To receive an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it * an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report, highlighting the application by way of presentation outlining the site location plan, the details of the development, the access route to the site and the proposed passing place, the site layout, attenuation ponds, proposed elevations and dimensions of the office buildings. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
The Officer set out potential reasons for refusal identified by Members at the meeting of Planning Committee at the meeting of 6th April 2016. Which were:
1. Cumulative impact of the number of operations in the area particularly in respect of traffic generation.
2. Insufficient, inconsistent and inaccurate information in order for the Local Planning Authority to adequately access the impact of the application.
3. Access and traffic – the unacceptable impact of traffic generation and on highway safety
4. Landscape and visual impact.
The officer informed the Committee that, in the opinion of officers, although not risk free, there were 2 reasons which could be promoted as reasons to refuse the application.
Referring to the questions posed in public question time:
· Reference was made within the report to vehicles passing down Back Lane and driving into the ditches was a reference to information passed on by local people and was not the reason for the bay to be included;
· Road calming measures to slow traffic – as part of the assessment the views of Devon County Council Highways (DCC) had been sought and in its view the network would be safe with the incorporation of the passing bay and they had not recommended any other road safety measures;
· With regard to how many road trips would be taken this was set out on page 27 of the report which stated 9 per cycle and 54 per year in respect to the removal of chicken waste;
· Due to timing of the report some information had been shared on the update sheet. This advice was with regard to the cumulative impact on the highway and the response from DCC did not uphold this.
· Enforceability of the route – a condition could be imposed to give control and if conditions were breached this would be enforceable;
· A waste management plan could be imposed as a condition if permission was granted;
· Page 29 of the report highlighted the appeal decision for Menchine Farm which could be used to support the reasons for refusal;
· The Head of Planning and Regeneration apologised that the information regarding the Menchine Farm appeal gave the impression that the appeal had be allowed which was not the case;
Consideration was given to:
· The location of the passing bays;
· Site visits and the volume of traffic witnessed;
· The size of farm vehicles;
· Locations that chicken waste was being transported from;
· The impact on the landscape of industrial style farming;
· The need for reasons for refusal to be robust;
· Increases in traffic on the road network could be due to any number of reasons;
· The impact on tourism and local business.
It was RESOLVED that the application be refused on the following grounds:
· Due to the scale and siting of the proposed poultry units and associated infrastructure, the development is considered by the Local Planning Authority to have a harmful effect on the rural landscape character and visual amenities of the area, and it has not been demonstrated that this harm could be satisfactorily mitigated. The application is considered to be contrary to policies COR2 and COR18 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy 2007 (Local Plan Part 1), DM2, and DM22 of the Local Plan 3 Development Management Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.
· In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, due to the number and size of vehicular movements associated with the application travelling on the local highway network, in particular within the hamlet of Nomansland and the surrounding narrow rural roads, is likely to cause significant impact upon residential and pedestrian amenity. The application is considered to be contrary to policies COR9 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy and policies DM2 and DM22 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes: i) Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, R L Stanley, B A Moore and S G Flaws all declared personal interests as they either knew the applicant and/or local residents;
ii) Cllr Mrs G Doe declared a personal interest as she had family members living in the area;
iii) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, J M Downes, P J Heal, Mrs B M Hull, D J Knowles, F W Letch, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
iv) A proposal to refuse the application on all five reasons for refusal was not supported.
v) The following late information was reported:
The following statements are an update to the Gibbett Moor Implications Report (12/04/2014), reason for refusal 5 ‘Cumulative Impacts’ Page 8.
Following a request from Mid Devon District Council, Devon County Councils Highways Officer has consulted with colleagues covering North Devon, Exmoor National Park and Torridge regarding the cumulative impact of this proposal. Following discussions with these officers, Devon County Council had informally advised the existing chicken sheds within the area are not considered to produce transport movements that exceed that of normal agricultural practices, such as keeping cattle with fields. A formal response was received on the 18/04/2016, which is shown at the bottom of this update. Devon County Council Highways conclude that it would be unreasonable to assess the cumulative impact of this scheme, more than has already been considered.
The planning office received a call on the 15/04/16 requesting consideration was made to a further chicken installation on Land adjacent to Fernley Farm as shown on the updated map Appendix 1. This site accommodates approximately 6000 chickens (per cycle). Chicken waste is removed from the site at the end of the cycle and spread on surrounding farmland. The site of this chicken installation is not on the proposed waste disposal route associated with Gibbett Moor Farm. It is considered by your officers that due to the small scale of the enterprise, it is unlikely to cause any cumulative impacts in relation to Gibbett Moor Farm.
Considering the above information, the recommendations set out within the implications report remain unchanged.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 18TH APRIL 2016 (By email)
I have spoken to colleagues in the north area and can confirm that we would not look at the cumulative impact of the chicken farms on the area. It was also felt that to do so would necessitate that all applications would need to be considered for the cumulative impacts in the area not just Chicken farms but other development too both commercial and residential. This would be a significant undertaking and possibly unreasonable Therefore my comments below stand.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 11TH APRIL 2016 (By email)
The only ones I am aware of personally are Gibbets moor, Menchine, Tollgate and Edgeworthy. (albeit it is not on the map) I do not know about Beech Farm and Hollyfield, perhaps you can let me know the history. The question with this one is how long has it been in operation as to whether it was part and parcel of the transport assessment considerations of Menchine etc. Tollgate is a redesign and a lesser number of units than consented and will not impact, Menchine will be serviced from the B3137, as will Edgeworthy. The other farms will need to be looked into as to whether or not they are connected to Menchine or the other AD plants, if they are not then the routes to their end user may be different and more over being separate applicants may not be reasonable for other developments to consider. For an example Little Rackenford, Higher Thorne Farm may use the link to A361 and not impact Nomansland, Horseford, and Stourton Barton and Stourton Lodge would be likely to use the B3137. The latter two would impact on Nomansland along the B3137 but not the wider network in the Templeton /Nomansland area. In which case the only consideration would be the cumulative impact of amenity on the B3137 and given the small number of movement chicken farms generate over the roads, general traffic generations may not be severe or significant. My initial thoughts are that from a highway movements perspective they would not be considered as cumulative, and unlikely to be a capacity issue and only amenity would be considered.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (NORTH DEVON AND EXMOOR NATIONAL PARK) 12TH APRIL 2016 (by email)
I recollect dealing with Higher Thorne, Rackenford (57838) and the subsequent discharge of conditions application (59081) which included a constriction management plan. It probably comes as no surprise to say I found the proposals acceptable as there is considered to be minimal traffic movements, contrary to local objector’s views. Both applications were approved by the Local Planning Authority and are on north Devon’s website.
Most of these applications I have dealt with in the past appear to be quite consistent with their operations and resultant vehicle movements which show no adverse movement and what we would typically expect for an agricultural type industrial process.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (TORRIDGE AND NORTH DEVON) 11TH APRIL 2016 (by email)
I’ve not dealt with any of these 4, but others closer to South Molton have very few traffic movements as you know – a few staff vehicles a day and large vehicles every few months. In general we deal with these using standing advice because they are so low generators and impact is no more that the agricultural use that the land would have if part of a farm.
Supporting documents: