Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application; full planning application for the proposed erection of a new poultry site for up to 360,000 birds with solar panels, biomass boilers and associated buildings and development; outline planning application for one agricultural worker’s dwelling with all matters reserved apart from access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.1          This was a hybrid planning application – a full planning application for the proposed erection of a new poultry site for up to 360,000 birds with solar panels, biomass boilers and associated buildings and development and an outline planning application for one agricultural worker’s dwelling with all matters reserved except for access.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 February 2020 in order to allow the appropriate consultation to take place to accord with the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.

60.2          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to land at Starveall Farm which was located approximately one mile south of Pamington.  There were four existing broiler rearing units on Starveall Farm which had planning permission for up to 200,000 birds.  The current application related to a parcel of land to the south of the existing units and comprised a full application for the erection of six broiler rearing units with capacity for 360,000 birds as well as biomass boiler buildings, 18 feed bins and other ancillary structures; the application also included outline proposals for the erection of one agricultural worker’s dwelling.  The six poultry units would sit parallel to one other and each unit would measure 92 metres by 28 metres with a ridge height of 5.3 metres.  The supporting information with the application set out the need for a poultry enterprise and, although the proposal would not directly employ a large number of people, it would undoubtedly provide economic benefits to the area and the UK economy as a whole.  The National Planning Policy Framework was supportive of development which promoted a strong rural economy and encouraged policies which supported sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, and which promoted the diversification of agricultural enterprises.  There would be harm arising from the development due to landscape impact but this was primarily restricted to nearby viewpoints from the public right of way to the south.  Although the site was visible from other viewpoints, including a public right of way on Oxenton Hill which was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the development would be viewed in the context of the existing poultry units to the north and the visual impact would be partially mitigated by landscaping and the colour of the proposed buildings.  There was potential for loss of amenity – both existing and future - as a result of on and off site operations primarily related to the emerging Garden Town.  This was a matter which weighed against the proposal; however, it was considered that it could be mitigated to an acceptable impact through the Environmental Permitting Regime and the imposition of planning conditions.  In addition, the Garden Town proposals could only be afforded, at best, very limited weight in the determination of the application.  There would also be some impact on peace, tranquillity and amenity due to proximity but that could also be mitigated to an acceptable degree through the Environmental Permitting Regime.  It was considered there was a functional need for one additional agricultural worker’s dwelling, which related to a full-time worker in association with the poultry enterprise in the best interest of animal welfare and bio-security.  It was concluded that the proposed development was generally supported in principle by the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan policies and, whilst there would be some impacts on the area, Officers considered that the economic benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm in this case, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

60.3          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that he was pleased the application was being recommended for permission and hoped that Members would see it in the same light.  The Officer report was very thorough, matching the amount of work and the assessments that had been carried out in submitting the application.  He pointed out that there was no objection from the Environment Agency – which had approved an environmental permit to increase the farm size in August 2017 – and no objection or comments had been made by Environmental Health, Highways England, Highways Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority, Public Rights of Way Officer, County Archaeologist, Natural England, National Grid, Severn Trent Water or the Council’s Conservation Officer.   The site had direct access off the B4079 and was 430 metres from Claydon Farm, 570 metres from Claydon farmhouse and 710 metres from Claydon cottages with Pamington and Oxenton both over 1,250 metres away.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had been consulted on the application and had no objection with regard to odour, furthermore, given the relative remoteness and the presence of the existing facility, any loss of amenity arising from the proposal would be negligible.  He explained that the site had no special environmental or ecological designations, was not identified as valued landscape in the development plan and was not within an area subject to any national or local landscape designation nor did it conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework.  There was no objection to the application on flood risk or drainage grounds and the proposal would accord with the Joint Core Strategy.  In terms of the proposed manager’s dwelling and Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework, it was considered there was an essential need for a further dwelling at Starveall Farm.  In summary, a functional need for one additional dwelling had been established and, in terms of the poultry units, the proposed development was generally supported in principle by the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan policies.  He wished to emphasise that it was absolutely essential for the manager’s dwelling to be sited on the farm for biosecurity and welfare reasons and pointed out that Homes England had been consulted and raised no objection to the application.

60.4          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.