Agenda item

A major outline application for the erection of an agricultural building for egg production. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major outline application by Mr Christopher Hobson for the erection of an agricultural building for egg production.

Officers provided a written update, a copy of which has been attached to the online agenda papers for information. They advised that since  publication of the agenda a further 57 representations had been received. The representations reiterated the concerns expressed with regard to the impact of traffic associated with the proposed development along Broad Highway and within Wheldrake Village together with concerns relating to odour, attraction of rats and vermin, archaeology, noise as well as the potential impact on wildlife, the conservation area itself and on watercourses.

In addition  a letter on behalf of  the Parish Council and residents was circulated to Members with concerns ranging from the effect of regular HGV movements on the character of Wheldrake Conservation Area, health and safety issues associated with HGVs using Broad Highway and the local highway network to health risks to the vulnerable and arising from the risk to water contamination and the potential spread of avian flu and the impact on local wildlife. Officers advised that the salient  issues were covered in the existing officer report.

Officers advised that a further letter from a Mr. Newlove had been circulated raising concerns around the wider environmental impact with it not being a free range unit and the site itself being within the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Other concerns included the packing and distribution element not being agricultural, the lack of provision for hazardous waste handling and removal, adjoining woodland being omitted from the ecology report,  lack of consultation with local businesses and the safety of residents. Officers responded to those concerns in some detail.

A letter from  Alison Chalk was circulated referring to the ownership of the application site,  financial charges registered against the applicant company and the possibility of  issuing a personal permission . Officers advised that the matters raised in this letter would not affect the Council’s ability to determine the planning application before it.  They stated that a personal consent would not meet the tests for condition and referred Members to the National planning guidance.

Officers informed members that a petition against the development had now  exceeded 2000 signatories.

David Randon, Chairman of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) York and Selby District Committee and Chair of Wheldrake Parish Council addressed the committee in objection to the application. He asked Members to consider the detailed grounds for objection put forward by CPRE, Wheldrake Parish Council and local residents. He stated that the proposal was for large scale intensive production business which was not compatible with other agricultural operations in that part of the green belt and would be at odds with the most recent draft York Local Plan sustainability objectives.

Ann Boyens, a local resident  stated that Broad Highway was not suitable for use by large vehicles. She advised that there had been a large increase in its use over previous years due to the increase in use of Wheldrake Woods for leisure and recreational uses and the two proposed passing places were inadequate. She advised that no independent survey had been undertaken to look at the impact on Hagg Wood which bordered the development.

Angie Roberts, a local resident, then addressed the committee. She raised health concerns stating that the facility would attract rats which would be drawn to hen food, the rats would then be poisoned and would become prey for other wildlife and birds with catastrophic effect on York’s ecosystem. She advised that there was no mention of avian flu in the report but a high risk of disease spreading. She also raised concerns about smells and pollution from the facility as well as safety concerns about lorries travelling through the village.

Ian Pick, agent for the applicant, advised the committee that the owners of the existing business, based around dairy and arable practices, were under considerable pressure and suffering losses. The applicant had worked proactively with the council to resolve issues and mitigate concerns including agreeing passing places which had been supported by the highways agency. He advised that the proposals were acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity. He responded to queries raised by Members.

Chris Barber, on behalf of Wheldrake Parish Council, advised Members that 196 written objections had been submitted as well as a petition. He expressed concerns that the report did not refer to the conservation area other than that access to the site was by passing through the conservation area. He stated that long articulated vehicles would cause damage to the conservation area and there was a risk of gridlock situations at school times. He stressed that the benefit of Broad Highway to the community was priceless.

Councillor Mercer, Ward Member for Wheldrake, addressed the committee on behalf of local residents. She stated that Wheldrake had been founded as a farming community and had become a desirable village to live in. She expressed sympathy with the farmer’s plight into diversification but conveyed residents’ concerns that the proposed development would impinge on residents’ enjoyment of Broad Highway which was used for walking, cycling and horse riding. Regular vehicle movements were a cause for concern, as they passed through the village and past the school and suggested a condition to limit HGV movements to weekdays and that enclosed trailers be used. 

Members suggested that, in view of the concerns raised regarding the impact on the amenity of residents who used Broad Highway for recreational purposes, if approved, a condition be added to restrict vehicles movements to weekdays and to avoid school pick up/drop off times. Officers advised that they did not consider this appropriate due to the limited number of proposed vehicle movements but Members felt that this would improve the amenity for local residents. It was also agreed that condition 7 (landscaping and planting scheme) be tightened to refer to the lifetime of the development.

Some Members felt that the proposed development was a large scale production business which would be intrusive and have an unacceptable impact on the openness of the greenbelt, would create unacceptable harm to the environment impacting on existing habitats and biodiversity and was in conflict with the Village Design Statement.

While acknowledging the great strength of feeling within the village against the application, other members noted that the officer’s view was that there were no sustainable planning reasons to refuse the application. Members accepted that this was an agricultural use within an agricultural area, which was outside the village and that traffic movements would be minimal. They noted that, although it was a large building, it would be adequately screened and felt that with the additional proposed conditions, this was acceptable.

Councillor Galvin moved, and Councillor S Barnes seconded, approval subject to the conditions listed in report, and subject also to an additional condition to limit deliveries to the site to weekdays and avoid school drop off/pick up times and an amendment to condition 7 (landscape and planting scheme) so that it referred to the “lifetime of the development” rather than replacement planting for the first 5 years only. On being put to the vote, this motion fell.

Councillor Derbyshire then moved, and Councillor Shepherd seconded,  refusal on the grounds of the negative impact to the openness and visual amenity of the greenbelt. On being put to the vote, this motion fell.

In light of previous motions falling, from the Chair, Councillor Reid then moved ,and Councillor Galvin seconded, the original proposal for approval subject to the conditions listed in the report and the proposed additional and revised conditions detailed above regarding the timing of deliveries and landscaping scheme. On being put to the vote this motion for approval was carried.

Resolved: 

That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional and amended conditions below.

Amended Condition 7

The building shall not be occupied until a detailed landscape and planting scheme for the area shown on drawing IP dated Feb 16 titled 'Area Available for Landscaping', has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscape and planting scheme shall thereafter be implemented within 8 months of occupation. If any tree, hedge or shrub planted dies or is lost through any cause within the lifetime of the development it shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless alternatives are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To help integrate the building with its surroundings.

Additional Condition 20

During the operation of the development, vehicular movements to and from the site shall take place as specified on page 8 of the submitted Design and Access Statement. Other than staff travelling to and from the site, there shall be no vehicles entering or leaving the site at the following times and days:-

• Between 07:30 to 09:30 hours, and 14:45 to 18:00 on weekdays.

• On Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To ensure the site is appropriately managed, and to minimise the impact of traffic associated with the development on the amenity of residents and on the free flow of traffic along Broad Highway.

Reason:    

Agricultural development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is considered however that the negative impact on the openness of the green belt should be balanced against the economic benefits from the proposed farm diversification. In respect of economic issues, the proposal does not conflict with four of the five purposes that the Green Belt serves (paragraph 4.17 above) and that the purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and the impact on the openness of the green belt should be balanced against the economic benefits from the intensification and diversification of its agricultural use.