APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2014 /0781 CREAMERY PICKHILL 21/10/2014 LANE CROSS LANES LL13 0UE COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Sesswick DESCRIPTION: MP CHANGE OF USE TO POULTRY PROCESSING FACILITY WARD: AGENT NAME: APPLICANT(S) NAME: CASSIDY & ASHTON MAELOR POULTRY LTD MR G EVANS ______P/2014/0781 THE SITE

Main Site Access

Proposed storage enclosure

Application site Pickhill Lane/A525 junction

PROPOSAL

As above. Live birds will be delivered to the site by lorry, slaughtered on site, processed, chilled and then dispatched from the site by lorry. 122 tonnes of poultry will be processed at the site each day.

Page 47 HISTORY

P/2011/0750 Demolition of existing factory buildings and construction of new cheese cutting and packing plant including offices together with new chill storage warehouse. Granted 4.12.12

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Outside of a settlement limit. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, GDP1, EC6, T8 and T10 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Have made the following comments: - The overall view of Sesswick Community Council is to support this application. However, concerns have been expressed regarding the impact on the community of any necessary construction work and the long term operation of the proposed plant; - Councillor's concerns include the safety, adherence to regulations, noise, smell, emissions, dust, other pollution and environmental matters affecting local residents; - The former Creamery emitted noise and light pollution that affected residents, not just in the Pickhill area, but also in other parts of Sesswick. An abattoir already exists in the area, which emits foul smells that are often windblown; - WCBC and the other agencies involved should ensure that this proposal meets the highest standards and has the lowest impact on residents; - Although a 40 mph speed restriction is in force to mitigate risks at the junction of the A525 and Pickhill Lane, this junction still presents risks. Drivers on the A525 have only a few seconds visibility of the Pickhill Lane exit, from which HGVs leave slowly and must occupy both A525 carriageways in order to turn; - While no accidents are said to have been recorded at this junction, over the years there have been several near misses, particularly when drivers on the A525 speed or become distracted; - This junction should be examined to determine if improvements can be made.

Page 48 Local Member: Has the following comments: 1) Concerns that this Factory has been a Dairy Producing Plant for over 60 years, which originated with Cadbury working in conjunction with local Dairy Farmers within the area, this continued with Dairy Crest with the areas’ milk being delivered to the plant. I have concerns that we now have an application for a slaughter house / chicken factory; 2) Concerns regarding residents within close proximity to the site, noise, vermin, smell, they would have to endure from this type of production at the plant. Traffic movements onto the A525 Junction with Pickhill. Lane is also a concern. I do feel a similar plant regarding Dairy Production on this site as it has been for the past 60 years would be acceptable. I do understand jobs are an important factor but feel concerns from the local Community and myself, the residents of Sesswick and Cross Lanes and maybe our neighbours at Bangor On Dee, overcome the importance of the type of employment opportunities that would become available. Economic Development: Have made the following comments: - Emphasise the considerable economic benefits that this project will contribute to the wider economy. I would request that these benefits are not overlooked in any consideration of this application. The initial £10 million investment by this company will create up to 150 new jobs. It should also recognised that this business would contribute at least an estimated £3 million annually to the local economy in terms of wages to employees and goods and services purchased from local suppliers; - The Assets and Economic Development Department recognise that the proposed investment and the development of this facility would be a major boost to the local economy. In addition, it would also send a very positive & confident message to the wider region, as it represents yet another substantial investment and vote of confidence in the area by a company choosing to move to Wrexham in preference to other competing locations; - In conclusion, the benefits and substantial investment that this investment will bring to should not be

Page 49 underestimated. It would be a significant boost in particular to local agriculture, - and I know it is supported by numerous businesses in that particular sector Public Protection: Have made the following comments/recommendations: - Conditions regarding noise, working times during conversion works and dust management recommended; - The applicant will be required to apply for an A(1) PPW Permit with NRW. The permit will control operational noise and odour; - Proposed odour mitigation measures should ensure that odours from the different processing areas and offal storage should be adequately contained and controlled to minimise the likelihood of off-site odour complaints. Highways: Have made the following comments: - The main access route to the development appears to be the A525/Pickhill Lane Junction. I understand a recent speed survey along this section of the A525 determined 85th percentile speeds of 41mph for vehicles travelling northbound and 44mph for vehicles travelling southbound. This survey was carried out when this section of the A525 was subject to a 60mph speed limit. The speed limit along this section has recently been amended to 40mph; - If a fresh speed survey were carried out determined 85th percentile speeds may well be lower. However if 40mph speeds are assumed then the existing junction would be required to provide visibility splays of 2.4 x 120m in both directions; - Visibility from this junction is adequate in the north-westerly direction providing a splay of approximately 2.4 x 150m. However visibility to the south easterly direction is inadequate providing a splay of approximately 2.4 x 95m. Visibility is impeded by an existing hedgerow and farm buildings; - A summary of the existing/proposed staff and daily HGV numbers has been provided. Based on this minimal increase in HGV movements through the A525/Pickhill Lane junction it would be considered inappropriate to request improvements to it;

Page 50 - The total number of staff to be employed is significantly less than previous staff numbers employed at the site. It is therefore considered that the overall daily HGV movements and staff movements combined will be less than previous/approved traffic generation levels; - Pickhill Lane is a rural classified road subject to a 60mph speed limit; - There would appear to be to existing accesses serving the development; - The main (south western) access is 18m wide and is gated 4.3m behind the carriageway. I understand that all delivery vehicles and staff utilise this access. Visibility is inadequate in both directions providing splays of 2.4 x 55m to the southwest and 2.4 x 22m to the north east measured to the northeast; - Visibility to the southwest is impeded by an existing hedgerow fronting the adjoining field. I understand the field is under 3rd party control and visibility cannot therefore be improved; - Visibility to the northeast is impeded by an existing boundary fence fronting the site. I understand that the applicant is willing to setback the fence for a distance of 60 metres. This will provide a significantly improved visibility splay of 2.4 x 172m which is the maximum splay achievable splay due to the bend in the road; - There is a second access at the north-eastern corner of the site which I understand is rarely used. This access is 7m wide and is gate 17m behind the carriageway. Visibility is inadequate in both directions providing splays of 2.4 x 150m to the south west and 2.4 x 25m to the north east. Forward visibility for vehicles approaching from the south-west is also inadequate providing a stopping distance of 110m. I assumed this access will be used as an “emergency access” only as previously conditioned as part of planning consent: P/2011/0750; - Based on LPG16 requirements a B2 General Industrial Use would require 281 spaces; - I understand that as the operation of the site (including operational shit patters) is similar to previous operations at the site, and overall staff numbers are lower, the proposed level of parking provision (150 spaces) would be

Page 51 adequate. There would also appear to be ample space within the site to cater for any future increase in parking demand; - Turning facilities for HGVs within the curtilage of the site appear adequate; - The Framework Travel Plan submitted appears adequate. I would recommend a Final Travel Plan is submitted after 12 months of occupation of the premises; - In terms of providing alternative means of transport, land is safeguarded for a cycle and walking route between Wrexham and Overton via Cross Lanes and Bangor Is Y Coed following the route of the dismantled railway. The route passes through the development site. I understand that should this route be progressed, a diversion would be required around the edge of the site for operational and safety reasons. I understand that the applicant would be willing to safeguard a section of land around the northern edge of the site to support this proposal; - Conditions recommended. Welsh Water: Consulted 27.10.14 NRW: No objection to the proposed development but wish to make the following comments: Environmental Permitting - Based on the information provided, we believe the proposed activity will require an Environmental Permit to operate; - As part of the permit determination process, NRW will assess control measures for noise and odour, amongst other potential impacts; - Based on previous regulatory knowledge of the existing facility, it is our understanding that there is no foul sewer connection. Discharges of process effluent from the site were previously authorised to the River Dee, but any new potential discharge would be subject to permitting; - Any discharge to surface water (likely to be direct to the river Dee based on site location) would be subject to approval by NRW as part of the environmental permitting process referred to within our previous letter. No discharge shall take place until such a permit is in place. We strongly recommend that the applicants begin pre-permit application discussions with the Regulatory Officer as soon as possible. At this

Page 52 stage, we have no reason to believe that a permitted discharge to the river Dee would be refused, but that any discharge quality and quantity would be restricted as part of any possible permit; - the existing discharge permit would not authorise the discharge of trade effluent from a proposed abattoir to the river Dee; - Any surface run-off, which has the potential to be contaminated, will also need to be treated sufficiently either through an interceptor or other suitable treatment process. Site Drainage - Only surface water from roofs and paved areas not accessible to vehicles, should be discharged to any soakaway, watercourse or surface water sewer; - Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund; - Foul and surface water manhole covers should be marked to enable easy recognition, convention is red for foul and blue for surface water. This is to enable water pollution incidents to be more readily traced; - This development lies within the River Dee Water Protection Zone. A Dee Protection Zone Consent will be required from Natural Resources in order to store or use certain controlled substances; - Protected Sites - The proposed development is to take place approximately 130 metres away from the River Dee Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and River Dee Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

Page 53 - We advise that a test of likely significant effects under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) is carried out by the competent authority. We can help you reach a conclusion on likely significant effects. If that assessment concludes there is likely to be a significant effect, we can also advise on the further, appropriate assessment that would be required under the Regulations. Protected Species: Otters - Otters live along rivers and in marshes, small streams, ditches, lakes, and inland coastal waters. Their holts, or dens, take a variety of forms including cavities in the roots of bank side trees, piles of logs or flood debris, drains and caves. Otters also use resting sites above ground in reed beds and dense scrub such as brambles and blackthorn. The holts are not restricted to being adjacent to a watercourse and are often located some distance from any water-bodies; - Surveys should be undertaken for all such habitat on or directly adjacent to a works area (we recommend a survey distance of 30m from all work sites). Should any otters be found, a licence will need to be obtained from WAG prior to works commencing; - To ensure no damage is caused to foraging otters in the area any excavations should not be left open overnight / a ramp should be provided to ensure otters can escape if they have fallen in. If works are to be undertaken overnight, where possible, lighting should be directional and focused on the development area and away from the wider countryside and any areas of shrub/scrub. Protected Species: Bats - NRW recommends that the Council’s Ecologist is consulted; Protected Species: Great Crested Newts - Great crested newts are likely to be present in the area due to the habitats and features present nearby. Whilst it is not considered that these proposals will have a significant impact upon the favourable conservation status of newts in the area, no formal survey has been undertaken to confirm their absence from the area.

Page 54 HSE: The proposed site does not lie within the HSE consultation zone of any major accident pipeline. National Grid: Consulted 27.10.14 Site Notice: Expired 20.11.14 Neighbours: The owners/occupiers of 8 nearby properties were notified on 30.10.14. 4 representations received expressing the following objections/concerns; - There is a large difference between a cheese packing plant and an abattoir; - Noise; - Odour; - Animal welfare; - Disturbance from traffic movements to/from the site during the night and during shift changes; - Hope the jobs created go to local people and not given to large agencies that bus poorly paid workers in form other areas; - Do not consider the application constitutes a change of use but a new development and its appropriateness assessed as such; - A slaughter house would not be an appropriate development for the site; - The quantity of waste to be produced; - Health and safety risks; - Traffic; - More suitable locations/should be directed to Wrexham Industrial Estate; - Safety of the junction of the A525/Pickhill Lane; - The traffic survey was not a representation of the use of the lane throughout the day; - Cyclists, dog walkers, families and horse riders use the lane on a regular basis. The large volume of traffic and smell would stop this; - The land is used as a cut through by some traffic from the Industrial Estate; - The volume of traffic will increase the risk of accidents on the lane itself; - Impact upon the value of property. 1 representation received expressing no objections Other Representations: 1 letter received from Freeths, solicitors acting on behalf of clients who have interests in the poultry supply chain and production process in North Wales. Their clients object for the following reasons: Principle objections - The development of a major new processing facility in the area, with two existing facilities of

Page 55 this kind, will put strain on the supply of poultry given that grown space is limited and suppliers are operating at maximum output; - This will cause the new facility to source from outside North Wales, an unsustainable practice, and/or drive up the price of poultry. The new facility would destabilise the North Wales poultry industry; - The development would be contrary to Technical Advice Note 23 by undermining the existing poultry industry in North Wales and would be likely to lead to job losses; Transport/isolation - Although staff numbers will be similar to the former use, recruitment of experienced staff, probably not local residents, will inevitably lead to long distance commuting- the applicant’s main HQ is location in the West Midlands; - The applicant indicates that cycling and car sharing schemes would be encouraged but in reality, single occupant car traffic would make up the majority of staff movements, increasing disturbance to the local population; - It is also proposed that a total of 90 HGVs would arrive and leave each week. Some of these trips would be undertaken at night presenting a nuisance to occupants of neighbouring properties; - Although the scheme represents broadly similar numbers of vehicle movements to those undertaken by previous occupiers, the nature of the products (live animals and odorous waste) combined with the consistent transportation during anti-social hours is an onerous burden on the location population; - At a similar plant at Sandycroft 1 million birds per week can be slaughtered and there are 164 commercial vehicle movements per day, 1100 staff employed and 2,020 car movements per day, Noise - Noise produced by the operations would be significant. These concerns have been raised in a critique of the Noise Impact Assessment; - Question the methodology adopted during the survey; - The applicant’s Assessment has failed to address the high probability that operational noise will involve specific characteristics such

Page 56 as tonality, impulsivity and the intermittent nature of other noise sources; - The Assessment fails to take account of the impact that conducting activities at night will have on local residents as well as the de-facto change in sound levels considering that the site has been largely unused for some months; - The critique suggests that the Noise Impact Assessment needs to be questioned thoroughly and reworked to reflect the actual effects of this development on the local residents; - The development poses a risk of harm to amenity that will not be effectively controlled by permit conditions alone and that additional information is required in order for decision makers to understand the impact of the development. Odour - One key difference between the previous usage of the site and that proposed is the significant odour emissions relating to the operation of a poultry processing facility; - Agricultural industry, including the waste products of poultry, has been identified as a major source of ammonia by National Government. The UN’s Gothenburg Protocol lays out an ammonia emissions target for the UK in international law. As a contributor to these emissions, the proposed use should be reviewed in light of this commitment by the Environment Minister; - Experience indicates that complaints relating to odour may be received from the occupiers of properties up to 300 metres from the site; - Additional odour sources include the delivery of live poultry to the site, particularly during warmer months when extra ventilation into vehicles is required for the sake of animal welfare, and the storage/processing of blood; - It should be noted that the proposed development appears not to include construction of a Chemical Odour Scrubber for the scald area; this omission elevates the level of potential odour emissions; - The issue of odour has already been raised in objections by local residents and represents a significant risk to the quality of life for the residents of properties neighbouring the site;

Page 57 River Pollution - The River Dee SSSI is at risk of water pollution and subsequent impacts on the native wildlife from developments of this site. Unless effective steps are taken to prevent polluted surface run-off and other waste water from entering the River, the proposed development is at risk of being environmentally unsustainable. Summary - The applicant has outlined that the new facility will process 122 tonnes of poultry (55,454 birds) per day utilising circa 14,000 sq.m of floorspace. We submit this is a severe underestimation. - Considering that an existing poultry processing facility in Sandycroft Deeside, with a floor space of 10,916 sq.m processes 298.6 tonnes (between 135,714 and 150,714 birds) of poultry per day. Industry averages indicate that the proposed facility could produce up to 2.5 times more than the applicant has detailed. The production at the facility is therefore very likely to be higher than the applicant’s estimates. The magnitude of the operations would directly affect the scale of the impacts unless the Planning Authority is willing to limit production levels by planning obligations.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: The site has been in use for over 60 years having first being developed by Cadburys and was last used as a cheese cutting and packing plant. Proposals for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site (reference P/2011/0750), including the erection of new factory buildings, were reported to Committee in March 2012. Following the completion of a Planning Obligation to secure the long term management of ecological mitigation areas planning permission was granted in December 2012. The planning permission has not been implemented.

The applicants are seeking to change of use of the site to a poultry processing facility and will be re-using the existing buildings. Other than the erection of a new covered storage area (26m x 13m x 8m high) no additional built development is proposed.

Whilst noting the concerns expressed about noise, odour and the impact the development may have on walkers, cyclists and horse riders using Pickhill Lane, irrespective of the outcome of this planning application, the site could be re-used provided no material change of use occurs. There are currently no

Page 58 conditions limiting the operating times of the site so another alternative use is just as likely to generate traffic and noise as the proposed use. I do however appreciate that there is a greater risk of odour. The potential impact of the development in respect of noise, odour and traffic are considered in more detail below.

Policy: The UDP has no specific policies dealing with the change of use of established employment sites in the countryside. The proposals do however broadly accord with policy PS3 with regards to the re-use of previously developed land. Planning Policy Wales (Chapter 7) is also broadly supportive of new businesses being established in rural areas. As such there are no valid reasons, on planning policy grounds, to object in principle to the proposed development.

Economic Impact: Objections have been received from Freeths Solicitors on behalf of another business with interests in the local poultry supply chain and production process. One of their grounds for objection is the impact the development will have on businesses that are engaged in similar activities or the wider local poultry industry. However this is not a material planning consideration. It is not the role of the planning system to regulate competition by preventing rival businesses from opening new facilities in the area.

The proposed chicken processing facility will employ up to 150 people. I note the suggestion that the need to recruit experienced staff will result in people commuting to the site from outside of the area but it is outside of the scope of planning control to require or ensure that a specific number of jobs are filled by local people. This would place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of the operators of the development to secure the staff best suited to the roles they need to fill. The development will bring additional employment opportunities to the local area and whilst it is not possible for to predict how many employees will live within the County Borough, it is equally the case that the objectors cannot say with any certainty that a large proportion of employees will come from outside of the area.

The development will bring economic benefits through the re-use of previously developed employment site and by presenting employment opportunities to local residents that currently do not exist. It represents a £10 million investment in the County Borough and will benefit the wider economy as a result of goods and services for being purchased from local businesses.

Amenity:

Noise

The application is accompanied a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) that demonstrates that no noise mitigation measures are required to protect the amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

Page 59 Based on the information provided in the Transport Assessment (see below), the development will not result in a significant increase in HGV movements compared to the previous use or the development proposed by the 2012 planning permission. In light of this traffic noise will not be worse than if the former were to resume or if the latter were implemented.

The site will operate 24 hours a day which means that there will be both staff vehicles and HGVs leaving the site at night. However there are no conditions limiting the operating times of the existing site and none were imposed on the 2012 planning permission. As such the development will not increase the likelihood of night-time traffic passing nearby dwellings.

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been criticised for using outdated guidance – a critique commissioned by Freeths Solicitors pointing out that it was carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997 rather than the guidance that replaced it in October 2014, BS4142:2014.

Public Protection have not expressed any concerns about the NIA or its conclusions therefore I have no reason to believe that operational noise will be significantly greater than that associated with the previous use of the site or that the development will have a significant adverse impact upon residential amenity.

Odour

A supporting document ‘Odour Risk Assessment & Proposed Control Measures’ considers the processes that will be carried out on site and acknowledges that some present a high risk of odour problems if mitigation/controls are not put in place.

I understand that historically there have been complaints about odour from local residents and businesses located in the vicinity of two similar plants in Sandycroft and Llangefni. Those plants are approximately 25 metres and 800 metres from housing respectively.

NRW regulate both of the above mentioned sites via Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) permits. Both plants were constructed without odour abatement controls but improvements have been made in recent years that have resulted in a significant reduction in the number of complaints received, although some complaints are still nevertheless received.

The above demonstrates that there is clearly a risk of odour arising from the operation of this type of facility. However it would not be reasonable to conclude that because the operation of those plants has given rise to odour problems the same will automatically be the case with the current proposals. As noted above, both of those plants were constructed without adequate odour control measures so these measures will have been installed retrospectively. The application proposals are for an entirely new plant so it

Page 60 will be possible to fit out the buildings to take account of current best practice and install odour control measures from the outset.

It will not be possible to completely eliminate the risk of odour problems, however the implementation of odour control measures can significantly minimise the risk. In summary these measures include;

i) The enclosure of all processing areas; ii) The use of ventilation systems with odour removal systems; iii) Daily cleaning and sanitising of process areas; iv) Daily removal of waste.

Provided the site is well managed and the above measures employed I consider the risk that its operation will give rise to significant odour to be low. Public Protection have confirmed they agree this to be the case. The submission and subsequent implementation of an odour management plan will be required by planning condition.

Whilst noting concerns nearby residential properties may experience odour when vehicles transporting live chickens to the site pass by, the vehicles will normally only momentarily be in front of those properties. As such the risk of significant odour problems from passing vehicles is low.

Pollution Prevention and Control Permit (PPC)

The operation of the site will be subject to a PPC permit issued by Natural Resources Wales. The permit, if granted, will require the future operator to put in place measures to prevent or minimise both noise and odour. A permit is only issued if NRW are satisfied that the development will not have a significant impact on the local environment.

The site will be inspected by NRW to ensure that the operator is complying with the requirements of their permit. If it is found that they are not complying enforcement action will be taken. This can include revocation of the permit. NRW have confirmed that they are familiar with the site and its setting (i.e. that there are residential properties close by). I am therefore satisfied that there will be an appropriate regulatory regime in place to ensure that the proposed use will not give rise to unacceptable noise or odour.

Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 “The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management” states that planning conditions should not duplicate controls under other legislation unless there is a planning reason for doing so. Whilst noise and odour controls will be put in place by the PPC Permit, ensuring development does not harm the amenity local residents is a material planning consideration. As such I consider there to be a valid planning reason to impose conditions in respect of odour and noise. I consider these conditions will complement the controls imposed via the PPC Permit rather than being an unnecessary duplication of them.

Page 61

Proposed covered storage area

This will be over 100 metres from the nearest dwelling with the existing factory buildings located in between. As such it will not adversely impact upon the standard of amenity afforded to the occupiers of that or any other nearby dwellings by way of loss of light or by proving visual overbearing.

Highways: A summary of the staff numbers and daily HGV movements from the last use, the development proposed by planning permission P/2011/0750 and the development now proposed is set out in the table below:

Use Total Staff Numbers Weekday Operational Vehicle Movements Historic 220 22

Approved development 230 26 (P/2011/0750)

Proposed Development 150 29

Visibility at the site access onto Pickhill Lane is substandard in both directions. The required splays to the south-west cross third party land so cannot be provided without the agreement of the adjoining landowner. Significant improvements in visibility to the north east can be made and will be required by condition. Visibility at the junction of Pickhill Lane and the A525 is also substandard to the south-east.

Despite the above Highways have not expressed any concerns about the development. Whilst the development will result in a modest increase in the number of HGV movements to/from the site that the previous use or the 2012 planning permission it will employ fewer staff. The overall number of vehicular movements to/from the site will therefore be less than both. I therefore have no reason to believe that the development will have a significant or detrimental impact upon highway safety.

There are 210 parking spaces within the site which will be more than sufficient to cater for the number of staff that will be employed. There is also sufficient space within the site for HGVs to manoeuvre, load and unload.

Production Capacity: The objection from Freeths Solicitors indicates that this site could have a far higher processing capacity than the application documents suggest. They have cited the example of the similar plant in Sandycroft that has a gross floor area of just over 10,000 square metres and where up to 1 million birds can be slaughtered each week. This is over twice the number that would be processed at the applicant’s proposed facility (floor area 14,025 sq.m). Freeths Solicitors have submitted traffic generation figures for the Sandycroft site which suggests the number of both staff car and

Page 62 HGV movements to/from it are also considerably higher than the Transport Assessment suggests will be the case with the applicant’s proposals.

I have no information before me to allow me to make a direct comparison between the Sandycroft plant with the applicant’s site. However the latter employs more people thus explaining why car movements to/from the site are higher.

If the applicant’s plant does indeed have the capacity to produce more poultry than the supporting documents suggest there could be a far higher number of HGVs travelling to/from the site along Pickhill Lane and using the Pickhill Lane/A525 junction. Highways have advised that this would not be a concern in respect of the Pickhill Lane/A525 junction but would be a concern in respect of the site access itself owing to the fact that it has substandard visibility splays.

A higher number of HGV movements to/from the site may result in the occupiers of the dwellings close to the site on Pickhill Lane experiencing higher levels of noise than if the previous use were to resume or the 2012 planning permission implemented, to the detriment of their amenity.

To ensure that production capacity does not exceed the level proposed in the interests of both highway safety and the amenity of nearby residents I intend to impose a condition to prevent more 400,000 birds (which equates to 122 tonnes) per week are processed. The applicants will also have to keep a log of the number of birds processed that can be made available for Officers to inspect.

Appearance: The only external alteration to the site will be the erection of the proposed covered storage area. This building will reflect the industrial appearance of the existing buildings and due to its relatively modest size and position within the site it will not be prominent or harm the wider rural landscape.

Drainage: Foul water is currently collected and stored on site before being removed by tanker for treatment. When the site was last operational effluent was treated in an on-site effluent treatment plant. This discharged clean water into an existing storm drainage which in turn drains into the River Dee.

A new treatment plant is to be installed so that both foul water and effluent are treated on-site. Treated clean water will then be discharged from the site and ultimately flow into the River Dee.

There will be no additional areas of hard standing therefore the development will not increase the amount of surface water run-off from the site. Nevertheless a Flood Consequences Assessment accompanying the application recommends that opportunities to reduce surface water run-off should be taken, such as the use of infiltration (soakaway) drainage and the

Page 63 provision of soft landscaping. A condition requiring the submission of and implementation of a surface water drainage scheme will be imposed.

Ecology: Other than the proposed covered storage building no additional built development taking place within the site. The storage building will not require the removal of any substantial trees that may provide habitat for bats. It will also be some 300 metres from the River Dee itself and located well within the existing operational area of the site so will not impact upon otters.

Great Crested Newts (GCN) are present in the area however NRW have confirmed that the development will have a significant impact upon their favourable conservation status. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion however a scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures should be put in place whilst the new storage building is erected to ensure that those works take account of the possible presence of GCN. This will be required by condition.

The proposed treatment plant will ensure that only clean water is discharged from the site into the River Dee. Full details of the proposed treatment plant will be required by condition. In addition the surface water drainage scheme I intend to require by condition should also reduce the risk of polluted water entering the river.

The drainage arrangements referred to above will ensure that polluted water does not enter the River Dee. As such I am satisfied that the development will not have a significant or detrimental impact upon the River Dee SSSI and SAC.

Animal Welfare: Whilst concerns for animal welfare are understandable this is regulated by separate legislation and is outside of the scope of planning control. As such it is not a material consideration.

Other Matters: Ensuring that the agricultural and associated industries comply with ammonia emission targets is outside of the scope of planning control.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is unlikely to give rise to significant or unacceptable impacts with regards to noise, odour, traffic, visual impact and ecology and as such accords with the relevant UDP policies.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission. 2. No part of the development shall commence until an appropriate Dust Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the

Page 64 Local Planning Authority. The dust mitigation measures as are approved shall be fully implemented for the entire duration of the construction phase. 3. No part of the development shall commence until a scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) in respect of Great Crested Newts has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance Measures as are approved. 4. The use hereby granted permission shall not commence until an odour management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All odour measures set out in the plan shall be installed prior to first use of the premises for the purposes hereby granted permission and the site shall thereafter be operated in strict accordance with the odour management plan as approved. 5. The use hereby granted permission shall not commence until a system for the treatment of foul water and effluent has been provided on site and made operational in accordance with details that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The system for the treatment of foul water and effluent shall thereafter be retained and maintained in an operational condition. 6. The use hereby granted planning permission shall not commence until a noise management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of the measures and procedures that will be put in place to ensure noise emissions accord with the requirements of condition 09. All measures and procedures set out in the plan as approved shall be installed/put in place prior to first use of the premises for the purposes hereby granted permission and the site shall thereafter be operated in strict accordance with the noise management plan as approved. 7. The use hereby granted permission shall not commence until a scheme for the management of surface water run-off from the site has been implemented in accordance with a scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mechanisms put in place for the management of surface water run-off shall thereafter be retained and maintained in an operational condition. 8. The use hereby granted permission shall not commence until the main (south-western) vehicular access has been provided with a visibility splay to the north-east of 2.4 metres x 172 metres as measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining carriageway. With this splay there shall be no obstruction above the level of the adjoining carriageway. The splay shall thereafter be permanently retained clear of any such obstruction to visibility. 9. The vehicular parking and turning areas as shown on approved drawing(s) No(s). 14-L37-PL002D shall be fully laid out, surfaced and drained prior to first use of the development. These areas shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept free of any obstruction, and made available solely for the parking and turning of motor vehicles at all times. 10. Prior to first use of the development, a Final Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall include details of an annual monitoring which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval following the anniversary of

Page 65 first use of the development, and every year after up to and including the fifth anniversary. 11. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than those detailed on the application form and within the approved application documentation. 12. The rating level of any noise generated by reason of this development shall not exceed the pre-existing background level by more than 5dB(A) at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at nearby noise sensitive premises, and measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014 Method of Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial areas. 13. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. 14. No more than 400,000 birds shall be processed each day at the site subject to this permission. 15. The site owner(s)/operator(s) shall at all times maintain an up to date log of the number of birds processed each day. The log shall be made available at all reasonable times for inspection by officers of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 3. In order to protect wildlife interests, which are afforded special protection. 4. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 5. To prevent pollution of the water environment. 6. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 7. To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to avoid flooding. 8. To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of access to the highway. 9. To provide for the parking and turning of vehicles clear of the highway and to ensure that reversing by vehicles into or from the highway is rendered unnecessary in the interest of traffic safety. 10. To support the Council's approved Integrated Transport Strategy and to reduce dependency on the motor vehicle. 11. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 12. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 13. To prevent pollution of the water environment. 14. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

Page 66 15. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday. ______

Page 67