Agenda item

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the attached Schedules of Planning Applications submitted by the Assistant Director.

 

The Committee considered schedules of applications for planning permission submitted by the Assistant Director for Planning and Environment (copies of the schedules were published with the agenda). Any changes to the schedules will be recorded in the minutes.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be determined, as set out at (i) – (vi) below, where appropriate, to the conditions and reasons or grounds of refusal, set out in the schedules signed by the Chair.

 

(i)              22/00860/FM

Feltwell / Methwold:  Feltwell Farm, Lodge Road:  Demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings in connection with pig finishing provision and other associated works:  Wayland Farms Ltd

 

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

 

Please note that both items were considered together but the vote was taken separately.

 

The Senior Planner introduced the report and explained that the application sought planning consent for the demolition of 22 existing buildings and construction of 14 modern pig rearing units to house 14,000 pigs on a straw based system at Feltwell Farm.

 

The total site area was approximately 12.9ha.  The site was located to the south of the village of Methwold, and north of the village of Feltwell, in the open countryside.  The site currently consisted of a series of redundant agricultural sheds, within a wider setting of agricultural land interspersed with tree belts.  To the east of the site was Warren Energy an operational Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant at Methwold Farm, to the south were residential dwellings.

 

The site was part of a larger intensive pig farming facility (known as Methwold Farm Pig Unit) which was spread over three sites.  The application site included a number of buildings which currently housed pigs.  However, due to the limitations with some of the buildings, only approximately 4,500 pigs were housed at Feltwell farm (the application site) and another 3,000 at Airfield Farm outside of the site boundary to the west.

 

Access to the site would be via the B1112, heading north on to Warren Road and then turning west onto a private road which would then lead to the site.  On leaving the site, vehicles would leave via a new upgraded private road which ran to the south of the existing tree belt, and then going on to an existing private road which ran north to south.  The private road would then exit onto the B1112 (west of Warren Road).

 

Alongside the application, the applicant had submitted an application for ‘Demolition of existing poultry sheds, construction of 20 new poultry sheds, 4 workers dwellings and associated infrastructure ref: 22/00866/FM.  The application was for land to the east of the application site.  The two sites would operate in conjunction utilising the same access routes.  They were within the ownership of the one owner / operator.

 

The applications had been submitted alongside each other to enable a collective assessment of the two schemes.  A joint Environmental Statement had been submitted for the two applications.  Likewise, much of the supporting documentation considered the impacts of the two applications as one larger proposal.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

The Senior Planner advised that the application was recommended for refusal and the reasons for this was outlined on page 110. It was important to note however that at the time of publishing the report in relation to the reasons for refusal, there was a period of transition from the previous version of the Local Plan to the newly adopted Local Plan.  With regards to the reasons for refusal, reference should be made to the new Local Plan policies and not the previous ones.

 

In relation to late representations, many of the late representations were made jointly to both applications.  The late representations included some corrections.

 

(ii)            22/00866/FM

Feltwell / Methwold:  Airfield / Methwold Farm, Brandon Road:  Demolition of existing poultry sheds, construction of 20 new poultry sheds, 4 workers dwellings and associated infrastructure:  Crown Chickens Limited

 

The Senior Planner introduced the report and sought planning consent for the redevelopment of an existing agricultural site; the demolition of existing agricultural site; the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of 20 new poultry sheds, four workers dwellings and associated infrastructure at Methwold Farm.

 

The total site area was approximately 25.6ha.  The site was located to the south of the village of Methwold, and north of the village of Feltwell, in the open countryside.  The site currently consisted of a series of redundant agricultural sheds, within a wider setting of agricultural land interspersed with tree belts.  To the northwest of the site was Warren Energy, an operational Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant at Methwold Farm, and beyond this the existing intensive pig installation facility.

 

Access to the site would be via the B1112, heading north on to Warren Road and then turning west onto a private road which would then lead to the site.  On leaving the site, vehicles would leave via a new upgraded private road which ran to the south of the existing tree belt, and then going on to an existing private road which ran north to south.  The private road would then exit onto the B1112 (west of Warren Road).

 

The twenty poultry units proposed would provide a poultry production unit with the capacity to house approximately 714,000 chickens in total.

 

The application includes the construction of four three-bedroom workers dwellinghouses which were proposed to the west of the poultry sheds.  These would accommodate the manager and assistant manager for each poultry cluster.

 

Alongside the application, the applicant had submitted an application for ‘Demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings in connection with pig finishing provision and other associated works ref: 22/00860/FM.  The application was for land to the west of the application site.  The two sites would operate in conjunction utilising the same access routes.  They were within the ownership of the one owner / operator.

 

The applications had been submitted alongside each other to enable a collective assessment of the two schemes.  A joint Environmental Statement had been submitted for the two applications.  Likewise, much of the supporting documentation considered the impacts of the two applications as one larger proposal.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

The Senior Planner advised that the application was recommended for refusal and the reasons for this was outlined on page 110. It was important to note however that at the time of publishing the report in relation to the reasons for refusal, there was a period of transition from the previous version of the Local Plan to the newly adopted Local Plan.  With regards to the reasons for refusal, reference should be made to the new Local Plan policies and not the previous ones.

 

In relation to late representations, many of the late representations were made jointly to both applications.  The late representations included some corrections. There had been 5 pieces of additional late correspondence which had missed the deadline for late correspondence (one of which had been received that morning) but did not raise any new issues.  They raised issues which had been covered within the report or were speeches from people speaking at the meeting.

 

Site visit for both applications

 

The Senior Planner explained that the Committee had visited the site the day before, in relation to both applications and outlined the route that had been taken on the site visit.

 

The Committee had asked the following questions:

 

·       Were all the dwellings on the site in the ownership of Cranswick?  It was advised that they were all in Cranswick’s ownership apart from two.

·       What animals were currently on the site.  There were currently 4,500 pigs at Feltwell Farm and 3,000 at Airfield Farm.

·       When were the animals last on the poultry site?  It was approximately 2018.

·       Who owned Warren Road?  It was a County maintained road, so members of the public had access along that road.

·       What was the height of the proposed pig units?  The proposed pig units were 6.1 m up to 6.4 m.  The existing buildings at the highest point were 5.5 m to 5.6 m ridge height

 

Public Speakers for both applications

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, the following speakers addressed the Committee in relation to the applications:

 

 

Application Number	Name	Representing	Supporting / objecting
22/00860/FM	Helen Hamilton (5 minutes)	Environmental Law Foundation	Objecting
22/00860/FM	Jake White (5 minutes)	WWF	Objecting
22/00866/FM	Michael Bull (5 minutes)	Cranswick Objection Group	Objecting
22/00866/FM	Bruce Bamber (5 minutes)	Cranswick Plc Processing Plant Objection Group	Objecting
22/00860/FM 22/00866/FM	Martin French (10 minutes)	Methwold Parish Council	Objecting
22/00860/FM 22/00866/FM	Barry Lock (10 minutes)	Cranswick Plc	Supporting
22/00866/FM	Dr Jason Aldiss (5 minutes)	Association of Independent Meat Suppliers	Supporting
22/00860/FM	Nick Allen (5 minutes)	British Meat Processors Association	Supporting
22/00860/FM 22/00866/FM	Councillor Ryves (10 minutes)	Ward Member	Objecting
22/00860/FM 22/00866/FM	Terry Jermy MP (10 minutes)	Member of Parliament	Objecting

 

The Committee then adjourned for a comfort break at 11.15 am and reconvened at 11.30 am

 

Responses to comments from the public speakers

 

The Senior Planner then responded to comments raised by the public speakers:

 

·       She displayed an image showing the proximity of the site to the European Protected Sites. 

 

·       The Environment Agency had been contacted for an update on the Environmental Permit and how that process was proceeding with the applicant.  They had issued a Schedule 5 Notice which required further information to be provided in relation to ammonia modelling, the deadline for which was 14 April.  Following receipt of that response, they would continue with their assessment. 

 

·       The Environment Agency had also confirmed that in relation to Water Abstraction, that was a separate permit and licence application, and this would not form part of the Environmental Permit and that it was still under consideration.

 

Committee debate

 

Jon Hanner (Norfolk County Council) advised that Councillor Storey had asked about the extent of the highway boundary of Warren Road.  He advised that 10 m was the minimum and the grass verge was highway land so improvements proposed could be made to the highway.  He also provided further information in relation to the transport assessments and the B1112.

 

 

The Council’s Barrister Alex Shattock advised that the legal opinions submitted by the applicant and objectors had been examined carefully, but his advice was that it would be unlawful for the Council to grant planning permission as there was a significant risk of a successful Judicial Review.  The applicant had not provided the information needed for the Council to reach a lawful decision.  He added that it was important to emphasise that there were two legal regimes in play, the EIA Regulations which stated that you could not legally grant permission until you had all the environmental information needed and also the Habitats regulations which was separate and stronger than the EIA Regulations and stated that by law you could not grant permission unless you were convinced that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of a protected site.  Officers, Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist were not convinced based on the information they had received so they had all recommended refusal of the application on that basis.

 

The Chair then opened up the meeting for debate. 

 

The Chair asked for clarification in relation to:

 

·       The need to reduce meat importation and food security;

·       Water extraction and the effect it would have on local residents; and

·       The ammonia and nitrogen levels in the SSSI areas were already exceeded.

 

The Council’s Consultant Peter Danks (Reading Agriculture) advised that in relation to food security, food for livestock was a global market and the applicant had just given an assurance that the sourcing of food took into account deforestation.  However, the food for livestock could come from anywhere and in terms of self-sufficiency in the UK for the production of protein for livestock there was a need for imports.  In relation to water abstraction, he explained that the water supply to local residents was through the public water supply via mains connection.  The abstraction of water to companies had been licensed and was now permitted through a process that protected local abstractions.  It was confirmed that local residents should be assured that their water supply would not be affected.

 

In relation to water extraction, the Planning Control Manager advised that the Environment Agency had not raised this as an issue, as set out on page 106 of the agenda.

 

The Council’s Ecologist added in relation to ammonia and nitrogen levels, any development that added to those levels should be refused.  The Council’s Ecologist confirmed that the critical level was already exceeded at most of the habitat’s sites under consideration.  Any development that added to further exceedance was unacceptable under the Habitats Regulations.

 

The Senior Planner explained that in relation to water abstraction, the applicant had an existing licence which expired in 2027, so they would have to apply for a new licence.

 

Councillor Storey expressed disappointment that there was missing information with the application.

 

The Assistant Director advised that the application had been in for some 3 years.  If the Committee approved the application given the legal advice, then it would put the Council at risk of a Judicial Review.

 

The Council’s Barrister advised that with regard to protected habitats, if the Committee was convinced that there would be no impact then it could grant permission, but it would need to formulate reasons as a Committee and the officers advice was that the evidence was not there.   He understood that it was difficult advice to receive but it was his job to advise the Committee independently of the legal risks, and if there was a successful Judicial Review then costs would be incurred as part of that.

 

Councillor Nash stated that following the advice from the Council’s Barrister, he considered that the Committee should go to the vote or defer the application.

 

The Assistant Director added that the problem with deferral was that it was not known when or indeed the issues could be resolved.

 

Councillor Nash added that he felt that the issues could be resolved as some sort of quantifiable figure.  It had been stated that the carbon emission of vehicles to and from the site could be measured, and the same could be applied to the European Protection Site.

 

Councillor de Winton added that he was disappointed, and that the Committee could not make a decision without all the relevant information. 

 

Councillor Nash proposed that the application should be deferred, which was seconded by Councillor de Winton.

 

Councillor Storey asked that if the Committee was minded to defer the application, how long would it be deferred for?

 

The Assistant Director advised that a timescale could not be identified, as the application had been in for 3 years already.

 

Councillor Mrs Spikings acknowledged all the hard work which had gone into getting the application to the Committee.  Having heard the legal advice, the Committee had to get it right and she did not want the Council to be subject to costs.  That was why the Council employed a Barrister in this instance to give advice to the Committee.  She added that there was still subject matter within the agenda that she felt could still ask the question.  It might still lead to refusal, but you had to ask the question rather than bring it half-finished here and we still did not have all the information.  She added that the country did not produce enough meat.  She stated that she would still be listening to the rest of the debate.

 

Councillor Everett stated that he was against deferring the application and asked why the application was before the Committee if the Barrister had advised that if the application was approved, then the Council would be at risk of a judicial review.

 

The Council’s Barrister explained that if the application was refused there was a good chance that the decision would be appealed.  However, if it were to be granted, then there was a high risk of a Judicial Review being successful.

 

In response to comments made by Councillor Storey, the Senior Planner advised that all information was available on-line.  If there were technical queries on the application, then officers were available to comment.  A lot of comments had been sent in by email, so it was difficult to tell whether the objections received were local or not. 

 

Councillor Bubb stated that in fairness to Cranswick, did the Ecologist think that the missing information could be provided within four seasons, or would it need longer than that? Were the figures different for the winter / summer months?

 

The Senior Planner advised that the issue for deferring the application was that it was not known how long it would take for the applicants to be able to supply the relevant information.

 

The Council’s Ecologist explained that Natural England had been consulted on several variations of this application on the information that had been provided.  The applicant had been asked to provide mitigation to take the ammonia levels below the screening thresholds.  Details of that mitigation had been received, which was the ammonia scrubbers, so it was assumed that the applicant had already submitted the best mitigation they could.  The numbers which had come through were still above the screening threshold, so unless there was more mitigation that they could offer, which was assumed they would have already provided, she could not see that the ammonia levels were going to be able to go below that threshold at the numbers that were proposed.   She added that though there were still questions over the fallback position, the applicants were reliant on betterment, arguing that the proposed development was better than the fallback position despite the exceedance of critical levels. She stated that betterment was not an accepted argument under the Habitats Regulations where the proposal would still have an adverse impact on habitats sites.

 

Councillor Devulapalli outlined her objections to the application which included the proximity to the SSSI and loss to biodiversity; the habitat loss would be irreversible, Avian flu and other diseases, carbon footprint of the project, there were no advantages of the proposal to the local economy and there was overwhelming objection to this proposal.

 

Decisions on the applications

 

Application 22/00860/FM

 

The Democratic Services Officer carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer application for 6 months 22/00860/FM and, after having been put to the vote was lost (4 votes for, 5 votes against).

 

The amended reasons for refusal were:

 

1. The application site lies within close proximity to a number of European protected sites. The information submitted by the Applicant fails to demonstrate that the development proposed would not result in significant adverse effects on the protected sites. As such the proposal is contrary to Local Plan policies LP19 and LP27, and the NPPF paragraphs 193-195.

 

2. The Council is required to consider the significant effects of the project on the environment, including the impact of the development on climate change. Insufficient environmental information has been submitted to enable the Council to reach a view and as such the application is contrary to Local Plan policies LP06 and LP18, and the NPPF.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse application 22/00860/FM subject to the amendments removing reference to previous Local Plan policies CS08 and CS12, and after having been put to the vote was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: That in relation to application 22/00860/FM be refused as recommended subject to the amendments removing reference to previous Local Plan policies CS08 and CS12,

 

Application 22/00866/FM

 

The Democratic Services Officer carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer application 22/00866/FM for 6 months and, after having been put to the vote was lost (3 votes for, 6 votes against).

 

The amended reasons for refusal were:

 

1. The application site lies within close proximity to a number of European protected sites. The information submitted by the Applicant fails to demonstrate that the development proposed would not result in significant adverse effects on the protected sites. As such the proposal is contrary to Local Plan policies LP19 and LP27, and the NPPF paragraphs 193-195.

 

2. The Council is required to consider the significant effects of the project on the environment, including the impact of the development on climate change. Insufficient environmental information has been submitted to enable the Council to reach a view and as such the application is contrary to Local Plan policies LP06 and LP18, and the NPPF.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse application 22/00866/FM subject to the amendments removing reference to previous Local Plan policies CS08 and CS12 and, after having been put to the vote, was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: That in relation to application 22/00866/FM be refused as recommended subject to amendments removing reference to previous Local Plan policies CS08 and CS12