by the Applicant was not under the banner of Regulation 25.

 

Following this information, the Chairman invited registered speakers to talk on the application.  First was Christopher Drinkall, a partner from Rollits who was the first of two speakers from the Glentham Action Group who were opposing the application.  He highlighted the following points:

 

·         The applicant had failed to provide sufficient information in their environmental statement which would have permitted a proper analysis of the applications compliance, or otherwise with Local Planning Policies, namely LPs 9, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 26;

·         Full compliance with the above policies would have been a bare minimum for the application, and these had not been addressed.  Only then could other policies, such as LP55 be tackled;

·         The application was also contrary to LP 25; it did not provide an appropriate description or assessment of any heritage assets;

 

For the remaining 2 minutes 15 seconds, Fiona Pringle of the Glentham Action Group spoke against the application, and her points are listed below:

 

·         The application should have been rejected on the grounds of the health and welfare of the people living in Glentham;

·         There were many errors in the application; the main error would be that the application was in the wrong place;

·         This type of factory farming was not sustainable, and brings no benefits to Glentham, or the surrounding area.

 

Councillor Jeff Summers, the Ward Councillor for Glentham then spoke against the application:

 

·         The site falls into the category of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land;

·         The field in the application had a high yield potential for growing crops;

·         This was an area of arable land offering extensive views of the Wolds.  Views west of the Wolds would have been blighted by this development;

·         150 fans in the shed would produce a lot of noise on a hot day;

·         The fire toxins would be high due to the high level of birds in the unit;

·         There were two main issues with traffic.  Firstly, HGVs struggle with the pinch point outside the village shop in Glentham.  Secondly, moving birds during the night will cause considerable noise pollution;

·         The spreading of disease would be concerning, particularly the potential for avian flu;

Following these speakers, Councillor Bierley commented that there was not enough information provided by the Applicant on the Environmental Impact Assessment, therefore it wasn’t appropriate to discuss areas of planning policy in detail in absence of adequate information.  He then proposed to refuse the application as stated in the report.

Councillor David Cotton asked several questions of Planning officers, which were answered below:

·         The Applicant would have the opportunity to resubmit their application should it have been rejected.  There would be a ‘free go’ within 12 months of the decision.  There was a normal right of appeal, with there being 6 months to lodge an appeal to the Secretary of State;

·         Animal welfare was not a material Planning consideration, as it was covered by other statutory legislation;

·         Historically the ‘normal’ distance from any properties to a development would be 400 metres, but this is no longer part of Planning policy.  The nearest property to the development is listed within the further information in the report at 332m to the nearest property;

·         If permission should be granted, then the type, and colour of the property could be conditioned.

The recommendation in the report to refuse the application was proposed, seconded and voted upon and agreed unanimously.

 

It was therefore AGREED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons.

1. The Environmental Statement does not include the information

reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the

significant effects of the development on the environment, by taking

into account current knowledge and methods of assessment. In

particular, it does not provide a description of the likely significant

effects of the development on the environment resulting from the

emission of pollutants. It does not identify, describe and assess in an

appropriate manner the direct and indirect significant effects on the

proposed development on factors such as population and human

health, biodiversity, land, soil, water, air and climate. The

Environmental Statement has assessed the landscape impact of

development against the incorrect Local Landscape Character Area.

Development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the

Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, particularly policies LP9, LP14, LP16,

LP17, LP21 and LP26.

 

2. The development would result in the potential loss of up to 3.80

hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. It has not been

demonstrated that the land would not fall within grade 3A of the

agricultural land classification and, if so, that there is insufficient lower

grade land available or that the impacts of the proposal upon ongoing

agricultural operations have been minimised through the use of

appropriate design solutions. Development is therefore contrary to

policy LP55 (Part G) of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the

provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly at

paragraph 112.

 

3. The application does not provide an appropriate description and

assessment of the significance of any heritage assets affected,

including any contribution made by their setting. This is contrary to

policy LP25 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the provisions of

the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly at paragraph 128.

 

Note:  The meeting was adjourned at 1914 to let members of the public leave the meeting.