6
Councillor Hammond moved to the public gallery.
The Committee received report ES/2495 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/19/2195/FUL. The application sought planning permission for a poultry production unit with capacity to house 100,335 broiler chickens. The Senior Planner gave a presentation detailing the planning history, explaining that the original application approval was issued on 13 October 2020 but after receipt of a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review (Richard Buxton Solicitors ref: (KEA1/1)MM/RS, dated 13 November 2020) was submitted to East Suffolk Council (LPA), East Suffolk Council accepted Ground 1: that the Defendant failed to adequately consider the direct and indirect environmental effects of the poultry manure produced by the Permitted Development and the odour arising from its removal and spreading, contrary to the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017/571 (EIA Regulations). Therefore, the permission was quashed on 8 March 2021 so the application remained live, and required redetermination. Several requests for additional information under Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 were made with addendums in April 2021, July 2022 and May 2024; further consultation took place on each occasion in accordance with Regulation 19.
The presentation contained aerial photos of the site and elevations of the proposal and heat exchangers, photographs of the site and of the access point into the site on Mill Lane. Members were shown a map of the public footpaths in the area which had been referenced in the objections.
Officers consider that the proposed development would have significant effects on Heritage Assets and Ancient Woodland, of which the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.
Members were shown a map of the Heritage Assets in relation to the site, photos of Moat Farmhouse and a table showing the harm impact level on the assets. There was a difference of opinion between Historic England and East Suffolk's Heritage Officer but Historic England had commented as a statutory consultee on buildings and monuments whilst the East Suffolk Heritage Team just commented on listed buildings. The report contained further detail but Historic England were of the view that it would bring an industrial style of development to the landscape. It was explained that officers had taken a different stance to their original recommendation when it was first considered in 2020. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and, the more significant the asset, the greater the weight should be. There would need to be a clear justification for allowing any harm and it was important to weigh up the balance of harm against public benefit. Public benefits need to be significant to outweigh the harm. Over the past 5 years the Planning Team had reflected on all the information available.
The second principal reason for refusal related to the impact of ammonia and nitrates on Ancient Woodland and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). He showed a map of the nearby ancient woodland and SSSI areas. The Senior Planner explained that paragraph 193(c) of the NPPF states that approval should be given only if there are exceptional reasons and explained that the footnote to this paragraph defined them as infrastructure projects, such as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which this application wasn’t. The Woodland Trust advocates a 1% threshold but the Applicant and Natural England a 4% threshold. Regardless of which threshold is used as a benchmark for assessing significant impacts, the baseline levels were considered to be in excess of the upper levels considered acceptable at these Ancient Woodland sites. The resultant pollutant levels would cause the further degradation of these areas of Ancient Woodland. The Applicant had highlighted an error in the report in relation to surveys of Titsal Wood. It was surveyed in 2022 so the phrase ‘meaningful survey’ would have been more appropriate in that paragraph. Officers had reached the same conclusion as the Planning Inspector on an appeal for a similar application at Footbridge Farm in Shropshire and although the report had been de-published due to an error in relation to peak odour, the decision still stands, and it is a material planning consideration in their view.
The Senior Planner moved onto other matters of consideration. He said that Highways matters had been discussed at great length. He showed photos of the access point from Mill Lane. He pointed out that since this application had been submitted the parish now had a Neighbourhood Plan. Policy BEP1 states that new business developments that generate significant and regular HGV traffic should have direct access to an A or B road demonstrated by sweep path analysis. The Parish Council says this information has not been provided. Highways did request this information. Although HGVs will not be able to access Mill Lane without crossing the central white line, due to the low level of HGV traffic and mitigation in terms of passing places and the delivery management plan it’s accepted that the proposal wouldn’t have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It was noted that the reduction of capacity from 141,000 birds to just over 100,000 had reduced the vehicle movements and most of them were short journeys from West End Farm. Regarding the number of vehicles onto the main road, which was the concern, there would be 388 vehicles and 776 movements in total. There was an error in the report in paragraph 7.164 regarding peak vehicle flows and it should be 16 per day rather than 168. The Senior Planner said there was a relatively low number of HGV movements associated with the development.
The Senior Planner showed plans of the concrete apron and turning movements onto the site. He presented a map that showed two proposed passing places.
The issue of odour was then addressed and the Senior Planner referred to the Wind Rose diagram. This had been referred to by objectors but it was felt this could have been misinterpreted. The diagram showed how often and at what speed the wind blew from each direction and it was not showing an odour plume. The Senior Planner showed the odour impact table which demonstrated there was a negligible impact on properties except on Moat Farm. For the majority of time there would be little impact from odour on surrounding properties. It was during the clear out phase that there would be the most impact but even then it was not considered to be intrusive.
There were concerns about noise but it was considered that the mitigation measures would mean there was not an adverse noise impact on the nearest dwellings.
The Senior Planner then moved on to consider the visual impact and showed wireframes of the proposed site from a number of directions. The landscaping plan had been submitted but further detail would be required if the application was approved.
The Senior Planner concluded by running through the material planning considerations and key issues, stating that the application was recommended for refusal due to the impact on Heritage Assets and Ancient Woodlands.
The Chair invited questions from Members.
Councillor Beavan asked for a map showing where HGVs went to access the site which the Senior Planner provided. Councillor Ashdown asked what changes had taken place in the NPPF since they first heard the application. He also asked if Moat Farm had been restored as when it was viewed on the site visit it wasn’t in a particularly good condition. The Senior Planner explained that the NPPF had been updated several times but the wording hadn’t changed significantly, but there was a lot of case law since the initial decision. There had been numerous appeals since the initial decision which added weight to their decision. He had visited the site recently and Moat Farm was not in a great condition but they have received Listed Building Consent applications and the Parish Council has confirmed it is inhabited but restoration has not been completed.
Councillor Ashton asked how East Suffolk would defend an appeal as the NPPF hadn’t changed but the planner’s assessment had and there were two expert views that were in conflict. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that it came down to a balancing position of harm against public benefits. Officer understanding of public benefit had grown in recent years and they need to give significant weight to Historic England’s response. They did not feel that the public benefit outweighed the harm.
Councillor Cally Ellis from Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham and Ellough Joint Parish Council was invited to speak. She explained that the planning officer had summarised their objections submitted over the past 6 years. She stated that if Members were minded to approve against the recommendation of the officer and the objections from the parish, they had the resources and appetite to challenge this decision. It cost them, or rather the tax payer £12,000 last time and who knows how much it would cost this time. However they would use every legal means to bring the application to the attention of higher governmental authorities and the media if it was approved. She urged members to follow the officer recommendation and refuse this application.
The Chair invited the Applicant to speak. He explained the national and local need for this development and that farmers have been told to expand or diversify to survive. They were vulnerable to external shocks, pressure from imports and avian flu and so domestic food production was a matter of national resilience. Approval of the application would make the family farm a viable and sustainable business. He explained the chicks were bred and hatched in the UK, the waste was used for anaerobic digesters, and the residue was a natural fertiliser. It was a self-sustaining and highly efficient model. He felt it was wrong to be focussing on emissions. If the Council believed air pollution was already a problem without this development then they should act on it. They should not be halting the development of modern poultry production especially when the average age of poultry housing was 31 years and 50% were 50 years or older and the country was 65% self-sufficient in chicken meat. Approval would make the family business viable and continue into a fourth generation of farming. The Applicant thanked members and asked for the application to be approved.
Councillor Beavan asked if there was any technology to restrict the amount of ammonia released. The Applicant said there was but the levels were so minimal it wasn’t required.
Councillor Hammond spoke as Ward Councillor. He stated that this proposal had attracted over 1,700 letters of objection and only 8 of support. The PC has worked hard on their objection. He raised concerns about intensive farming and that it would just benefit big supermarkets and not farmers and consumers. He was concerned about the impact of nitrogen and ammonia on nearby woodland. He reiterated that the NPPF states approval should be granted only for exceptional reasons. He pointed out that Moat Farm was on the Building at Risk Register and this development would put it at massive risk. When weighing up public benefits against the harm all he can see is the harm and no benefits. If approval was given it would be a disaster for the local area and heritage. He asked Members to follow the officer recommendation and refuse the application.
Councillor Beavan asked if he would be against this development being sited anywhere or was there somewhere on the farm where it would have less harm.
Councillor Hammond said he had shared his personal views on intensive chicken farming and he was against this development full stop, but in terms of planning it was the officer recommendations that were relevant.
Councillor Beavan asked how the ancient woodland would be harmed and if the lichen would re-emerge if the chicken shed were removed. The Planning Manager said it was hard to quantify but what was clear from paragraph 193 of the NPPF is that any level of harm was unacceptable. He said they should be refusing unless there were clear and compelling reasons.
There being no further questions or clarifications the Chair invited Members to debate. Councillor Pitchers remembered this from the previous meetings. The sheds are low and the site is isolated. Moat Farm was derelict and he voted in favour. He didn’t remember anything about harm to trees which was new. Now he’s heard this and that the farm is being occupied his view had changed. He said that he grew up near a factory and the smell was awful.
Councillor Gee was involved with the initial application and went on the site visit. She was delighted and relieved by the officer recommendation and confirmed everything that those who voted against it. She supported Councillor Pitchers.
Councillor Ashdown said he was on the site visit, which was during Covid. He didn’t think there was a very great effect on the listed building because of the treeline. He pointed out that the country needed food and solar farms were taking up agricultural land. This was an opportunity for food production so he hadn’t decided how he would vote yet. He felt the smells were relatively insignificant and was currently open minded.
Councillor Beavan had no previous on this application and was open minded. It was a balance between public benefit and harm. He noted the pressures on farmers and wanted to support the local economy. He stated there was a public benefit regardless of what you think about cheap chicken and intensive chicken farming. He accepted the building was a heritage asset but wasn’t sure he bought the ancient woodland element. It was a balance between economy and amenity. It was only a short route to a main road. He said people needed to make a living in the countryside and ammonia was a good fertiliser. He was staying open-minded.
Councillor Wakeling said there was an intensive poultry facility in his ward and the exhaust fans were working harder and harder as temperatures were getting higher due to climate change. The noise was a persistent low drone and he wouldn’t want to put this on anyone. The Chair asked if heat exchangers reduced the level of noise. The Senior Planner said they had been assessed as part of the noise impact assessment. Councillor Ashdown suggested asking the Applicant.
Councillor Gee noted that on the site visit it was difficult to exit Mill Lane. Although traffic speed had been reduced to 40mph there was a lot of traffic on that road. She was concerned that HGVs would find it difficult and could see accidents happening. Looking at the map, the footprint of the building was very close to Moat Farm. She was delighted to hear it was being restored. There were other heritage buildings and monuments in the area and it was important to think about the overall picture. She felt it looked bigger than the original scheme and the buildings were enormously long. It was farming on an industrial scale and feels strongly that it was not in the interest of the local community.
Councillor Ashton felt it was a difficult decision. There would be a negative impact on heritage assets and woodland but chicken production methods were not a planning concern. He reflected that the Council had changed its view since the original application due to other cases. He was minded to go with the officer recommendation and felt the Council had a reasonable defence if it went to appeal. It was a very difficult judgement to make. The Chair agreed. She aligned with Councillor Hammond on his views on intensive farming but that was not a planning consideration.
Councillor Pitchers could see the need for the development but not in this location. Site, sound and traffic didn’t bother him. But the officer recommendations were good enough reasons to refuse the application.
Councillor Beavan felt that the rural economy was more important than a sunken old pile.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was by majority
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED – for the reasons below:
1. The Grade II* listed Moat Farmhouse, its accompanying 18th century barn, and other 19th century farm buildings stand on a large and complex medieval moated site, a Scheduled Monument; and the Scheduled Monument at West End Farm sits adjacent to it. Historic England considers these to be all indivisible heritage assets forming, in effect, a single group.
With regards to the application site, there are two ways in which the proposed development will change its contribution to the setting of the group of heritage assets: through the change in the way that the land is being used; and by the addition of built form in connection with that. Historic England is of the view that, although this landscape has changed in the centuries since the medieval period, it remains as farmland without modern development and as such helps in the understanding of the designated heritage assets and contributes to their historic significance. The proposed development would bring industrial style development to the landscape around the historic complex which would result in harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
Historic England has identified less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets of a low to medium level on that spectrum.
Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and, the more significant the asset, the greater the weight should be. In Paragraph 213 it is highlighted that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. The justification for harm should be especially convincing where harm to assets of a high grade of designation is concerned.
In this case as these are high grade heritage assets, then the harm to the significance of this group of heritage assets through development within their setting would attract substantial weight against the proposal.
Paragraph 85 of the NPPF highlights that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. However, the significant weight attributed to the economic benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the substantial negative weight to be attached to the overall harm to the designated heritage assets.
The proposal would be contrary to the aims of Section 66 (1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy WLP8.37 “Historic Environment” of the East Suffolk Council Waveney Local Plan (March 2019), Policy HEP1: “Protecting and Enhancing Heritage Assets” of the Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham and Ellough Neighbourhood Plan – Made 28 June 2023 and Paragraphs 212, 213 and 215 of the NPPF.
2. The results of the Applicant’s submitted assessments show that, at three ancient woodland sites, ammonia critical level process contributions and nitrogen critical load process contributions (PCs) would exceed the 1% threshold but not the 4% threshold. These sites are: Titsal Wood (SSSI); Great Wood (CWS); and Likely Wood (CWS). For all other sites scoped into the assessment neither process contribution will exceed 1%.
Notwithstanding whether the 1% threshold or 4% threshold is used as a benchmark for assessing significant impacts, baseline pollutant levels are already in excess of critical levels and loads at these Ancient Woodland sites; the exceedance of baseline levels is not justification to make an undesirable situation worse and, as such, the resultant pollutant levels would unacceptably cause the further degradation of these areas of Ancient Woodland.
The proposal would fail to meet the tests of Paragraph 193 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which highlights that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. In this case there are no wholly exceptional reasons why permission should not be refused.
There was a short interval due to technical issues.