180,000-bird poultry units at Land North East Of Grange Farm Yard Fenside Road, Toynton St Peter

What was proposed

Four poultry units would rear up to 180,000 broiler chickens, with associated buildings, access, parking, drainage and waste infrastructure.

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4no. poultry units with associated infrastructure, including control rooms, feed bins, gate house, plant room, substation and dead bird shed, construction of a concrete apron, car parking and attenuation pond with the siting of a water tank and 2no. dirty water tanks.”

“A new vehicular access is proposed off Fenside Road. There is an existing vehicle access for the anaerobic digester, but the additional vehicular access is positioned so that it is not directly in front of the dwelling located at the current access. The new access will form a short section of new road before joining with the existing access road…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an agricultural field in open countryside, next to a farm complex and anaerobic digester, within Flood Zone 3.

“The site is located off Fenside Road in the open countryside outside Toynton All Saints and is currently part of a larger field in agricultural use that is bound by a combination of hedgerows with intermittent trees and drainage ditches, with East Fen Catchwater Fen to the north.”

“The site is located within Flood Zone 3. Jenkins Carr SSSI and Keal Carr SSSI Jenkins Carr are located approximately 2km away from the site, (at the closest point), with Keal Carr approximately 3km away. The site is not part of any local or national landscape designation.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flood, environmental health, police, archaeology and Natural England raised no objection or required conditions, while two parish councils objected.

“LCC HIGHWAYS – No objections with regard to highway safety or capacity. Conditions and informatives required to secure alterations to the highway. Full details are provided in the report below: Following re-consultation, LCC Highways responded noting that their original comments still apply, and the amended ES did not change their comments and recommendations.”

“ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (Environmental Protection)- no objection to the application 4.12 NATURAL ENGLAND – Natural England advises that the potential for air quality impacts arising from this development needs to be assessed. Natural England referred the authority to their Standing Advice; ‘Air pollution and development: Advice for Local Authorities. How to assess sector-specific planning applications that could affect air quality on a protected site’.”

Officer report

What residents said

More than 2,400 objections raised concerns about residential amenity, traffic, pollution, waste, climate, animal welfare, public health and countryside impacts.

“Oppose intensive poultry units due to animal cruelty/animal welfare concerns. Even farms claiming higher welfare standards, offering a mere 20% more space, are rife with illness. The fast-growing broiler breeds endure higher mortality rates compared to their slower-growing counterparts. • Spreading of chicken waste causing health concerns.”

“Planning conditions for the neighbouring Anaerobic Digester were not complied with, which leads to concern that any planning conditions for this development would not be complied with. • The development is more of an industrial scale rather than agricultural which is inappropriate for the area. • Concern about cumulative impact and precedent – allowing this application would set a precedent to allow other large, industrial scale developments in the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support and an objector spoke against, answering members’ questions about pollution, farming, manure, birds and nearby homes.

What members debated

Members debated the proposal’s scale, animal welfare, feed, waste, traffic, air and water pollution, amenity, environmental effects and appeal risks.

“- In suggesting planning reasons for refusing the application, Members referred to concerns about the intensity of the proposed operation including the density of birds within the buildings, animal welfare implications, the sourcing of feed, the management and removal of waste, potential increases in traffic movements, air quality impacts, noise and odour, water pollution risks and the industrialisation of the countryside.”

“- Members acknowledged the officer advice but maintained concerns regarding the scale and intensity of the proposal, potential amenity impacts, highway suitability, environmental effects and animal welfare.”

Minutes

How members voted

The motion to refuse was lost, while the motion to approve in line with the officer recommendation was carried.

“Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal against officer recommendation was lost.”

“Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was carried.”

Minutes

Main conditions

Approval included conditions covering highway works, flood levels, drainage, landscaping, waste management, biodiversity, noise and HGV routing.

“Prior to the development being brought into use, a comprehensive Waste Management Plan must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Details must include a manure management strategy for the site, details how waste will be handled and disposed and any downstream ecological impacts. Development must be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme.”

“- Inclusion of biodiversity enhancement features outlined in section 4.3.1 of the PEA - General biodiversity enhancements recommendations are outlined in section 4.3.2 - Nesting Birds - clearance/management of any onsite vegetation higher than 300 mm should take place outside of the core nesting bird season (March-August inclusive).”

Officer report