Committee and Date Item Central Planning Committee 12 7th March 2013 Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application Application Number: 12/05179/EIA Parish: Westbury

Proposal: Erection of two chicken sheds each housing (maximum) 45,000 birds; associated hard standing, feed bins, dirty water storage tank, access improvement and landscaping works Site Address: Proposed Poultry Units Yockleton Shrewsbury Shropshire Applicant: PF And MJ Williams And Son Case Officer: Amy Mottram email: [email protected] Grid Ref: 338526 - 310241

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for Approval

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of its use, its design. its visual impact on the rural landscape, and its relationship with the adjacent highway and impact on the local highway network. In addition the proposal takes proper account of sustainability principles and pays sufficient regard to ecological, landscape and environmental issues. Therefore the proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the adopted Core Strategy : CS5; CS6; CS13; CS17 & CS18.

REPORT

1.0 THEPROPOSAL

1.1 This application is seeking planning permission to erect two broiler chicken sheds, each housing a maximum of 45,000 birds, together with associated hard standing, feed bins, dirty water storage tank, access improvement and landscaping works. Due to the number of birds to be housed the application the proposal is a significant application falling within Schedule 1 development as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.

1.2 The proposed broiler units would be of steel frame with timber lining construction with concrete block dwarf walling to 0.45m high. The poultry sheds would be 4.76m to ridge dropping to 2.59m at eves level, 4no. feed silos would be 5.77m high with a sectional width of 2.66m, located approx. 1m apart. Painted box profile steel sheeting will be used to clad both gable ends of the poultry sheds and sides and the roof will be covered in the same steel sheeting at a 10° pitch. The units will be insulated with fibreglass insulation to walls and roof. The floor and external yard area would be constructed of concrete and access to the sheds for machinery and birds would be via two large painted box profile steel sheet doors, the colour of the sheeting to be agreed.

1.3 To the front of the sheds there would be a concrete apron where the lorries and tractors loading and unloading the chicks, feed and manure can manoeuvre and turnaround. The units would contain poly carbonate windows along both sides to enable the poultry enterprise to conform to RSPCA ‘Freedom Food’ welfare standards at a later date. Four feed bins of steel construction (colour coordinated with colour of sheds) each 7.5 metres high and 2.8 m in diameter will be located in between the sheds.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

2.1 The proposed site is located to the north west of the village of Yockleton approximately 6 miles west of Shrewsbury in west Shropshire and is bounded to the south by the B4386 (between Yockleton and Stoney Stretton/Westbury).

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 2.2 The proposed site comprises 87 acres (35.21 ha) of arable land within open countryside and is currently down to an Autumn sown grain crop with the field bounded by hedgerow to all sides. The proposed site and surrounding area is not subject to any designations, with the nearest SSSI’s being Earls Hill and Habberley Valley within 4.6 kilometres, the River Severn and Montford within 4.4 kilometres, together with the Shropshire AONB 4.6 kilometres to the south of the site.

2.3 The site is currently in arable production with the field itself large in scale with surrounding hedges kept cut short making them relatively indistinguishable from the surrounding farmland. Despite the general lack of tree cover within the vicinity, the site’s footprint within the wider field pattern is relatively well screened from the road network immediately to the south and west of the site due to the undulating topography and condition and height of the road boundary hedgerows.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION

3.1 The proposal is a significant application falling within Schedule 1 development as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and is accompanied by a full Environmental Impact Assessment. Part 8 of the Council Constitution (Delegation to officers) requires that such applications are determined by Committee.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 - Consultee Comments Westbury Parish Council - Support of local agricultural business on a low impact site.

4.2 SC Public Protection - No comments on this application.

4.3 SC Drainage Engineer - The drainage proposal is acceptable.

4.4 English Heritage - The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

4.5 Natural England - This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils.

4.6 SC Archaeology - Following receipt of the Planning Authority’s Scoping Opinion and advice from English Heritage, the applicant has submitted an archaeological Desk Based Assessment as part of their Environment Impact Assessment (Appendix 14). This demonstrates that, whilst there are no known heritage assets on the proposed development site itself, a total of thirteen nondesignated heritage assets are present within or just outside a 500m radius study area around the site. These include two probable Iron Age - Romano-British farmstead enclosures (HER PRNs 04234 and 28637), the Roman road from Wroxeter to Forden Gaer (HER PRN 00098) and the former medieval deer park that once existed to the West of

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 Yockleton (HER PRN 07717). On this basis the assessment concludes that there is a low potential for archaeological remains of prehistoric, Roman and/ or medieval date to be present on the proposed development site itself and that the impact of the proposed development on any such remains would be high. It is therefore recommended that an archaeological watching brief during the ground works phase of the development would provide an adequate level of mitigation.

4.7 The Desk Based Assessment also considers the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the designated heritage assets within a wider 1.5km radius around the site. Prepared in relation to English Heritage guidance on The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), this demonstrates particularly that the proposed development will not affect the settings of Listed Buildings in Yockleton or Stoney Stretton. In addition, it indicates that the proposed development will not be visible from the Scheduled Monument at Yockleton (Monument No. 19226 Motte castle 250m west of Yockleton Hall) and the impact will therefore negligible. The second Scheduled Monument (Monument No. 19211 Ringwork and bailey castle 100m north-east of Heath Farm) is partially screened by intervening vegetation, and its setting has been affected by the railway line and the development of modern farm building at Heath Farm. The overall impact on this monument from the proposed development is therefore deemed to be negligible to minor adverse.

4.8 The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment by the Shropshire Council Archaeology Service, dated November 2012, within Appendix 14 of the Environmental Impact Assessment, provides a satisfactory level of information about the archaeological interest of the site in relation to Paragraph 128 of the NPPF. In view of the above, and in relation to Paragraph 141 of the NPPF, It is recommended that a programme of archaeological work, to comprise a watching brief during the ground works phase of the development, be made a condition of any planning permission for the proposed development.

4.9 SC Highways - The proposed development would access directly onto the B4386 at a location where the carriageway is relatively straight and good levels of visibility are achievable in both directions. The likely vehicle movements arising from the proposed poultry operation as detailed in Section 6.8.1 of the EIA can be adequately accommodated by this Class II highway. Formerly there would have been an appreciable level of vehicle movements arising from the production of sugar beat on the farm, especially at harvesting time. Although the vehicle movements would again be intensified at harvesting times during the broiler cycle, these would be spread throughout the year and at their peak occur during the night when other traffic levels on the highway are low. The removal of manure from the operation would appear to balance out to some extent with the current need to import it from outside farms for arable crop production on the applicant’s farm. It is noted that it is anticipated that 20% of the manure will be spread directly onto land without the need for it to be transport along the highway.

4.10 The access layout and construction details provided within the application are acceptable for the type and nature of the vehicle movements arising from the proposal. It would be desirable to have this access formed to a base course level prior to construction commencing on the site and the surfacing finished prior to the units being brought into use.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 4.11 SC Rights of Way Officer - It appears that the proposal will not directly affect any public rights of way; however the access road leading from the County Highway west of Yockleton to serve the chicken sheds will directly affect Footpath 20 Westbury Parish. Recommend informative to ensure footpath is kept open and accessible at all times. The surface of the right of way must not be altered without prior consultation with this office; nor must it be damaged. No additional barriers such as gates or stiles may be added to any part of the right of way without authorisation as mentioned above.

4.12 Environment Agency - No objection in principle to the proposal. There are no sensitive receptors within at least 400m and no abstractions within 500m of the site. The site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk of fluvial flooding). All foul water from shed wash down will be collected via a gulley and a piped system to an underground dirty water tank. The applicant’s management plan should indicate how any potential risk of pollution to the environment will be mitigated. The diverter valve which is to be located in manhole S1 to divert the dirty water from wash-down to the underground tank away from the soakaway could be vulnerable to human error and so mitigation measures will need to be put in place to make sure dirty water from wash down does not end up diverted to ground. It is understood that written procedures will be adopted to mitigate for this (see section 6.3.3). and acknowledged that there will be procedures in place for diverter valve settings and for monitoring tanks during clean-out in case of overflow or leakage.

4.13 Permit application As you will be aware, as well as a planning permission, the applicant also requires an Environmental Permit. The permit number is EPR/RP3334CW. It was determined by us and issued 10/12/2012. It covers the following issues and includes conditions to help control operations on the permit site to reduce any potential adverse environmental impact:

- Management, including: general management; accident management 4.14 plan; energy efficiency; efficient use of raw materials (including water); avoidance, recovery and disposal of wastes produced by the activities and site security - Operations, including: permitted activities; operating techniques; closure and decommissioning. - Emissions and Monitoring, including: emissions to water, air or land; transfers off site; fugitive emissions of substances; odour; noise and vibration. - Information, including: records; reporting; notifications.

4.15 SC Ecology - There are 4 trees within the surrounding hedgerows which have potential for bat roosting but these trees are to be retained. There is potential for bats to be foraging and commuting in the wider environment according to Turnstone Ecology (2012). Recommend conditions and informatives. There is potential for nesting wild birds to be present in the vegetation on the site. Recommend condition and informative. There are no ponds within 250m with the potential for Great Crested Newts to be present according to Turnstone Ecology (2012). No further consideration of this species is necessary.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 4.16 A range of native species planting is proposed and appears appropriate in terms of species choice. The landscaping plan should be subject to an appropriate condition including provision for replacing any specimens that fail within the first 5 years.

4.17 There are no badger setts within 50m of the proposed site but badgers were recorded crossing the site by Turnstone Ecology (2012). The site has negligible potential for reptiles and no further surveys are considered necessary.

4.18 The applicant intends to spread the manure produced by the proposed poultry units on his own land in place of manure he currently buys in from third parties. There will be no net increase in the use of poultry manure as a fertiliser on the site and storage in field heaps and spreading will continue to occur much as it does currently. This practice is a standard agricultural operation and is covered by Defra best practice guidance and is not within the remit of the planning application to control.

4.19 Habitat Regulation Assessment and emissions modelling - Natural England has been formally consulted and has responded ‘no objection’ to this proposed development and that the applicant has provided the Environment Agency pre- application report which states that no detailed modelling is required, and the Environment Agency permit reference EPR/RP3334CW. The AST screening sheet has been provided which shows the outcome of the modelling carried out by Environment Agency at the pre-application stage.

4.20 - Public Comments Two letters of concern have been raised from neighbouring households. The first letter confirms support of the scheme provided the following conditions are adhered to: no further applications for chicken sheds by this farmer/farmers in the Yockleton area as there are enough chicken manure/smells/ flies/HGV lorries in this area. The manure storage pile (currently by the railway line at the back of Brookside Gardens) is kept to a minimum due to the horrible smell & flies it creates. It has been large this year as due to the wet weather as the farmer says he has not been able to spread it - A new site for this pile further away from residential properties would be a good idea and a plan of what to do with the manure if there is an excess due to being unable to spread it because of weather conditions.

4.21 The second letter raises concerns regarding odour and the spreading of manure.

5.0 THEMAINISSUES

5.1 Principle of development Siting, scale and design of structure Traffic Issues Disposal of waste and drainage Noise Visual impact and landscaping

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Principle of Development 6.1.1 The proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions at which stage various alternative sites under the applicant’s ownership were discussed. The applicants have been issued with an Environmental Permit by the Environment Agency in December 2012 the operation of poultry units as proposed. This included a large number of conditions and safeguards controlling the construction and day to day management of the operation. The Environment Agency will continue to regulate the site to ensure that the operator complies with the Environmental Permit.

6.1.2 The relevant policy framework to this application is provided by the following policies of the adopted Shropshire Core Strategy: CS5 – Countryside and the Green Belt , CS6 – Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS13 – Economic Development, Enterprise and Employment CS17 – Environmental Networks CS18 – Sustainable Water Management

6.1.3 CS5 strictly controls development within the countryside but generally looks favourably on small scale economic development diversifying the rural economy, including farm diversification schemes, such as that proposed. Large scale development appropriate to a countryside location is required to demonstrate the need and benefit for the development proposed. In this instance the intention is to diversify into a poultry enterprise to support the existing agricultural enterprise operating from Bank House Farm. Therefore the principle of the development fits with the general ethos of CS5.

6.1.4 Policy CS6 requires development to be designed to a high quality incorporating sustainable design and construction principles. Proposals should protect and conserve the natural environment and be appropriate in scale and design. Natural resources such as geology, soil and water should be safeguarded and it should be ensured that there is capacity and availability of infrastructure to serve the new development. Careful consideration has been given to the inclusion of sustainable design principles and to the overall effect of the proposal on the wider environment and further details relating to this issue are set out in the report below.

6.1.5 CS13 aims to support rural enterprise and diversification of the rural economy especially in areas of economic activity associated with agriculture and farm diversification. The proposal is linked to an existing farming enterprise and subject to detail involves diversification of a nature generally accepted in rural locations.

6.16 CS17 relates to Environmental Networks. Development is expected to identify, protect and enhance the County’s environmental assets and seeks to ensure that the visual, ecological, geological, heritage or recreational values and functions of these assets, their immediate surroundings or connecting corridors are not adversely affected. In principle the proposed development is considered to present no significant harm to existing environmental assets in and around the site and this issue is expanded on later in the report.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013

6.1.7 CS18 deals with sustainable water management and aims to reduce flood risk and avoid adverse impacts on water quality and quantity within Shropshire, including groundwater resources. The proposed drainage arrangements, as set out in the report below, have been found to be acceptable in accordance with this policy.

6.2 Siting, Scale and Design of Structure 6.2.1 Internally, the sheds will have an open plan layout allowing the birds to move around freely on a sawdust covered, level concrete floor. Electronic controllers would monitor the environmental conditions in the shed and adjust the heating, ventilation and cooling equipment as necessary to keep temperatures constant. Feed and water will be controlled by an automatic system backed up by an on-site generator. The sheds would be fitted with alarm systems to notify the operator if there is a loss of power or if the internal temperatures get too high or low in relation to the desired temperature.

6.2.2 The bird cycle is normally 42 days with a 6 day turnaround period in which manure is removed from the sheds and transported off site to be utilised by the farming business, either spread directly onto land or stored in in-field heaps ready to be spread. The sheds are then washed and sterilised in preparation for the arrival of the next batch. There is an average of 7.6 batches per year. The chicks arrive at 1- 2 days old from a range of UK hatcheries and are reared on the site for a maximum of 42 days before being collected and exported to processing plants. Approximately 50% of the crop (cockerels) are thinned at day 35.

6.2.3 The sheds would not use perimeter lighting, with the only external lighting to be provided by a low intensity security light and to be used when necessary in the winter months for the health and safety of the stock person when tending to the birds and also on days 35 and 42 of the crop cycle when the birds are collected during night time hours.

6.2.4 The farming business currently operates with one full time employee and one part time seasonal member of staff. It is proposed that an additional full time member of staff will be employed to manage the poultry enterprise with up to 10 casual members of staff required during the period when the birds are introduced to the sheds.

6.2.5 The proposed broiler units will be of steel frame with timber lining construction with concrete block dwarf walling to 0.45m high. Painted box profile steel sheeting will be used to clad both gable ends and sides and the roof will be covered in the same steel sheeting at a 10° pitch. The units will be insulated with fibreglass insulation to walls and roof. The floor and external yard area will be constructed of concrete and access to the sheds for machinery and birds will be via two large painted box profile steel sheet doors, the colour of the sheeting to be agreed.

6.3 Traffic issues 6.3.1 Access to the proposed site will be through a set of existing double gates off the B4386. Improvements are proposed which involve the widening of the access to facilitate the type and size of traffic movements likely to be generated by the

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 proposed broiler units. The B4386 provides a direct route to the main A5 from which the majority of the site traffic will be coming and then onto the M54 and West Midlands motorway network.

6.3.2 Access to the site will be direct from the B4386 which links Shrewsbury to Montgomery. This road provides a high grade route to allow traffic to from local villages to connect to the Principal and Trunk Roads and the larger conurbations. It is likely this road carries a high number of daily traffic in the order of approximately 2000 – 3000 annual average daily traffic. As the area is rural and much of the land is farmed, it is fair to assume that a reasonable percentage of the traffic movements will be heavy goods vehicles. This is likely to be between 15 – 20%. Moreover given the nature of the surrounding area the traffic will be spread throughout the day and will likely see some night movements.

6.3.3 The site is approximately 550 metres from the main B4386. The initial section of the access to the site will be minimum 6.8m wide and will be constructed in tarmacadam. The access will be reduced in with after approximately 40m to 3.5m. Two passing places will be placed strategically along the access route, where the access track will be widened to approximately 6.5m.

6.3.4 A summary of the movements associated with each stage of the crop cycle are as follows:

Trafficsource Total movements Peak movements per crop per hour HGVs BeddingDelivery 2 2 Chick Delivery 4 1 Feed Delivery 24 2 Mortality Collection 6 2 FuelDeliveryLPG 2 2 Poultry Collection 26 2 Tractors & Manure Collection 20 2 Trailers

Small Vets, Engineers, 12 1 Vehicles company inspection, cleaning contractors, catchers

Employees 0 0

6.3.5 The peak periods are during poultry harvesting and manure removal and amount to between three and four days during the cycle. Peak Daily Event Typically it is estimated that there would be four days of peak activity:

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 1. Thinning of birds – 13 movements (one day) 2. Crop Clearance – 13 movements (one day) 3. Manure removal – 20 movements (two days) (N.B. 2 movements equates to one vehicle, one movement in, one movement out). Bird depopulation occurs on days 35 and days 42 of the crop cycle and manure removal takes place when all the birds have been removed. Bird collection is from 02:00 onwards at a rate of 1 collection per hour. It may on occasion begin earlier or later – this evidence derived from other poultry producers and processors, but this is unusual due to factory opening hours and bird welfare standards.

6.3.6 Associated vehicular activities are expected to be as follows (a vehicle movement is defined as a single vehicle trip e.g. a Chick Delivery which represents 4 HGV movements in reality means 2 HGV’s delivering to the site and then the same 2 vehicles leaving). The busiest times will be when the chicks are collected on days 35 and 42 of the cycle and this activity is likely to be undertaken during hours of darkness for welfare purposes. Hours of operation will be 24 hours seven days a week, however the majority of deliveries will take place between 0700 and 2000 hours Monday to Friday. Collections of birds can take place at any-time during a twenty four hour period but are highly likely to occur during the night due to factory opening times and bird welfare standards, bird collections will start at around 0200 hours. The farm will only be stocked for a maximum of 87.5% of the year but there will be movements of manure and inputs for the following crop when the sheds are empty.

6.3.7 The removal of manure on the site will occur during day 43 of the cycle and the tractor and trailer involved will be distributing the manure onto land farmed by the farming business within 5 kilometres of the site (see manure management plan presented in the appendices of the Environmental Impact Assessment). Manure was previously transported in from different farms within the area and therefore, travel distances on the local road network associated manoeuvre movements are not likely to alter as a result of home produced manure being utilised.

6.3.8 The Council’s Highways Officer has observed that the main/peak HGV movements generated by the operation would tend to be the delivery and removal of the birds and feed deliveries. Transportation of this nature would be over a short and intense period of time, but some of these movements would also occur during the night at quieter periods of time from a traffic point of view. Formerly the vehicle movements associated with the production of sugar beet on the farm would have been quite high during harvest time. Given these factors the Highways Officer has concluded that the additional HGV movements are unlikely to materially affect the adjoining highway network and that the proposal would not require any additional highway infrastructure improvements over and above the new access and access road leading to the site. Conditions have been imposed regarding the installation of the access point and the access road and a constriction management plan.

6.4 Disposal of Waste and Drainage 6.4.1 Manure from the sheds is removed on day 43 of the cycle with approximately 10 loads. All spreading will be conducted in accordance with the farm manure management plan and the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Farmers, Growers and Land Owners. It is expected that the poultry units will produce

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 approximately 1,140 tonnes of manure per year and therefore the farming business has adequate land for this to be utilised during the year and will be able to reduce the amount they import from other farms in the locality by over 50%.

6.4.2 Any foul water produced on the site from shed wash down will be collected via a gulley and a piped system to an underground dirty water tank located to the south of the development and then abstracted and disposed of on non-intensive pasture land owned by the farming business. This is considered to be acceptable by both SC Drainage Engineers and the Environment Agency and therefore adequately deals with the concerns raised by local residents.

6.4.3 Surface water run-off from the sheds will be collected and stored in stone trenches between the sheds and the water will then be piped in a sealed system along the front of the sheds and discharged into a soak away to the east of the site. Again this acceptable to both SC Drainage Engineers and the Environment Agency.

6.5 Noise 6.5.1 The sheds will be fully insulated to prevent noise from the birds and machinery being heard externally. Noise levels associated with the use are negligible and not expected to have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. A Noise Impact Assessment has been undertaken which has been assessed by both SC Public Protection Officers and the Environment Agency who have raised no objection.

6.6 Visual Impact and Landscaping 6.6.1 A site selection process involving officers from the Council’s planning team was carried out to ensure that a suitable site was identified at an early stage. The current proposal site was the preferred choice. This has helped to inform the proposed siting, layout and design of the scheme and guided the development of mitigation measures.

6.6.2 The landscape character and visual assessment states that the finish of the buildings would be a standard agricultural green, and the buildings would be constructed between 1.2 and 1.5m below ground level in order to reduce their overall scale. The removed material would then be used to form a bund around the site which would be planted with trees and shrubs. The existing hedge would be moved back by approx. 1.5m to provide the visibility spay onto the main road, allowing the visual appearance of the access into the site to remain largely unaltered than the current situation.

6.6.3 Officers consider the most suitable colour finish for the development to be dark brown walls and medium to light grey finish for the roof. This is considered to be the most appropriate neutral colour to fit in with the slightly elevated location of the buildings within a dip within the field landscape - the units being read partially against the backdrop of the field landscape and against the skyline beyond.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013

This picture shows the level of landscaping and bunding proposed around the poultry units. 6.6.4

Site section showing the height of the bunding and [proposed landscaping around the poultry sheds and feed silos.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The likely volume of additional HGV movements to be generated are unlikely to materially affect the adjoining highway network and the proposed access arrangements are deemed to be satisfactory. Sustainable principles have been incorporated within the design and the buildings are deemed to be low lying and sited so as to minimise their visual impact within the landscape. Landscape screening is to be provided by landscaping works. No likely significant effects on European Designated Sites have been identified and it is considered that there is no legal barrier under the Habitat Regulation Assessment process to prevent planning permission from being granted. Proposed arrangements for drainage and prevention of water pollution are considered to be sufficient. The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the adopted Core Strategy (CS5; CS6; CS13; CS17 & CS18) and is recommended for approval.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL

8.1 Risk Management

There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs  can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal, i.e. written representations, hearing or inquiry. The decision may be challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or  misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be made a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights

Article 8 gives the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities

The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in Planning Committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are likely financial implications if the decision and / or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependent on the scale and nature of the proposal. Local financial considerations are capable of being taken into account when determining this planning application – insofar as they are material to the application. The weight given to this issue is a matter for the decision maker.

10. Background

Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance:

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies:

Core Strategy and Saved Policies: CS5; CS6; CS13; CS17 & CS18

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

PREAPP/12/00181 Proposed erection of two poultry units each housing 43,000 birds, associated feed bins, formation of new access road and alterations and improvements to existing access together with associated landscaping PREAIP 20th September 2012

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Member

Cllr David Roberts

Appendices APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES

3. No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI). This written scheme shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.

Reason: The site is potentially in an area of archaeological importance.

4. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Management Plan/Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the Construction Management Plan/Method Statement shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall remain in force for the duration of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5. No built development shall commence until details of all external materials (including colour and hard surfacing), have been first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL DURING THE CONSTRUCTION/PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

6. Prior to first use of the approved buildings for the housing of chickens, the access, loading, unloading and turning areas shall be satisfactorily laid out and constructed in accordance with the highways plan submitted and details shown on plan Site Access

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee: 7th March 2013 Arrangements drawing no. YK-SP-100 received on 21.01.2013 and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the formation and construction of a satisfactory access in the interests of highway safety.

7. A total of 4 bat boxes including Schwegler 2F, 1FQ and 1FW bat boxes (or direct woodcrete equivalent) shall be erected on the site prior to first use of the building hereby permitted, in a location agreed with the local planning authority, and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of roosting opportunities for bats which are European Protected Species

Note: The bat boxes should be 4m of more above the ground and in a non-illuminated area as described in the manufacturer’s guidance or advice should be sought from an experienced ecologist.

8. A total of 5 artificial nests for small birds such as Schwegler 1FB bird box, 2H robin box, Schwegler bird houses or sparrow terraces (or direct woodcrete equivalents of the above) shall be erected on the site, in locations to be agreed with the local planning authority, prior to first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of nesting opportunities for wild birds

Informatives

1. If it is not possible to maintain public access along the footpath, while building works take place, the applicant should apply to the Outdoor Recreation Team for a temporary closure of the path. (Fees apply). If there is continued public access to the path while the development takes place, please ensure that the applicant adheres to the criteria stated below: While development is taking place vehicular movements (i.e. works vehicles and private vehicles) must be arranged to ensure the safety of the public on the right of way at all times. Building materials, debris, etc must not be stored or deposited on the right of way. There must be no reduction of the width of the right of way. The alignment of the right of way must not be altered.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665