Egg incubatory building and four homes at Former Crown Chicken Factory, Weybread

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the former factory and building an incubatory facility, four homes, a vehicle wash and stores building, and associated works.

“Development of Description Full Planning Application - Demolition of the former factory buildings and construction of a new incubatory building, erection of 4 no. dwellings, vehicle wash and stores building, landscaping, drainage infrastructure, vehicular access and parking.”

“Location Former Crown Chicken Factory, The Street, Weybread, IP21 5TL.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site includes the former poultry factory, agricultural land and land near homes, a listed building, a public house and public rights of way.

“The application site comprises the former Crown Farm poultry processing factory together with agricultural land to the south and east, part of the land to the rear of The Crown Inn, and part of the rear garden area of the dwelling adjacent, known as Rose Cottage.”

“The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at very low risk of fluvial flooding. There are areas of land within the site at risk of surface water flooding. These are predominantly located on and around the footprints of the existing factory buildings and on the agricultural land to the east and south of these. The site falls within the Hartismere Water Resource Zone.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers identified policy conflict but supported the scheme because it redeveloped a vacant mainly brownfield site, created jobs and provided wider public benefits.

“In this case, there is a degree of conflict with Policy SP03 in respect of the commercial element of the scheme as it extends beyond the existing employment site (the former poultry processing factory). There is also conflict with Policy SP03 in respect of the proposed dwellings, being within a countryside location and not meeting the exceptions set out in Table 5 of the JLP. There is therefore conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole.”

“The poultry processing facility on the site ceased operating in 2019. The proposed scheme, which is predominantly commercial with a modest element of housing, will redevelop a vacant site that at present does not have a positive impact on the street scene. The scheme would predominantly utilise previously developed (brownfield) land, which is encouraged both in the JLP and the NPPF.”

Officer report

What people said

Most representations objected to the proposal, citing traffic, highway safety, pollution, water use, environmental effects, heritage, landscape and the scale of development.

“Contrary to policy. • Loss of The Crown Inn as a community asset. • Impacts from traffic including HGVs. • Highway safety due to lack of footpaths. • Poor access for fire fighting vehicles. • Will not bring employment benefits. • Unsustainable location, leading to reliance on private vehicles. • Harm to the setting of a listed building. • Impact on structure of listed building (Graystone House). • Archaeological report omits recent discoveries.”

“Impacts on biodiversity. • Loss of trees and hedgerows. • Scale of proposed commercial building, out of character for the village and visually overbearing. • Housing layout is cramped and out of character. • Unacceptable expansion onto adjacent greenfield land. • Would be better placed on an industrial estate with better/direct access to major roads. • Harm to the countryside; would disrupt the tranquillity of the village.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a parish council representative, an objector, a supporter, the agent, the applicant’s representative, two councillors and the Ward Member.

What members discussed

Members discussed the site’s location, agricultural land, energy and water use, design, biodiversity, traffic, community benefits, consultation and employment.

“Members debated the application on issues including: the benefits of the location in relation to the location of the other properties run by the applicant, the applications of policies regarding the use of agricultural land, and the anticipated energy use.”

“Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the improvements in relation to the previous use of the site, the lower vehicle movements, the level of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), the benefits to the community of the new dwellings, the commercial need for the type of use, the support from the Parish Council, the level of consultation with the local community, the existing condition of the site, and the employment use of the land.”

Minutes

The decision

Authority was delegated to grant permission subject to a legal agreement, conditions, review of national policy and additional restrictions on use and water butts.

“That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to review any changes to national planning policy prior to the issue of the decision in consultation with the Chair of Committee and to proceed to decision where it is concluded that there has been no material change in the relevant considerations, and to revert to Committee in the event that there are material changes arising from updated national policy considerations.”

“2) That the Chief Planning Officer by authorised to GRANT Planning Permission upon completion of the legal agreement subject to conditions as summarised below, and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:”

Minutes