Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

17/00959/FUL Mr Mark Holt ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL & TEDDESLEY HAY Councillor L Bates Councillor I Ford

The Toft Farm Levedale Road Levedale Stafford South Staffordshire ST18 9LH

Erection of 4 No. agricultural buildings for turkey rearing, and associated infrastructure.

1.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site description

1.1.1 The site is in a rural location and there are fields, agricultural buildings and residential properties in the wider surrounding area.

1.1.2 To the west is the highway between The Toft and Little Heath known as Levedale Road, which provides access to Coppenhall further to the north and Levedale and then Penkridge to the South.

1.1.3 The site is the south west corner of an existing field, bounded by a hedge to the west, south and east and an open boundary the remainder of the field to the north.

1.1.4 There are residential properties located in converted and farmstead buildings at Toft Farm, approximately 250 metres to the north.

1.2 Relevant Planning History

None

1.3 Pre-application Discussion

Pre-application engagement has taken place.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The application proposes

-the erection of four poultry buildings, each measuring approximately 97.5 metres by 20 metres, with an eaves height of approximately 3 metres and a ridge height of 5.6 metres. The buildings would be connected by two 6m by 6m link control rooms and served by four feed bins. -2 feed blending rooms measuring 3m by 3m with an eaves height of approximately 2.4m and a ridge height of 2.8m; Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

-a gate house measuring 12.3m by 7m with an eaves height of 2.6m and ridge of 3.2m; -a dead bird store measuring 4m by 4m with an eaves height of 2.4m and a ridge of 2.9m; -a circular water tank measuring 6m diameter; -four bulk gas tanks; -a new highway access, hardstandings and turning areas; -an attenuation pond

The proposed poultry buildings would house a total of 20,000 birds with 5,000 in each building.

2.1.2 The buildings would be purpose built poultry units, with steel portal frames and block work, finished with polyester powder coated profile sheeting for the walls and roof in olive green. The poultry buildings would be fitted with high velocity ridge mounted ventilation fans and side inlet vents with internal gas heating systems, chain feeders and non-drip hippie feeders.

2.1.3 The application states there will be 3 flock cycles a year. The turkeys would be reared from 40 days old up to finished table weight. Each flock cycle would take 114 days, on an all in all out system. For around 100 days the turkeys would be reared at the proposed development site, then during the following 14 days the buildings would be cleaned out, left empty and prepared for the next batch.

2.2 Agents Submission

The following documents have been submitted as part of the application: - Design Access and Planning statement - Noise Impact Assessment - Odour Impact Assessment - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal- including updates - Specialist Appraisal and Reasonable Avoidance Measures - Calculation of Ammonia Impact using SCAIL - Ammonia Modelling Report - Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment -Transport Statement - A 15 minute video showing a lorry travelling the route from the A449 to the site

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1. The application site is within the Open Countryside and is within the 8km buffer zone for the Cannock Chase SAC and the impact risk zone for Mottey Meadows and Cannock Chase SAC, with both areas also designated nationally as SSSIs. The proposals are also within the impact risk zone for the Allimore Green SSSI. As a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations the Council should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have on the relevant European site interest. Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Core Strategy Development Plan Document, December 2012:

OC1 - Development in the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt EQ1 - Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets EQ2 - Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation EQ4 - Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ5 - Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiency EQ7 - Water Quality EQ9 - Protecting Residential Amenity EQ10 - Hazardous and Environmentally Sensitive Development EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations EQ12 - Landscaping EV8 - Agriculture EV12 - Parking Provision

3.1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012:

Para 28: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Para 32: Transport Statement and Assessment Para 56-68: Requiring Good Design Para 79-92: Protecting Green Belt Land Para 109-125: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillor Bates has called the application to Committee

Dunston & Coppenhall Parish Council -Replies received: 11th January 2018 and 6th November 2017

In view of the concerns expressed by residents the Parish Council held a public meeting on 29th November 2017 to discuss the above application. The meeting was attended by approximately 75 residents.

The concerns raised were as follows; 1; Transport access via School Lane from the A449. The road is narrow, has limited passing places and is frequently congested especially by St Leonards School and as such is considered unsuitable for frequent HGV movements. Proposed limited vehicle movements at school opening and closing times is not sufficient as the school often has functions during term time which generates extra traffic. If School Lane is congested any vehicles turning in from the A449 have difficulty in accessing the road and can block the A449 leading to potential hazards on a busy arterial highway. The traffic survey was conducted by the applicant's agent on a single unspecified day, which the meeting considered inadequate. The meeting considered that Highways should have conducted an independent survey covering several days and at different times of the day to obtain a complete picture of the usage of the roads.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

2; Storage of manure; possible issues about smell and insect infestation on neighbouring houses. Waste will need to be stored within closed buildings and monitored closely. 3; Runoff water drainage; will need careful managing to prevent flooding from in- creased water flow off hard standing and the additional buildings. 4; Bore Holes; neighbouring dwellings are not on mains water so rely on bore holes for their fresh water. The neighbours expressed concerns about contamination from liquid waste being discharged from the site.

Conclusion; Items 2/3/4 are covered by various DEFRA and Environment regulations which should be covered if the application is approved by conditions applied and enforced. Item 1 is the main problem and the Parish Council agree with the residents that the proposed routing of HGV vehicles servicing this enterprise should not be via School Lane from the A449. As emphasised at the meeting the road is narrow, has few reasonable passing places, is frequently congested by the school and heavier traffic movements could cause accidents especially to children. There are 2 bridges along this stretch of road, one over a small stream and the other over the railway line which will need assessing to confirm that they will be able to support the weight of additional heavy vehicles.

The Parish council also advised all those who attended the meeting to enter their comments onto the Planning Portal.

The above application was sent to Acton Trussell parish council in error, we fortunately learnt of it via our District Councillor Len Bates.

The application was discussed by the council who made the following comments; The council have no objections to the development in principle, but object strongly to the proposed access route via School Lane, Dunston. This would mean a large number of HGV vehicles servicing the turkey farm using a road which is narrow, has limited passing places and passes the village school and village hall. This road is often congested by parents at certain times of the day reducing carriageway width and the volume of HGV movements proposed would provide a significant danger to the children and other pedestrians. We propose that an alternative route from the A449 at Penkridge via Levedale Road to the farm would be safer and more acceptable to the residents of Dunston.

With reference to the above application, the parish council would like the following note of explanation added to our comments sent previously.

Please note that the comments originally made on 6th November 2017 were decided by the Parish Council at a scheduled Parish Council meeting on the 2 November 2017. The Council only heard about this application at this meeting when they were officially advised by the District Councillor. The notification from Planning had been sent in error to the wrong Parish Council. In view of this an Extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council has been arranged at 7.30 pm 29 November 2017 at Dunston Village Hall at which the residents will be able to put forward their views on this Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 application and in light of these the Parish Council will be able to amend or review their comments.

The Planning Department have now issued a notification to us which gives us until 1 December 2017 to submit comments.

Mr Jeremy Lefroy MP -Updated Reply received: 29th January 2018

Further to my letter of 31st December 2017, in which I forwarded matters raised by my constituents and raised concerns over the scale of the development, I have now visited the site of the proposed farm. I have also visited a site in East Shropshire, ac- companied by the applicant, where the buildings are of the same type and number as the proposed farm.

I wish to make the following observations additional to those in my earlier letter: Highways Given the narrowness of roads which access the site, and the location of the First School on the main access, if the application is permitted, there must be specified conditions over the timing of the movement of HGVs so as not to conflict with school traffic. I understand that the farm was until recently a dairy farm and serviced by HGVs collecting milk and delivering feed.

Environment From my visit to the site which is in use in East Shropshire, I made the following observations: a) The odour level was low and diminished the further away from the units one walked such that at 20- 30m it was hardly detectable. Of course, this was an observation at one particular time. b) The noise level was, at 10m from the units, a low humming from the ventilation system. There was a residential building approximately 100-120m from the units. c) As I visited the units during daylight hours, I was unable to judge the impact of lighting. All the fixtures I saw were angled downwards. d) As the topography and other characteristics of the site in East Shropshire were different from the proposed site in Dunston Heath, I cannot make any comment on flooding or drainage. e) The unit in East Shropshire was set in a hollow which resulted in less visual impact than I had anticipated. The proposed site in Dunston Heath is low lying compared with the surrounding land. One side is shielded by woodland. The nearest residential dwellings are c300m away and are the property of the applicant. f) The design of the units in East Shropshire was somewhat similar to other agricultural buildings - with lower eaves height than most barns but of greater length. The colour used (a dark green) seemed to me appropriate.

Having seen the operational unit in E Shropshire, my concerns, expressed in my letter of 31st December 2017, about the scale of the proposed unit were alleviated, provided that there is no possibility for it to be expanded beyond the size proposed in the application.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

I would respectfully suggest that site visits, if possible, to the existing unit as well as the proposed site would be of assistance to those making the decision as they could help in understanding the impact of a similar unit on the proposed site in Dunston Heath and whether it is appropriate or not.

Original Reply received: 16th January 2018

Several constituents have written to me objecting to the above application for the following reasons:

Highways The country lanes serving the unit are already used by large farm traffic There are HGVs from the Bradley dairy as well as tractors, HGVs and buses relating to soft fruit growers — which are some of the largest such growers in the UK.

These lanes are not designed to take the traffic which they currently bear, let alone increased volumes.

It is also proposed that the site would be accessed from School Lane, Dunston, where the children, staff and parents would First School, St Leonard's, would be affected by the increased heavy traffic.

These rural lanes are also used by cyclists, walkers and horse riders.

Environment a) Odours My constituents are concerned about harm to neighbours from the odours which may be emitted from the proposed development from the units themselves and the storage of manure in the open. b) Flooding/drainage-my constituents point out that the proposed area has a number of ponds and that the road itself is prone to flooding. There would need to be consideration given to the likelihood of pollution of groundwater and water bodies in the area. c) Noise and light pollution-my constituents have concerns about the level of noise from the turkeys being bred and from the ventilation. They are also concerned about the impact of the lighting which is required.

Visual impact The size of the proposed unit is out of keeping with the rural nature of the area. While the area already sees large numbers of polytunnels, these are temporary structures which require periodic planning permission. The proposed substantial unit is permanent.

Notification My constituents state that a number of affected or interested parties have not been officially informed of the Planning Application. It is vital that all those affected should

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 be able to respond. I would ask the Council to ensure that all those who are required to be informed have been contacted.

From the above, it is clear to me that the proposed scale of the development is inappropriate for the area of Dunston Heath and its infrastructure. I wish to encourage agricultural and rural development in my constituency but it needs to be appropriate to the surroundings.

County Councillor Mark Sutton - Update Reply received: 5th March 2018

Two major concerns about this development,

- that a development that requires HGV's and other large vehicles is being considered 2 miles from a A road, and

- that all traffic movements to and from have to pass a first school/nursery that has limited off road parking and like every other school in the country has issues at collection and drop off times.

I would like the opportunity to discuss the possibility of getting 106 money to reduce the impact of this development on the area, mainly around traffic.

Possible mitigation would be but not exclusively

1. Parking restrictions in School Road and the A449 junction. 2. Speed calming measures such as a 'give and take' system on the railway bridge and adjacent to the nearby houses. 3. Widening and improvement at the junctions of School lane/Long Lane, Long Lane/Levedale Road, Levedale Road/Whittamore Lane and Whittamore Lane/School Lane. This to include the construction of kerbs and verge protection and ensure drainage is sufficient. 4. Sections of Long Lane and Whittamore lane are only just wide enough for one vehicle and high hedges, HGV's and other road users will undoubtedly come into conflict, to try and alleviate this the building of kerbed, strongly constructed passing places long enough and wide enough to accommodate HGV's.

I also think that the conditions suggested by Highways around the school are not sufficient they don't take into account the nursery provision at the school so need to be extended. I think we should also consider conditions around no operation of the development between 2100 and 0700 and not on Sundays and weekends.

There should also be a condition that the developer produces a legally en-forceable memorandum of understanding on movement times, number of vehicles, size of vehicles, and all the other reassurances that the developer gives in their application.

This should also commit to independent on-going traffic monitoring funded by the applicant but commissioned by SSDC, with a condition that breaches would result in enforcement. Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Original Reply Received: 9th January 2018

These are my views and not the views of Staffordshire County Council. My objections are on the basis of the location of the development being so distant from main roads and the impact on the minor road network. The access to and from the development is 2 miles from the A449 and the plant's operations requires regular visits from heavy goods vehicles. From the A449 along School Lane past St Leonards School and Nursery. Traffic accessing the school already causes congestion. If the committee is minded to approve the application, the proposed conditions are essential but it is my view that the committee will need to be satisfied that the time restrictions are sufficient to resolve the safety issues. This should be ascertained at the applicant's expense by an independent onsite review. If the development is approved then ongoing assessments at the applicant's expense need to be put in place to ensure that the conditions are being consistently observed. The access route continues along School Lane over the railway bridge, a right-hand bend and passed a small housing development where there is limited vision and a number of the houses are close to the road. The return journey is along the same route in the opposite direction and this raises the likelihood that two HGV's will meet at a location where there will be considerable difficulty in passing. It is my view that the applicant should provide a traffic survey specifically aimed at a solution to this problem and if a suitable solution can be found then this should be subject of a 106 contribution to fund it. If a solution cannot be found then the development should not be allowed. The remainder of the route is along narrow roads, which would require suitable passing places being constructed to and junctions widened and kerbed, in order to prevent vehicles not being able to pass and damaging the verges particularly at junctions. This should be at the applicant's expense by way of 106 monies.

Environmental Health Protection - Reply received : 13th December 2017

Reviewed the documents submitted with this application, as with all poultry units there will be occasions that neighbouring properties will be able to smell the pro- posed turkey units, particularly when the units are being cleaned out. However, the applicant has submitted a compressive odour assessment with the application that demonstrated that the impact on neighbouring properties will be minimal and within the guidelines set by the Environment Agency. As a result, no objections to the pro- posed application.

Arboricultural Officer - Received : 1st February 2018

Detailed comments on species mix for the proposed landscaping and hedge details to reflect local hedge species.

County Ecology Officer -Updated Reply received : 25th June 2018

I have been commissioned by South Staffordshire Council to review further documentation for the above application in respect of potential effects on designated Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

European sites (Special Areas of Conservation / Special Protection Areas, also referred to as "Natura 2000 sites". Documents and plans reviewed: A Report on the Modelling of the Dispersion and Deposition of Ammonia from the Proposed Turkey Rearing Houses at Toft Farm, near Dunston Heath in Staffordshire (AS Modelling & Data Ltd, June 2018) Response from Natural England (13 June 2018) Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans The detailed modelling report identified three receptor sites: Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Mottey Meadows SAC and Allimore Green Common Site of Special Scientific Interest. The report concluded that detailed modelling demonstrates no likely significant effect on the three receptor sites. I am satisfied with the conclusion of this report. Natural England has been formally consulted and has responded. I note that NE concludes that scope exists for landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to be se- cured. This has already been met during the planning process.

HRA Screening Opinion This application must be considered under the Habitat Regulation Assessment pro- cess in order to satisfy the Local Authority duty to adhere to the Conservation of Species & Habitats Regulations 2010 (known as the Habitats Regulations). The modelling report concludes that the proposed development will not have significant adverse effects. This is satisfactory and is confirmed by the response of Natural England. No further action is necessary. The application will not have any likely significant effects on the integrity of any European or Nationally Designated sites.

Updated Reply received: 25th May 2018

Previous comments by my colleague on ecology are noted below with comments on current application documents.

Previous comment - A minor amendment to the landscape proposals would bring them into accordance with the ecological appraisal recommendations Updated Comment - Landscape proposals now amended accordingly. No further ac- tion needed.

Previous Comment - the possible effect of development on neighbouring Biodiversity Alert Site Updated Comment - This is now addressed in the Addendum to Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (April 2018). No further action required.

Previous Comment - Management of SUDS should take account of Great Crested Newts Updated Comment - The Amended Surface Water Management Plan now specifically references GCN. No further action needed.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Previous Comment - For Habitats Regulations Assessment screening a consultation with Natural England is recommended regarding the assessment of impacts of ammonium on Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest Updated Comment - Covered by separate comments /documents.

Updated Reply Received: 20th December 2017

1. Introduction

Amended plans and an amended ecology report have now been received.

1.2 Documents and plans reviewed: o Preliminary Ecological Appraisal November 2017 o Amended Landscape Proposals drawing IPA21272-11C Rev C o Amended Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan Nov 2017 o Soft Landscape Specification Rev A 23/11/17

1.3 I have not visited the site but have viewed aerial photographs and application photographs.

2.0 Policy and Legislative context in relation to this application

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework s.109 states: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment ….by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. s.118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principle: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

2.2 In accordance with this, the South Staffordshire adopted Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme.

2.3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); along with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, provide the main legislative framework for protection of species. In addition to planning policy requirements, the LPA needs to be assured that this legislation will not be contravened due to planning consent. In addition to these provisions, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 41 refers to a list of habitats and species of principal importance to which this duty applies.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

2.4 Natural England Standing Advice which has the same status as a statutory planning response states that survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of obtaining planning permission.

3.0 Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans 3.1 The amended ecological appraisal dated November 2017 includes assessment of hedgerow loss and advice on mitigation. This recommends that the replacement hedgerow planting is comprised of ash, pedunculate oak, hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel, elder, holly and dog rose. Ash cannot be planted due to movement restrictions associated with Chalara disease. The Amended Landscape Proposals drawing IPA21272-11C Rev C specifies field maple, hazel, hawthorn, elder and guelder rose. It is recommended that this be amended to match Amended Preliminary Ecological Appraisal recommendations with the exception of ash. It would be desirable for oak to be specified for planting and management to become hedgerow trees. Otherwise amendments to the Landscape Proposals drawing are appropriate.

3.2 Amendments made to the Soft Landscape Specification are appropriate for great crested newt protection. Rev A can be approved.

3.3 Amendments to the Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan now indicate a pond with permanent water. It is recommended that a condition be applied attenuation basin/pond design to be in accordance with section 7b and Fig- ure 12 of the amended Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan November 2017. Maintenance should take account of great crested newts. It is rec- ommended that a condition be applied requiring a SuDS maintenance plan that takes account of great crested newts.

3.4 In accordance with comments made on Nov 17th a condition is recommended requiring submission of a tree and hedgerow protection plan for all retained hedge- rows and trees on site boundaries to apply to the site preparation and construction period or, alternatively, this could be covered by a condition requiring development to take place in accordance with s.7.1 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report.

3.5 In accordance with comments made on Nov 17th a condition is recommended requiring development to take place in accordance with section 7.1 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report. 3.6 In accordance with comments made on Nov 17th a standard condition for pro- tection of breeding birds is recommended to include all vegetation removal as ground nesting birds may use field margins or crop areas or alternatively this could be covered by a condition requiring development to take place in accordance s.7.1

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report.

3.7 In accordance with comments made on Nov 17th a condition or planning agreement is recommended requiring that four bird nesting boxes of mixed designs, including at least one kestrel box, and four bat roosting boxes of mixed designs should be erected on suitable trees within the curtilage of the farm holding, supervised by an ecologist, within six months of consent.

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Issues raised in my comments of Nov 17th 2017 have been addressed.

4.2 A minor amendment to the landscape proposals would bring them into accord- ance with the ecological appraisal recommendations.

4.3 The amended SuDS proposals are in accordance with measures for benefit of great crested newts. It is recommended that a condition be applied requiring a SuDS maintenance plan that takes account of great crested newts.

4.4 In order to ensure protection of European protected species a condition is required requiring development to take place in accordance with section 7.1 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report. This will also provide protection of adjacent hedgerows and habitats and of breeding birds.

4.5 A condition or planning agreement is recommended requiring installation of bird and bat boxes in accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Assessment recommendations. 4.6 Should external lighting be proposed a condition is recommended requiring a lighting plan to be submitted for approval.

4.7 For Habitats Regulations Assessment screening a consultation with Natural England is recommended regarding the assessment of impacts of ammonium on Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Original Reply Received : 17th November 2017 4.0 Recommendations 4.1 Assessment of the impact of the access road on the roadside hedgerow is required and mitigation needs to be included in the scheme. Revised landscape plans are required that include the mitigation proposed which should involve either hedgerow translocation or compensatory planting with appropriate native species. Some other amendments are recommended to improve biodiversity value.

4.2 The conflict between the Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan and the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report regarding the attenuation pond/basin need to be resolved prior to consent. If the attenuation feature will not meet the great crested newt report

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 specifications consideration is required of other measures to enhance great crested newt habitat should be considered and landscape planting may need to be re- designed.

4.3 In order to ensure protection of European protected species a condition is required requiring development to take place in accordance with section 7.1 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report. This will also provide protection of adjacent hedgerows and habitats and of breeding birds.

4.4 A condition or planning agreement is recommended requiring installation of bird and bat boxes in accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Assessment recommendations.

4.5 Should external lighting be proposed a condition is recommended requiring a lighting plan to be submitted for approval.

4.6 For Habitats Regulations Assessment screening a consultation with Natural Eng- land is recommended regarding the assessment of impacts of ammonium on Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management Team - Updated Reply Received: 14th February 2018

(Based on additional information)

This clarifies that the attenuation will discharge to an existing ditch that would form the natural flow route for runoff for this area, so that would be acceptable.

Commenting on the surface water system only. Any manure / effluent storage would be a separate system, but we would not comment on a manure management plan.

Original Reply Received: 19th December 2017

I have no additional comments based on the amended surface water management plan. However the revised document still does not appear to identify a suitable point of discharge from the attenuation basin.

As per my previous comments, the basin needs a formal discharge to an existing ditch.

County Planning -Reply Received: 30th October 2017

The County Council as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority has no comments on this application as the site is:

Not within or near to any permitted waste management facility; and

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Exempt from the requirements of Policy 3 - Mineral Safeguarding in the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire 2015 - 2030.

County Highways -Updated Reply Received: 30th January 2018

There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-

1. The development shall not commence until the access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been completed. 2. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway. 3. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive rear of the public highway has been surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound and porous material for a minimum distance of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary. 4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive, parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. 5. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the visibility splays shown on drawing No. IP/HF/02 have been provided. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600 mm above the adjacent carriageway level. 6. No HGV's associated with the proposed development shall arrive or depart between the hours of 07:30 - 09:00 and 15:00 - 16:30 Monday to Friday during school term. 7. All HGV's associated with the proposed development shall access and egress the site via the route indicated on the submitted Transport Statement from the Hurlestone Partnership dated December 2017.

Reasons.

In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Staffordshire County Council requirement for vehicular access crossings. In the interest of highway safety. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative for Decision Notice.

The construction of the new vehicular access will require a Minor Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council and the applicant is therefore requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in respect of securing the Agreement. The link below provides a further link to a Minor Works Information Pack and an application Form for the Minor Works Agreement. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application Form which is Staffordshire County Council, Network Management Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tipping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH. (or email to [email protected]) http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/licences/ Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Note to Planning Officer. This Form X is issued on the basis of the information provided within the submitted Transport Statement.

Original Reply Received: 14th November 2017

There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-

1. The development shall not commence until the access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been completed. 2. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway. 3. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive rear of the public highway has been surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound and porous material for a minimum distance of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary. 4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive, parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. 5. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the visibility splays shown on drawing No.IP/HF/02 have been provided. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600 mm above the adjacent carriageway level. 6. No HGV's associated with the proposed development shall arrive or depart be- tween the hours of 08:00 -09:15 and 15:00 - 16:00 Monday to Friday during school term. 7. All HGV's associated with the proposed development shall access and egress the site via the route indicated on the submitted Transport Statement from the Hurlestone Partnership dated October 2017. 1. In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Staffordshire County Council requirement for vehicular access crossings. 2 - 7. In the interest of highway safety. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative for Decision Notice. The construction of the new vehicular access will require a Minor Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council and the applicant is therefore requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in respect of securing the Agreement. The link below provides a further link to a Minor Works Information Pack and an application Form for the Minor Works Agreement. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application Form which is Staffordshire County Council, Network Management Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tip-ping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH. (or email to [email protected]) http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/licences/ Note to Planning Officer.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

This Form X is issued on the basis of the information provided within the submitted Transport Statement.

Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Reply Received: 2nd November 2017

Entrance I recommend that the entrance to the turkey farm road has a staffed gatehouse and barrier or gate to prevent unauthorised access, reference should be made to DHF Technical specification TS 0011:2016, Code of Practice for the design, manufacturer, installation and maintenance of powered gates and traffic barriers.

Lighting The site lighting layout should be carefully designed to cover all areas and not create shadows, it is important that the lighting plan works in conjunction with any CCTV system installed. High-pressure sodium (SON) units or LED's should be used where possible, as low-pressure units (SOX) emit poor quality light and consequentlpoor colour definition that in turn makes it difficult to see intruders. Unit illumination The buildings should have all elevations and recesses illuminated with a series of vandal resistant, high pressure sodium lamps, operated by photoelectric sensors, mounted at the highest inaccessible point. Climbing aids Waste disposal should be sited away from buildings as they can be a target for arson, wheeled bins should be fastened to a ground anchor to prevent them being pushed against a wall to facilitate climbing access or the spread of fire. Unit walls Composite panels and profiled metal cladding are vulnerable to forced entry. The first 2m height of all walls, internally or externally, should be brickwork or materials of similar strength. All grilles should use security screws or bolts. Windows The minimum Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Police security standard for ground floor windows and those easily accessible above ground floor, is that the window shall be successfully tested and Certificated (BSI Kite mark or similar) to; LPS 1175: Issue 6, Security Rating 2 or higher STS 202 Burglary Rating 2 or higher (Note 62.3.1) (Note 62.3.1; STS 202 is the equivalent standard to LPS 1175 and is published by Warrington Certification Laboratories) Windows must also be fit for purpose and must be certificated to the relevant material standard i.e.: BS 6510:2010 (Steel) BS 7412:2007 (PVCu) BS 644:2012 (Timber) BS 8529:2010 (Composite) BS 4873:2009 (Aluminium) Perimeter doors The minimum Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Police security standard for perimeter doors is that they should comply with PAS 24;2012, STS 202 BR2, LPS 2081SRB or LPS 1175 SR2, the opening leaf of perimeter double doors must be fitted Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 top and bottom with key operated rack mortise bolts and the meeting styles should be rebated.

Doors should be secured with the relevant lock type: BS 3621: 2011 thief resistant mortise lock. BS 8621:2011 thief resistant mortise lock with keyless egress BS 10621:2011 as above but with keyless external deadlock BS EN 1303:2005 Minimum standard for cylinder locks LPS 1242 Issue 1.2 2005 Cylinder lock requirements DHFTS 621:2011 Electro-mechanical lock. Emergency Doors Door-sets designated as 'emergency' or 'panic' exits must be fitted with the hard- ware appropriate to the specific use: BS EN 179: 2008 Emergency exit devices BS EN 1125: 2008 Panic exit devices Perimeter emergency/escape doors should be steel with a steel frame compliant with EN179 (Emergency exit) or EN125 (Emergency escape) without visible ironmongery, a pair of hinge bolts should be installed along the hinge closure with an anti-jemmy strip installed along the closing face. Fire doors may be locked when the premises are not in use. Interior doors Interior office doors should be 44mm solid core and fitted with a BS3621 5/7 lever mortise deadlock. W.C Facilities Consider installing stainless steel sanitary ware in toilets. All service pipes and fittings should be fully enclosed to prevent vandalism. Anti-vandal light fittings should be fitted, together with non-return screws and hidden fixings. The use of an anti-graffiti coating will aid the removal any drawing or lettering. Alarm system A perimeter intruder alarm system should be installed in each building compliant with BS EN 50131-1:1997 Grade 3, and BS 8418. The management of the system should be to ISO 9001:2000. A unique reference number for the installation will be required for a Police response. CCTV System A full operational requirement should be written to identify vulnerable areas prior to installing a detector activated, recording CCTV system. The following link provides access to H.M. Government's Surveillance Camera Commissioner's Passport To Compliance, following the passport to compliance will help organisations meet the 12 guiding principles in the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and, whilst not a guarantee, other relevant legislation such as the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act.

More at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/surveillance-camera-commissioner-launches- a-passport-for-compliance Further information on accredited security products can be found at www.securedbydesign.com

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Badger Conservation Group - Reply Received: 30th October 2017

Thank you providing us with the ecological survey for this application. We are happy with the findings and recommendations and have no further comments to make.

Campaign To Protect Rural England Staffordshire Reply Received: 23rd November 2017

Comments We regret the proposal for the turkey sheds but also recognise that the current planning system is not the appropriate vehicle for the reform of agriculture.

We acknowledge that work has been done to mitigate the adverse impact of the proposal on the general environment (Design and Access Statement)

We consider that these sheds and associated development units will be an alien feature which will do nothing to enhance the countryside.

There will be little economic benefit to local people with very limited new employment opportunities - two people.

The road infrastructure does not lend itself to an increase in heavy lorries along nearby country lanes.

The proposed development in no way enhances the countryside vitality or character and brings no evident community benefits.

Environment Agency -Reply Received: 16th November 2017

The proposal is below the permitting threshold of 40,000 places and would not re- quire a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development but recommends that the following advice is attached to any planning permission that may be issued:

- The site is within an Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ( NVZ) and is subject to the storage and spreading requirements of these Regulations. Manures and bedding/manure mixtures must be stored and spread appropriately and in accordance with the NVZ Regulations.

- Any wash waters created must also be collected and disposed of appropriately and must not be allowed to contaminate surface or groundwaters.

Natural England -Updated Reply Received: 14th June 2018

SUMMARY OF ADVICE

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

NO OBJECTION - Record of Habitats Regulations Assessment to be drawn up by Council.

Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on designated sites and has no objection. We advise the Council to draw up a Habitats Regulations Assessment ( HRA) to record its reasoning for the conclusion that this development will not have a significant effect on European Sites. Scope exists for landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to be secured (if approved).

Natural England's advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.

European sites - 'Cannock Chase' and 'Mottey Meadows' Special Area of Conservation

Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have likely significant effects on the Cannock Chase and Mottey Meadows Special Area of Conservation and has no objection to the proposed development.

To meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, we advise you to record your decision that a likely significant effect can be ruled out. The following may provide a suitable justification for that decision:

Cannock Chase SAC and Mottey Meadows SAC both lie within 10 km of the application site. The submitted detailed modelling report assesses the impacts of ammonia emissions on designated sites (European Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest). The modelling shows that in terms of current thresholds for the assessment of aerial emissions the proposal will not have significant effects on the Cannock Chase and Mottey Meadows SACs.

In order to acknowledge the elevated levels of nitrogen deposition impacting these European Sites we set out advice below regarding potential landscaping and biodiversity enhancements that should be included in the final scheme if approved, consistent with the Council's biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act.

Allimore Green Common, Cannock Chase and Mottey Meadows Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which these sites have been notified and has no objection.

Original Reply Received: 17th November 2017

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 27 October 2017 Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Internationally and nationally designated sites The application site is within or in close proximity to a number of Internationally designated sites (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect their interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the 'Habitats Regulations'). The application site is within the impact risk zones of Mottey Meadows and Cannock Chase Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which are European sites and also notified at a national level as Mottey Meadows and Cannock Chase Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The development proposal also triggers the impact risk zone for Allimore Green Common SSSI.

In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have1. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) required The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, it is Natural England's advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site. Your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the

Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. Natural England advises that the environmental pathways to be considered in your HRA are largely through air and water. We note that an ammonia assessment and a manure management plan have been submitted in support of the application and you may wish to use these to inform your HRA.

Please note that we are not seeking further information on other aspects of the natural environment, although we may make comments on other issues in our final response.

Staffordshire Wildlife Trust - Updated Reply received : 14th June 2018 I hope that the County Ecologist will be able to assist further.

Original Reply Received : 29th January 2018

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

SUMMARY Staffordshire Wildlife Trust submits a holding objection to the proposals, due to insufficient information and details on surface water management, habitat and species impacts, and habitat creation. We advise the following are sought:

Information: A. Manure Management Plan updated to show surface water flooding areas and manure storage sites marked on the risk maps. B. Clarification as to whether cumulative impacts have been considered regarding ammonia deposition on designated sites. C. Assessment of the western hedgerow ('Hedgerow 3') against the Staffordshire LWS criteria for hedgerows, and confirmation of potential impacts from the access road. D. Re-assessment of GCN impacts in light of missing information.

Changes: E. Amended and additional landscaping details for hedgerow, woodland, pond and grassland creation. F. Flood channels, raised access track and culvert to be shown on plans. Relocate SuDS basin and dead bird store from areas of surface flood risk. Secured through conditions should permission be given in future - G. Mitigation measures as laid out in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and GCN Appraisal. Add barn owl box if appropriate location available. H. Ecological Management Plan to include measures to protect, replace, enhance, manage and monitor important habitats and species.

Staffordshire Wildlife Trust would like to be kept informed of progress with this application, and receive details of the final permission/ refusal. The Trust would be pleased to assist in formulating any conditions or biodiversity advice on site.

Severn Trent Water - Reply Received: 7th November 2017

As the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.

Network Rail - Reply Received: 27th November 2017

Network Rail has reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicant and this proposal will not impact the railway infrastructure.

76 letters of objection have been received in response to local consultation together with a petition contains the names and addresses of 6,699 names and addresses.

Letters of objection referred to the following:

- Visual and landscape impact and industrialisation of the countryside. - Pollution infestation from flies and disease from the birds. - Light pollution. - Noise pollution from traffic and operation of the site. Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

- Odours impacting upon local amenity. - Air Pollutants causing health issues for local people and staff. - Traffic and highway dangers and suitability of access route with single lane roads and a school, nursery, village hall and wood yard all of which have known parking issues at various times of the day, multiple users with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, lack of suitable passing places. -The level of usage on the Levedale Road is unprecedented. There may be a reduction in the volume of traffic generated by Dunston Dairy Farm. However, that reduction is more than offset by the significant increase in traffic generated by other farms and local road users. -Increased heavy traffic as a result of the proposals. -Further highways information should be provided such as survey of road conditions and tracking plans as a video does not provide sufficient evidence of the impact. -The South Staffordshire Draft District Integrated Transport Strategy clearly references problems that again are not picked up in the submitted highways report. -highways and applicant appear to accept that the impact will be severe at certain times of the day when the school is in operation. -highways team have suggested restricted times, but these times are completely arbitrary and if a survey had been completed would demonstrate their inaccuracy with throughout the school year numerous times that the school would be used for various activities that would result in School Lane being heavily used. The proposed restrictions do not appear to take into account any use of the nursery or village hall or church. -the restrictions cannot be enforced unless done so by the public as the council do not have resources. -development is replacing the Dairy Farm operation as well as providing replacement jobs. This existing dairy farm site is not being used at the moment and would make a more sensible choice as location for the proposed industrial units as it already has sheds in place as well as great transport links. -If granting permission, support for the HGV route shown on Figure 1 of the Traffic Management Plan dated December 2017 and that appropriate conditions and/legal agreement should be in place. -All HGV traffic should be prevented by condition from accessing the minor country lane between Little Heath and Levedale/ Willow Farm -Animal Welfare - immense suffering of animals from intensive farming with birds denied opportunity to do anything that comes naturally to them, such as foraging, roosting, or moving freely. -large number of the public are vehemently against this type of farming. Accept this is not a planning issue but it is a local public opinion that should be considered, the feeling is reflected in the comments on the petition. -no benefits to the local community and no-one has come out to support the application, but there are many reasons why this application should be rejected. -adverse impact on wildlife and biodiversity -adverse effects on leisure and recreation with the degradation of landscape character and increased traffic levels. -dangerous precedent for the granting of industrial developments in the local and wider area

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

-manure would be produced and transported off the immediate site for field storage and spreading with risk of leak/run off and contaminated surrounding land, waterways, and wildlife habitats. -As a 24 hour operation potential for significant disturbance during the night, particularly from traffic. -brown field sites could be utilised to make concrete based sheds to house these birds. -the small bridge over Pothooks Brook in School Lane is not strong enough to take any more heavy vehicles. The bridge is already cracked and in state of repair. As well as the railway bridge also being a blind spot and hazard for large vehicles to drive over. -possibility of residential boreholes may become contaminated. -several areas on the route are prone to flooding and this will be made worse when the foundations of the buildings are in place and the surface run-off has even less ground into which to sink. -there will be very few jobs created for this project and so the area will not benefit economically. -Existing road and land flooding and ability of the proposed drainage not to make this worse. Possible to condition for drainage system to be improved or an additional safeguard to the attenuation pond. -Erosion of highway verges and impact on drainage -Development is on green belt land and this proposal is contrary to green belt policy -Development next to large pond frequented by birds and wildlife, the proximity would market it higher risk of transferring diseases, such as avian influenza. -Odour produced and lorry loads of waste which will pass the school will have an impact on children's enjoyment of the school grounds. Child safety and odour issues raise strong objections.

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Bates

- Principle of Development - Highway and Access - Welfare/Legislation - Biodiversity - Landscape and Visual - Design and Layout - Neighbouring Amenity - Drainage - Representations

5.2 Principle of development

5.2.1 The site is within the Open Countryside where development is restricted, however certain types of development can be considered to be acceptable, provided they do not have an adverse impact on the character of the open countryside. This

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 application proposes the erection of 4 no. turkey rearing buildings and associated infrastructure which would house a total of 20,000 birds with 5,000 in each building.

5.2.2 The development of buildings in connection with agriculture is considered to be an acceptable form of development within the Open Countryside.

5.2.3 For clarification Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines agriculture as;

'"agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly'

5.2.4 Additionally, the NPPF supports economic growth in rural areas and promotes the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. This is reflected within Core Strategy policy EV8 which supports proposals for agricultural development and recognises their importance as part of the rural economy. This policy further states that applications for large scale poultry units will have to be subject to the Habitats Regulations Assessment to ensure no significant effects on internationally important wildlife sites occur.

5.2.5 The principle of development is acceptable in accordance with Policy OC1 of the adopted Core Strategy subject to further detail consideration of other planning issues which is set out below.

5.3 Highway and Access

5.3.1 The proposed application would bring with it several vehicle movements, such are required to bring food, collect turkeys and generally support the proposed turkey business. These vehicles would take an agreed access and egress route (illustrated in Figure 1 of the submitted Transport Management Plan) to and from the site, operating on a one-way basis through contractual arrangements with its suppliers/hauliers. A 15 minute video showing a lorry travelling the route from the A449 to the site was submitted with the application.

5.3.2 The route would comprise of a round trip of about 4.6miles from/to the A449 at Dunston, of which the 0.9miles of the journey nearest the A449 would be used by site traffic travelling in both directions. The proposed haul route to serve the site would lead from the A449 via School Lane at Dunston, heading west past St. Leonards First School and crossing over the railway line on a bridge incorporating a slight right-left double bend. School Lane then passes several properties as it continues in a generally westerly direction before heading southwest to Dunston Heath, towards its junction with Long Lane on the right hand side, which is approximately 1.5 km (0.9 miles) from the A449. Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.3.3 The proposed haul route then has right turn and heads in a generally northwest direction along Long Lane for approximately 1.7 km (1.06 miles) to a priority T junction. At the T junction, vehicles travelling to the site would turn left and head southwest, passing the existing access to Toft Farm en-route to the site approximately 172.5m to the south of the Toft Farm access way.

5.3.4 Leaving the site HGVs would turn left and continue south before reaching a crossroads where vehicles heading back towards the A449 would turn left to head southeast for approximately 1.3 km along Whittamoor Lane. After approximately 1.3km, vehicles would then turn left again, back into School Lane and continue back towards the A449 in the reverse direction. At the end of each flock cycle the turkeys would be taken to a plant at Scropton in Derbyshire.

5.3.5 It is noted that the planned transport route would involve application related vehicles passing a school. To ensure peak school drop off and collection times are not interrupted, the applicant has agreed to some suggested travel restrictions. These restrictions will be imposed as a condition on any consent and will prevent HGV movements to/from the site between 07:30 - 09:15 and 15:00 - 16:30 Monday to Friday during school term. Such suppliers/hauliers will be made aware of the restrictions imposed in terms of routes to be used and the restrictions during certain times of the day.

5.3.6 On a day to day basis, during the normal operation of the unit, traffic generation would be limited to a feed delivery every 3 days (2 movements on any day) and a dead bird collection every week (2 movements on any day). There would also be staff trips plus occasional visits by Inspectors etc. The site manager would be resident at Toft Farm which is within walking distance of the site.

5.3.7 However, outside of general day to day movements, each flock cycle (of which there are 3 per year) would generate a total of 96 vehicles (192 movements). These movements would occur over a short number of days, 3 separate times a year (with a break of around 114 days).

5.3.8 Flock cycle peak vehicle movements would be over a short number of days, these being:

Chick delivery - 4 lorries (8 movements) in a single day Bird removal - 25 lorries (50 movements) over a 4 day period, giving 7 lorries (14 movements) per day. During manure removal - 30 loads (60 movements) using tractors and trailers over a 2 day period at the end of each flock, giving 15 loads (30 movements per day).

5.3.9 Over a year, 3 flock cycles would therefore comprise of 288 vehicles (576 movements).

5.3.10 Below is a more detailed vehicle description in terms of numbers and size.

HGVs Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Shavings Delivery 2 x 16.5m articulated lorries (4 movements) Gas delivery 2 x tanker (4 movements) Chick Delivery 4 x 16.5 articulated lorries (8 movements) Feed Delivery 32 x 16.5m articulated lorries (64 movements) Bird Removal 25 x 16.5m articulated lorries (50 movements)

Other Commercial Traffic Dead Bird removal 1 x box van per week (2 movements) Manure Removal 30 x tractor and trailers (60 movements)

5.3.11 In addition there will be a 'catchers' minibus on each day of bird removal and a washing gang minibus for 2 days for washing of the site after the manure has been removed.

5.3.12 Concerns have been raised by members of the public regarding the condition of existing roads, lack of passing places, traffic, capacity of the highway network and that the roads are and would be dangerous. In reference to these concerns the County Highways Officer has been consulted and has raised no objections subject to appropriate planning conditions. In light of County highways having no objection further letters of concern were received together with an independent highways assessment.

5.3.13 The site was visited by another highways officer and the assessment reviewed and no further comments made. The highways officer has considered the proposed development and confirmed no objections subject to conditions. Whilst local consultation comments have sought the need for additional passing places, additional signage and general improvements, no condition to reflect such has been recommended.

5.3.14 Notwithstanding this, the applicant has volunteered to construct a number of passing places along the transport route proposed. Whilst the applicant has volunteered to provide such, no details of exact locations have been provided. However, these additional facilities or improvements are not deemed necessary by the highway authority, and although a gesture of good will from the applicant, I consider it be unreasonable to impose a condition requesting further details or for such passing places to be constructed prior to development or use of the application site. Should the applicant seek to construct additional passing places along the route in the future this can be done via a separate application with County Highways.

5.3.15 Having carefully considered the highway implications of the proposals, as well as the significant local concern that has been expressed through submitted representations, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a development that would have a severe residual cumulative effect on the transport network and the development can be provided with safe access subject to the imposition of appropriate and reasonable planning conditions. The proposals would therefore accord with paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

5.4 Welfare/Legislation Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.4.1 For clarification this application is for a floor rearing system and not a battery cage system. A floor rearing system is where the birds are free to roam around the inside of the building. This system conforms to all UK Welfare Standards. Battery cage systems were banned in the United Kingdom in 2012.

5.4.2 Additionally, there are no slaughtering plans on this site. Slaughtering is required to take place within a licensed facility and is a matter separate to this application.

5.4.3 Although various concerns have been expressed in representations regarding the ethics and animal welfare implications of the proposals, these are dealt with under other legislation and are not an issue that cause any planning concerns in the determination of this planning application.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.5.1 Policies EQ4 and EQ12 state that the local distinctiveness of the landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced; and that the landscaping of new development must be an integral part of the overall design. This point is also emphasised within the NPPF, which states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.

5.5.2 Policy EQ1 states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to the ecological value of sites, together with species that are protected or under threat. The NPPF seeks to minimise the impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible.

5.5.3 Natural England have said that the application site is within the impact risk zones of Mottey Meadows and Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation, which are European sites and also notified at a national level and Mottey Meadows and Cannock Chase Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The development proposal also triggers the impact risk zone for Allimore Green Common SSSI.

5.5.4 In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises the LPA, under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, to have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. The LPA are therefore required to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site and to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. They too advise that the environmental pathways to be considered in the HRA are largely through air and water. They note that an ammonia assessment and a manure management plan has been submitted in support of the application and that the LPA may wish to use these to inform our HRA.

5.5.5 Therefore in accordance with the above the LPA have sought additional comments from the County Ecologist and from Natural England as the statutory consultee. The submitted ammonia modelling report concluded that detailed modelling demonstrates no likely significant effect on the three receptor sites. The County Ecologist is satisfied with the conclusion of this report. Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.5.6 Natural England has been formally consulted and has also responded and concludes that scope exists for landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to be secured. This has already been met during the submitted amendments through the planning application process.

5.5.7 The application has been considered under the Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) process to satisfy the duty to adhere to the Conservation of Species & Habitats Regulations 2010 (known as the Habitats Regulations). The submitted modelling report concludes that the proposed development will not have significant adverse effects. This is satisfactory and is confirmed by the response of both the County Ecologist and Natural England. No further action is therefore necessary with regard to the HRA. The application will not have any likely significant effects on the integrity of any European or Nationally Designated sites.

5.5.8 An Ecology Report was originally submitted as part of the application that was presented to the County Ecologist. The Ecologist reviewed the report and sought amendments relating to hedgerow loss, soft landscaping and flood risk and surface water management. An amended ecological appraisal has been submitted and found to be acceptable subject to a number of conditions around landscaping and Great Crested Newts avoidance measures, bird and bat boxes and a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening consultation with Natural England, regarding the assessment of impacts of ammonium on Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

5.5.9 In regards to the final comment made this has been addressed in the comments above.

5.5.10 The updated ecological information has also taken account of the implications of the proposals for the Biological Alert Site (BAS) immediately to the south of the application area. The County Ecologist has confirmed that the updated information does not raise any concerns with regard to this site in terms of ecology and biodiversity impacts.

5.5.11 It is considered that the proposal would not detrimentally impact upon the ecology of the site or upon protected species and sites more widely subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any permission. The proposed development therefore complies with Policy EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

5.6 Landscape and visual impacts

5.6.1 The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that confirms the landscape national and local designation for the landscape character of the site.

5.6.2 The application buildings will be set in a corner of an existing arable field and will be surrounded by existing hedge and tree planting borders to the west south and

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 east. The site generally slopes away from the adjacent highway boundary from west to east.

5.6.3 Whilst there will be some visibility of the proposals, particularly from the highway to the west and from the lane providing access to Toft Farm, the building will generally sit down in the landscape and result in the development not having a significant impact in the local landscape. There are some detailed planting, species mix issues raised by the submitted landscape proposals and picked out by relevant technical consultees. These can be addressed through the imposition of an appropriate landscaping condition.

5.6.4 Agricultural buildings are a common feature in these types of landscapes and some visibility of agricultural developments in the countryside is not unusual. Therefore views of the proposed development would not be considered significantly harmful to the landscape character or visual amenity in this rural setting. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ12 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

5.7 Design and layout

5.7.1 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy and section 7 of the NPPF seek to ensure that all new developments are of the highest quality design and they should take account of local character and distinctiveness, and make a positive contribution.

5.7.2 The design of the proposed buildings are of standard appearance and are designed more so with functionality in mind. Although the size and scale of the proposed agricultural buildings would be significant, they would be in keeping with the rural character of the area and not be out of place amongst its agricultural and rural setting.

5.7.3 The buildings would be finished with polyester coated steel sheeting in olive green and a materials condition will be imposed to ensure all buildings match this specification to minimise impacts on visual amenity by securing an appropriate design. An external lighting condition will also be imposed to ensure any future lighting proposals are controlled to minimise impacts on visual amenity. It is therefore considered that the development would accord with the provisions of a policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5.8 Neighbouring amenity

5.8.1 Policy EQ9 seeks to protect the amenity of nearby residents and Policy EQ10 states that the public will be protected from activities likely to be detrimental to public health.

5.8.2 The nearest residential properties to the site are within the control of the applicant at Toft Farm. These are approximately 250-300 metres from the proposed Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 buildings. The nearest residential receptors outside the control of the applicant are at The Toft and at Little Heath at approximately 375 to 450 metres from the application site.

5.8.3 Environmental Heath have reviewed the documents submitted with this application, and state that as with all poultry units there will be occasions that neighbouring properties will be able to smell the proposed turkey units, particularly when the units are being cleaned out. However, the applicant has submitted a comprehensive odour assessment with the application that demonstrates through modelling that the impact on neighbouring properties will generally be minimal and within the guidelines set by the Environment Agency. The odour assessment report does show that the odour levels at location 1, which is in close proximity to several barn conversion dwelling at Toft Farm, will be 4.58 OUE/m3, which indicates the odour at this level will usually be recognisable in terms of the Environment Agency guidelines and could have a detrimental effect on the amenity of these properties and lead to nuisance complaints. It is therefore considered that additional abatement should be considered on the units to assist in the reduction in the odour predicted at location 1. The applicant has requested that once operational, odour levels can be monitored to determine whether any odour issues arise and that this is a small scale development in poultry terms and odour issues are not foreseen. The cost of filter systems is a significant sum and a monitoring condition would mean the investment is only made if necessary. The applicant has also confirmed that they manage 9 rental properties at the Toft Farm and that they would not have embarked on this project if it was going to create noise / smell issues at the Toft Farm. The site would be monitored by the applicant who proposes to base their office there.

5.8.4 Following discussions with Environmental Health, it is proposed to add a condition, requiring the submission and approval of details of an odour filtration system, which would have to be installed if odours are produced by the facility which constitute a statutory nuisance.

5.8.5 Although local representations refer to noise from ventilation fans and traffic and operations at the site, Environmental Health Officers have reviewed the submitted documents and have no concerns with regard to the suggested noise impact resulting from the development.

5.8.6 Concerns have been raised in local representations regarding vermin and flies. The proposed units will be operated on an enclosed system and there is no external storage of feed or manure proposed at the site. This can be confirmed by condition. Therefore flies and vermin are unlikely to result from the proposals.

5.8.7 Dust has also been raised as a potential problem but relevant research from DEFRA shows that dust particle residue is normally at background levels at distances greater than 100 metres from the poultry building and that the only area where dust levels can be considered hazardous is within the building itself.

5.8.8 There have been concerns raised regarding the deposition of manure on local land and the presence of local private water boreholes. The development is within a Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) and the deposition location and the quantity of manure will be subject to NVZ regulations. It is not considered that the presence of local boreholes will create a planning issue for the proposed development given other regulatory regimes that are in place. Manure management and drainage plans will be secured through the imposition of conditions to control the on-site operations.

5.8.9 No objections have been received from either the Environment Agency or Environmental Health with regard to the proposal. Therefore it is considered that the proposed scheme complies with Policies EQ9 and EQ10 of the Core Strategy and that should there be any environmental nuisance resulting from the proposals in the future this can be adequately controlled by other legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

5.9 Drainage

5.9.1 Policy EQ7 seeks to protect the local environment through the appropriate consideration of drainage proposals.

5.9.2 The information submitted with the application has been revised and the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and the County Flood Team raised no objections to the proposals.

5.9.3 There have been several comments in local representations with regard to flooding of adjacent land and roads. The submitted application documents also highlight that there are surface water flows that will need to be managed, particularly to the north of the proposed application site. Appropriate channelling and retention of surface water flows are anticipated through the development of SUDs features. Given this local context, it is appropriate to ensure the detail of a drainage scheme is brought forward before the development is commenced. This can be addressed by the imposition of an appropriate planning condition.

5.9.4 Having taken all representations and application submissions into account, it is considered that the development will not have any significant impacts on drainage in the area and accords with Policy EQ7 if the adopted Core Strategy.

5.10 Representations

5.10 The issues raised by representation have been covered in the paragraphs above.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The proposal facility would constitute an agricultural use which is considered to be an appropriate form of development within the Open Countryside. Access and parking arrangements are acceptable and there are no concerns arising in respect of neighbour amenity or adverse impacts upon the natural environment subject to appropriate conditions being imposed on any permission.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

6.2 Furthermore the proposed buildings would be of an appropriate design for the agricultural and rural setting of the application site.

6.3 The proposal would make a modest contribution to the rural economy of the District and will create employment in the form of 2 new full time jobs on the site. The proposal will not result in any significant detrimental impact on the setting of the wider landscape or on biodiversity. There would be no severe residual cumulative highway concerns and there would be no detrimental significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residents or the wider area in general subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

6.4 I therefore consider the proposal to be in compliance with the relevant policies of the Core Strategy and approval is recommended subject to conditions as it complies with policies OC1, EQ1, EQ2, EQ4, EQ5, EQ7, EQ9, EQ10, EQ11, EQ12, EV8 and EV12 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun before the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: Location Plan IP/HF/01 Site Layout Plan IP/HF/02 Proposed Elevations IP/HF/03 Turkey Unit Floor Plans IP/HF/04 Gate House Elevations IP/HF/05 Gas Tank and Water Tank Elevations and Plans IP/HF/06 Sections IP/HF/08 Dead Bird Store IP/HF/09 Landscape Proposals IPA21272-11C

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until: a) the access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been completed. b) the access drive rear of the public highway has been surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound and porous material for a minimum distance of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary. c) the access drive, parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. d) any gates have been located a minimum of 15.0m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway and be retained at or beyond that minimum distance for the lifetime of the development.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

e) the visibility splays shown on drawing No. IP/HF/02 have been provided. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600 mm above the adjacent carriageway level.

4. No HGV's associated with the proposed development shall arrive or depart between the hours of 07:30 - 09:00 and 15:00 - 16:30 Monday to Friday during school term times.

5. All HGV's associated with the proposed development shall access and egress the site via the route indicated on the submitted Transport Statement from the Hurlestone Partnership dated December 2017.

6. Before the development commences the existing trees, shrubs and hedges on the site shall be protected by fencing constructed in accordance with BS5837:2012 in positions to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority which shall be retained through the development of the site in the approved positions.

7. No development shall take place until an odour and waste management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to through the operation of the any of the poultry farm buildings permitted under this permission.

8. No development shall take place until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water proposals shall include amongst other things a maintenance plan for the SUDs feature(s). The approved plans shall thereafter be implemented in full and retained for the lifetime of the development.

9. Within 6 months of the date of this permission a lighting scheme and landscape management plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved scheme and plan shall thereafter be implemented and adhered to in accordance with the approved details.

10. Any tree, shrubs and ground vegetation to be removed should be cleared and any herbicide applied for vegetation control outside of the bird nesting season or be preceded by a survey by an ecologist to confirm no active nests are present. If nesting birds are found works will need to stop within the area and a buffer zone established until the young have fledged.

11. There shall be no external or outside storage of feed on the application site.

12. Notwithstanding the submitted landscape proposals, before the proposal is brought into use, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscaping scheme shall be completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the scheme has been Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

completed. The planting, hard landscaping and any other introduced features shown on the approved plan(s) shall be retained and maintained for a minimum period of 10 years by the property owner from the notified completion date of the scheme. Any plant failures that occur during the first 5 years of the notified completion date of the scheme shall be replaced with the same species within the next available planting season (after failure).

13. The development shall be carried in accordance with section 7.1 Reasonable Avoidance Measures of the Great Crested Newt Appraisal & Mitigation Strategy & Enhancement Measures report dated June 2017 . This will also provide protection of adjacent hedgerows and habitats and of breeding birds.

14. Prior to first use of the development hereby permitted, bird and bat boxes shall be installed in accordance with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment recommendations and details that have been submitted to the local planning authority for prior approval.

15. Before the proposal is brought into use, details of an odour filtration system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If odours are subsequently produced by the facility, which the Local Authority consider are a statutory nuisance, the odour filtration system shall be installed within 3 months of the date the Local Authority advises the operator that a statutory nuisance has occurred.

Reasons

1. To define the permission

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt

3. In the interest of highway safety.

4. In the interest of highway safety and to comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework

5. In the interest of highway safety and to comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework

6. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy

7. To ensure that the use of the premises does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.

8. To avoid pollution of the water environment and take account of biodiversity in accordance with policies EQ1 and EQ7 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

9. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy

10. In order to protect nesting birds on the site in accordance with policy EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

11. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy

12. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy

13. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

14. To safeguard the biodiversity of the local area in accordance with Policy EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

15. To ensure that the use of the premises does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Proactive Statement

In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Informatives for Decision Notice.

The construction of the new vehicular access will require a Minor Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council and the applicant is therefore requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in respect of securing the Agreement. The link below provides a further link to a Minor Works Information Pack and an application Form for the Minor Works Agreement. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application Form which is Staffordshire County Council, Network Management Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tipping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH

(or email to [email protected]) http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/licences/ Note to Planning Officer. This Form X is issued on the basis of the information provided within the submitted Transport Statement.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

- The site is within an Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ( NVZ) and is subject to the storage and spreading requirements of these Regulations. Manures and bedding/manure mixtures must be stored and spread appropriately and in accordance with the NVZ Regulations.

- Any wash waters created must also be collected and disposed of appropriately and must not be allowed to contaminate surface or groundwaters.

Jeff Upton: Planning Consultant - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

17/00959/FUL - The Toft Farm Levedale Road Levedale Stafford South Staffordshire ST18 9LH