32,000-hen egg unit at Land At Wrexham Road, Pulford, Chester

What was proposed

The application proposed a free-range egg production unit for 32,000 hens, with feed bins, drainage works, an access track and highway improvements.

“Description of development: Erection of a free range egg production unit with associated feed bins, hardstandings, underground dirty water tank, drainage attenuation pond, access track and upgraded highway access…”

“The application seeks approval for the erection of a free range egg production unit with associated feed bins, hardstandings, underground dirty water tank, drainage attenuation pond, access track and upgraded highway access. The proposed development will have capacity for 32,000 hens which will be split across two buildings.”

Officer report

The site

The site is about two hectares of agricultural land in the Green Belt and countryside, with access partly in the conservation area.

“The application site is an area of agricultural land approximately 2 hectares in size located to the west of Wrexham Road in the Parish of Pulford.”

“A section of the application site which mainly comprises of the proposed site access is located within the Pulford Conservation Area. It is surrounded by agricultural land to all sides and it is noted that a pond adjoins the site along its southwestern corner.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for a calf rearing unit and associated works was withdrawn.

“95/01000/FUL - Provision of calf rearing unit and associated (Withdrawn).”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and found that conditions could control effects on visual amenity, biodiversity, heritage, highways, drainage and neighbours.

“It is considered that the proposal would represent an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt, and that the proposed building, associated structures and access track etc are acceptable in principle.”

“Taking into account all relevant material considerations on balance, the proposal is acceptable and represents sustainable development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council raised concerns, while Natural England, the Environment Agency and council specialists had no objections subject to conditions.

“Poulton and Pulford Parish Council – raised concerns relating to land and water contamination and flooding, air pollution, health and safety and noise pollution. Satisfied that the development fulfils Policy STRAT 9 of LP1 concerning the development of land within the countryside and Green Belt, but concerned that the development falls short of Policy DM 6 of LP2 on new agricultural buildings. Without reassurances and mitigation, they are unable to support the application.”

“Biodiversity Officer – no objection, subject to conditions concerning the submission of various documents for approval, including habitat management and maintenance plan, construction environmental management plan, as well as the inclusion of conditions that would control external lighting, safeguard certain protected species, and secure appropriate ecological enhancements at the site.”

Officer report

What people said

Most representations objected over Green Belt development, pollution, health, flooding, wildlife, highways, amenity and heritage; six supported the proposal.

“The proposed development would negatively impact trees. • The proposal would cause harm to protected species and other wildlife. • Local wildlife such as foxes would result in the decimation of the flock. • The proposal would in an increase in vermin within the wider area. • Concerns about the proximity of the development to nearby ponds. • Light pollution may cause harm to local wildlife. • The application has not demonstrated a biodiversity net gain.”

“The development would exacerbate existing water saturation and flooding issues. • The existing drainage network would not be able to support the proposed development. • The development would result in the contamination of the surrounding land and local waterways such as the River Dee. • The proposal has not considered the archaeological significance of the local area. • The development would negatively impact local heritage assets.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish councillor, the agent and Councillor Mark Williams spoke about the application.

What members debated

Members questioned drainage, residential separation, air scrubbers, newts, alternative sites, vehicle movements, consultation and biodiversity funding.

“Following comments made by a public speaker, , could officers confirm the distance from the residential units to the operational area of the site including where the hens are held. • Could air scrubbers be conditioned to tackle any air pollution? • Referencing the additional permissions that may be required as separate planning applications, members enquired if there was a specific timescale, that this specific application needed to be determined.”

“The management statement could look into vehicle movements and number of trips, highways officers advised it would be more than present, but would not be significant, with eight movements by vehicles expected per day. • No financial contribution towards infrastructure was proposed.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members approved the application subject to the report’s conditions and an air scrubber requirement, with eight votes for, none against and one abstention.

“Members proposed a condition that would require the installation of air scrubbers, however officers advised they would be able to reword an existing condition to include this. A proposal to approve the application, subject to conditions in the report with a requirement to install air scrubbers, was passed with 8 votes in favour, 0 against and one abstention…”

Minutes