Agenda item

(Under the scheme of public participation, Sarah Cleaver, Simon Cleaver, Michael Lecky-Thompson, Ann Brooks, Graham Parkinson, David Harris and Mr. Matthews addressed the Committee as objectors to the application. 

David Blades and Richard Woodford, on behalf of the applicants, reiterated their support for the application.)

Sarah Cleaver addressed the Committee and advised Members that she resided less than 400 metres from Carlow Wood.  This was the third time she had addressed the Committee.  The scale of the business, with in excess of 40,000 birds, meant that it was an industrial-style operation.  Moy Park had been granted an IPPC permit by the Environment Agency since the last planning application refusal, which had done little to protect residents, as there had been no improvement.  The foul odours, and fumes and noise from vehicular movement, continued to be as bad.  The cleaning process at the plant, using noisy power jets, was purgatory for residents, who were unable to enjoy their gardens.  The noise and odour problems had been reported numerous times to the Environment Agency, but no action had been taken to address them.  The factory was too large an operation to be sited near residential properties.  She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Simon Cleaver addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was sure they remembered the matter previously.  The large number of people present at the meeting indicated the strength of objection and lack of trust regarding the operation.  There could be a change of use from a breeder farm to broiler production, which would result in additional odour nuisance.  This was a retrospective application in regard to three new units, which had been built without planning permission.  The conditions imposed under the Section 106 Agreement had not been adhered to.  The new sheds had been built in the wrong footprint and were larger by some considerable amount and included an extended office at the front of the site.  It was unlikely that the units could have been built in the wrong place by mistake.  This was the company’s third attempt to keep quiet about operations.  He urged the Committee to be brave and refuse the application.

Michael Lecky-Thompson addressed the Committee and advised Members that Woodman Lane was designated unsuitable for heavy vehicles and was situated in an area of special landscape.  Weight restrictions were not being applied.  When HGVs were re-routed, residents were not notified.  Heavy vehicles using the roads were not local traffic.  A move to broiler production at the business would result in an increase in traffic, which would be intolerable to residents.  The transport statement applied standard carriageway formulas, which were not applicable to a road deemed unsuitable for HGVs.  The route management was ludicrous, considering the approaches to the premises.  HGVs using Woodman Lane were damaging the hedgerows and private property.  The application was flawed and he urged the Committee to reject it.

Ann Brooks addressed the Committee and informed Members that she was a resident of Overtown and had addressed the Committee twice before.  Prior to the expansion at the premises, she was not aware of any complaints being made.  At this time the business and residents had co-existed together.  However, problems had emanated from the last development, when the premises had expanded to factory proportions.  The local infrastructure could not support a factory of such a size and nature.  Some of the conditions imposed in 1991 were still to be implemented, and residents could consequently have no confidence in the company’s ability to honour conditions imposed.  If the application was granted, the democratic planning process would be undermined.

Graham Parkinson addressed the Committee and advised Members that he was Chairman of the Parish Council.  This was the third time he had been before the Committee.  This was a retrospective application in connection with unauthorised buildings, which had doubled the size of the premises.  At times lorries serving the premises blocked the village.  An officer from the City Council, who had attended the scene to witness the bulldozers on-site, had been escorted off and told not to come back.  As a result of the lorries serving the premises, hedges and walls were being scraped and crushed.  On one occasion, a lorry had become stuck in the narrow lane, preventing all movements.  Cars behind had to reverse in order for the lorry to be freed, and this operation had taken an hour.  People walking dogs were being inconvenienced and frightened.  Prior to Christmas, a local farmer had applied to build an agricultural building to house heffers and had been refused on the grounds that the area was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and could not be disfigured by agricultural buildings.

David Harris addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a resident of Burrow and had spoken at Committee in December 2005.  Reading from his letter, addressed to the City Council’s Planning Services, he referred to the unpleasant odours endured in the area, which was a favourite with walkers, and to the increase in traffic to the premises.  He referred to the traffic survey, which had been undertaken, and advised that no-one had consulted him in connection with this.  The road signs erected stated that the road was unsuitable for HGVs, and these had been damaged by traffic emanating from the premises.  The buildings, the subject of the application, had been erected without planning permission.  Increased production at the premises would lead to further health risks and fears.  The recent avian flu outbreak at the Bernard Matthews premises in Norfolk, a plant which was supposedly well-run, did little to alleviate local fears.  The chicken factory adversely affected local amenity.  Whilst walking in the vicinity, pushing his small child in a pram, it was necessary to pick the pram up and move it onto the verge in order to avoid the wagons, which were going past.  In light of the loss of amenity and perceived health risks, he urged refusal of the application, and hoped that he would not be before the Committee again in six months’ time.

Kate Bigland addressed the Committee and advised Members that she was a resident of Overtown and endorsed the facts previously reported.  She strongly objected to the happenings at Mayfield Chicks and to the illegally built buildings, one of which was 1,525 square metres in floor area and the other 1,440 square metres.  It appeared the Planning Authority were overlooking this fact when dealing with Mayfield Chicks, otherwise why would the Authority allow such a state of affairs to occur?  Residents had seen that the laws, which were present to protect the countryside and the people living in it, were being flouted.  Only the owner, who lived away from the area, benefited from the expansion.  She appealed to the Committee as the last bastion of what was decent and right to refuse the application and authorise that the chicken sheds be reduced to the size they should be, in order to give ratepayers confidence in the system.

Mr. Matthews addressed the Committee and informed Members that he lived in the house nearest to the development.  He was sorry to have to speak again on the topic of odours emanating from the premises.  The reports received were divergent to each other.  The processes undertaken were that bags of air were collected and sent for analysis by experts.  He could have no faith in the technology.  The collection was undertaken in the fields nearby and not in properties, on the grounds that it was a linear measurement and greater near the factory, which was untrue.  Whilst he thought Moy Park were good operators, if Moy Park departed, he was concerned what standards new owners would follow.  The larger the chicken sheds, the greater the smells and associated problems.  There was room on-site for more development.  He had no confidence that the potential hazards of avian flu were agreed and quantified, as yet. 

David Blades addressed the Committee and advised Members that he was from WSP Development and Transportation, Transport Consultants engaged by the applicant to look at traffic flows and highway impacts.  He advised that WSP had been asked to keep a log for a year of every vehicle in the vicinity.  He quoted, in detail, statistics and results from the survey, which showed that flows generated from the premises were a small proportion of the traffic using the highway, a maximum of 14-15 vehicles per day.  Only one personal injury had been recorded in the year involving a bicycle and a car.  He asked the Committee to consider whether, in the light of such a small flow of traffic generated by the premises, this was material to their consideration of the application.

Richard Woodford addressed the Committee, on behalf of the applicant, and informed Members that the Highway Impact details contained in the report to the Agenda were accurate.  The company was looking at what lay behind the objections to the operation and meeting with residents in order to understand their concerns.  From this, they had been given clear messages.  Firstly, some residents wanted to see development, some of them having changed their position, based on facts, and had withdrawn their objections.  He referred to Mr. Matthews, one of the objectors, who lived near to the premises and who had said that the operation was well-managed.  There had been a long period of complaints due to a lack of trust regarding the future operation.  However, the Environment Agency and the Local Authority were powerful organisations and had powers.  Egg production was the purpose of the business, rather than broilers.  He felt that there was meaningful development.  The company was in negotiations with a farmer to receive a 5-metre strip for planting and landscaping as a buffer zone.  He urged the Committee to treat the objections with caution, rather than as being correct.

It was proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Quinton:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 11 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Airey and seconded by Councillor Charles:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 11 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 8 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(1)        The Local Planning Authority are not satisfied, on the basis of the revised             information, that the problems with odour control and PM10s have been             overcome.

(2)        The adverse impact of the size and number of HGVs on narrow country lanes             and the associated traffic problems arising from the increased size of the             plant, including the effect on amenity of the surrounding area.