Agenda item

Rufforth Poultry Farm, Land At Grid Reference 458205 449925, West Of Bradley Lane, Rufforth, York [16/01813/FULM]

Erection of poultry farm comprising 6 no poultry sheds with ancillary buildings, access road and landscaped embankments (resubmission) [Rural West York Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from H Barker And Son Ltd for the erection of a poultry farm comprising six poultry sheds with ancillary buildings, access road and landscaped embankments (resubmission).

 

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and provided an update. Members were advised that the authority had commissioned Eddowes Aviation Safety to produce a report in respect of the application. Mark Eddowes of Eddowes Aviation Safety explained that York Gliding Club objected to the application on the basis of it being close to their airfield. He outlined the methodology used and principle findings of his review noting the significant risks over the control of safety issues with the site. He further noted that the aviation consultant employed by the applicant had not included a number of items in their assessment which had been included in his assessment.  

 

Officers clarified to Members that the proposal was for the erection of three buildings to house poultry, not six as included in the report in paragraph 4.13 and the report title.

 

Lynne Edwards, on behalf of Animal Aid, spoke in objection to the application. She explained Animal Aid’s concerns regarding the significant risk of flooding, waste and water discharge, noise from additional vehicles travelling to and from the site, and a number of health and safety risks in relation to the effect of spillage from poultry feed, and potential increased risk of outbreaks of bird flu.

 

Alan Wrigley, on behalf of York Gliding Centre, spoke in objection to the application. He detailed his flight experience and background and noted that the safety standards of flights would be put at risk by the erection of the buildings detailed in the application. He supported the information included in the report to the Committee.

 

David Hildreth, a local farmer, spoke in objection to the application. He noted impact of the development on the green belt, citing NPPF guidance and noted that approval of the scheme would have a negative economic impact on that the landscaping of the development would have on York Gliding Centre as well as the increased risk of flooding on his farm adjacent to the site.

 

The agent for the applicant, Paul Leeming (Carter Jonas), spoke in support of the application. He noted that as the poultry farm was for agricultural use as it was in the green belt and that the scale of the proposal had been reduced from the previous planning application made. He noted that the proposal would contribute to economic growth and that there were no material planning issues to be resolved. He noted that the aviation consultant appointed by the applicant had found no issues with the proposal in connection with the flight school and that other sites, such as the site near Selby Golf Club had been deemed unsuitable and he explained the reasons for this.

 

In response to Members’ questions Mr Barker on behalf of the applicant clarified why the Selby Golf Club had been discounted as a suitable site for the poultry farm. 

 

Cllr Steward, Councillor for Rural West York Ward, spoke in objection to the application. He supported the conclusions of the officer report, in particular the information contained within sections 4.16, 4.17 and 4.18. He noted the impact of increased traffic to the poultry farm through Rufforth and neighbouring villages. He expressed concern regarding the different conclusions of the aviation consultant appointed by City of York Council and the applicant to which Mark Eddowes responded with an explanation of the methodology used and resulting conclusions made by both.

 

Following debate it was:

 

Resolved: That the application be refused.

 

Reason:     The development by virtue of its scale, dense pattern of landscaping and close physical relationship to a principal run-way of Rufforth Airfield  would give rise to significant material harm to the safety of aircraft and associated gliders taking off and landing contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 104 f) to the National Planning Policy Framework. That adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page