Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report COMMITTEE DATE: 5-10-2016 APPLICATION No: LA11/2015/0464/F APPLICATION TYPE: Full application for intensive farming PROPOSAL: Proposed 3 no. grand parent breeder poultry sheds with 8no feed bins, 2no gas tanks and a standby generator building. (To contain 17600 egg laying hens and 1760 roosters) LOCATION: Land approximately 300m South West of 5 Gortmonly Road, Coolmaghery, Bready, BT82 0DS APPLICANT: Mr Richard McNeely AGENT: Henry Marshall Brown Architectural Partnership ADVERTISEMENT: 11-9-2015 STATUTORY EXPIRY: 30-9-2015 RECOMMENDATION: Approve REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Applications attracting more than five separate individual objections or a petition with five or more signatures must be presented to Planning Committee under the Derry City and Strabane Council published scheme of delegation. This proposal attracted 5 individual objections. All planning application forms, drawings, consultation responses, letters etc. relating to this planning application are available to view on www.planningni.gov.uk 1. Description of Proposed Development Proposed 3 no. grand parent breeder poultry sheds with 8no feed bins, 2no gas tanks and a standby generator building. (To contain 17600 egg laying hens and 1760 roosters) 2. EIA Determination and Habitats Regulation Assessment As the development is within Category 1 (C) of Schedule 2 of the Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations (NI) 2015 the Council is obliged to under Regulation 10 (1) of these regulations to make a determination as to whether the application is for EIA development. The Council has determined that the planning application does not require to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
The potential impact of this proposal on European sites has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended). The proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on any European site, either alone or in combination with any other plans or projects (in light of the definition of these terms in the Waddenzee ruling of the European Court of Justice Case C-127/02). 3. Site and Surrounding Area The site is outside the development limits of any settlement as identified in the Strabane Area Plan 1986-2001. The location of the site would be considered rural remainder and in relation to PPS 21 the area would be considered countryside. The site is a large improved grassland agricultural field located approximately 1.24km south west from the settlement of Magheramason. The field is set back approximately 220m from the Gortmonly Road. The southern, western and eastern boundaries are defined by a 1.8m high hawthorn field boundary. The northern boundary is currently undefined. The proposed access will run along the line of an existing field boundary linking the site to the public road. Figure 1 Site location 4. Site Constraints (Flood Plain, ASSI etc) No site constraints identified within the red line of the site.
5. Neighbours Notification 10 Keery Road, Tamnakeery, Strabane, Tyrone, BT82 0DY 11Keery Road, Coolmaghery, Strabane, Tyrone, BT82 0DY 6. Relevant Site History No relevant site history 7. Policy Framework Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2035 Strabane Area Plan 1986 2001 'Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland' - Planning for Sustainable Development (SPPS), Planning Policy Statement 2; Planning and Nature Conservation Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable development in the Countryside
8. Consultee Responses, Internal/External Transport NI have no objections subject to conditions relating to implementation of access and sight lines. NI Water have no objections subject to standing advice Loughs Agency subject to standing advice Environmental Health have no objections subject to conditions relating to extraction fans, deliveries etc. These are outlined in paragraph 12. DARD have advised that the farm business is active and established for 6 years. NIEA-Natural Environment Division-have considered the impacts of the proposal on designated sites and other natural heritage interests and on the basis of the information provided is content subject to conditions. NIEA-Land, soil and air- note that the application is subject to a separate application for a Pollution Prevention and Control Permit. This section of NIEA have advised that should the application be approved that the applicant is required to apply and obtain the PPC permit prior to coming into operation. NIEA-Drainage and Water-is content with the proposal subject to conditions and it also refers the applicant to standing advice. Shared Environmental Services- The potential impact of this proposal on Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended). The proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features of any European site. 9. Representations Consideration 5 objections have been received from 5 separate objectors. The issues raised are summarised and considered below. -Size, scale and location-the objections centre on the contention that the proposal is a commercial/industrial enterprise and not in step with the mainly dairy farming of this particular area. I would be of the opinion that the proposal is of an agricultural nature and such developments are common place in rural farm throughout Northern Ireland. -Risk of pollution and cross contamination-the submitted farm management plan has advised that the disposal of carcasses will be dealt with by on-site incineration and therefore crosscontamination with other farms will not be an issue. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed septic tank and soakaways are to be directed away from any onsite watercourses.
-Impact on countryside/character-the objectors are concerned that the units will be out of character in the area and are not linked to an existing farm holding. Whilst it is acknowledged that the buildings are not visually linked to the existing farm yard I believe that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in this case and these will be considered further in the main consideration of PPS 21 in the planning report. In relation to the being out of character I have observed that the character of the area is defined by the dispersed residential properties and farm buildings. I believe that the buildings are agricultural in nature and will appear as additional farm buildings in the landscape. -Impact on residential amenity- The nearest residential properties are 240m to the NW of the proposal. A considerable sized farm yard lies between the site and these dwellings on Keery Road. I would consider that there is adequate separation distance between the site and all the properties on Keery Road. EHD are satisfied that the properties will not suffer from undue impact in terms of noise or smell. On balance I am satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties. -Noise/Smell-EHD have been consulted in relation to the proposal and also have been notified of the contents of the objection letters. EHD have advised that they have no concerns in relation to noise and smell subject to the adherence to conditions and informatives. -Artificial light-ehd have advised that all floodlighting should be optically controlled and directed is such a manner as to minimise light pollution from glare and spill. EHD can deal with any variance from this through their own legislation under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (NI) 2011. -Vermin-EHD are satisfied that if the management procedures included in the Farm Management Plan are implemented this will control any issues relating to vermin. -Traffic/road safety- Transport NI have been consulted in relation to the proposal and also have been notified of the contents of the objection letters. TNI have advised that they have no concerns in relation to road safety and traffic generation subject to the adherence to conditions and informatives. -Risk of flooding-the site is not located within a flood plain, however given the size and nature of the proposal a drainage assessment was requested. Rivers Agency advised that the assessment is appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposal. Furthermore it accepts its logic and has no reason to disagree with the conclusions. Therefore there it has been concluded by Rivers Agency that there is no reason for refusal from either a drainage or flooding perspective. - Security and siting of proposal-the objection relates to the siting of the proposal in terms of planning policy. As stated earlier I will consider what I believe to be exceptional circumstances later in the report. -Creation of precedent- Expansion of the operation will require a fresh application and the merits of that can be considered against the prevailing policy if this occurs.
10. Planning Assessment and Other Material Considerations The proposed development comprises a 3 large agricultural sheds measuring approximately 3712sqm in total. There will be 8 galvanised steel meal storage bins, 3 at the northern end of the shed 3 and 5 between the sheds 1 and 2 at the southern end of the site. It is proposed that there will be stone yard surrounding the site and there will be an ancillary operational elements such as generators and gas tanks. It is proposed that sheds will house 17600 egg laying hens and 1760 roosters. Figure 2 Site layout
Figure 3 Elevations and floor plans
Figure 4 Proposed site sections Strabane Area Plan 1986-2001- The site is located in the Countryside in what would have been considered greenbelt prior to the release of PPS 21 in June 2010. Therefore the main policy considerations for this proposal are contained within PPS 21. Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS 21) is applicable. Policy CTY 1 sets out the range of types of development which in principle are considered acceptable in the countryside. One of these is agricultural development in accordance with Policy CTY 12, which indicates that planning permission will be granted for development on an active and established agricultural holding where it is demonstrated that it complies with five specified criteria: (a) (e). The starting point for making an assessment under Policy CTY 12 is establishing whether there is an active and established agricultural holding. Paragraph 5.56 of PPS 21 advises that for the purposes of this policy, the determining criteria for an active and established business will be that set out under Policy CTY 10. Criterion (a) of CTY 10 refers to a farm business being currently active and having been established for at least 6 years. The amplification text states that the applicant will therefore be required to provide the farm s DARD business ID number along with other evidence to prove active farming. Paragraph 5.39 states what agricultural activity refers to for the purposes of this policy, which includes maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental condition. DARD have been consulted and have confirmed that the business ID has been in existence for more than 6 years and Single Farm Payment received within last 6 years. The site is identified in the submitted farm maps as being within the farm holding. Therefore I am satisfied that the proposal will meet the initial test set out in CTY 12. I will now consider if the proposal meets criteria a-e of CTY 12.
Criteria (a) advises that the proposal must be necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding. The applicant has provided information stating. The farm is well established and straddles both side of the main A5 Derry to Dublin road. The main farm buildings are located on the western side of the A5, whilst the proposed site is located on the applicant s farm land on the eastern side of the A5. The main farm buildings are accessed directly off the A5, which is a protected route under policy. The applicant has indicated that the nature of this proposal is such that it requires its own access for biosecurity reasons. Planning policy is dismissive of creating new accesses onto protected route and furthermore access to the main farm holding would be difficult to gain because of road levels constraints. The applicant has indicated several other benefits of the site including integration and environmental benefits. Whilst I do not disagree with the points made in relation to integration and environmental benefits I do not believe that on their own they could be considered exceptional circumstances. However I would give considerable weight to the access issue and I would agree that the circumstances dictate that the applicant has no viable option for locating the sheds next to the main farm buildings and therefore I would accept an off-site location in this case. Part (b) of the policy states that in terms of character and scale it is appropriate to its location. These types of buildings are acceptable in the NI countryside as they are intensive livestock facilities and many farm holdings have them. These agricultural buildings will be visible from the public road and will require approximately 2m of cut and fill but this is inevitable given the slope of the site and scale of the buildings. Existing hedgerow will be supplemented with new landscaping to aid integration. The scale, design and materials are appropriate to the character of the area. Part (c) of the policy states that agricultural development will be allowed if it integrates into the landscape and additional landscaping is provided as necessary. It is my opinion that the proposal will integrate into the landscape as when viewed from the north it will benefit from a rising background to the south. Part (d) asks the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on natural or built heritage. There are no built heritage features in the area that will be affected by the proposed sheds. The applicant has submitted supporting documents to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an impact on the natural heritage features. This included the submission of an ammonia report and abatement technologies, biodiversity checklist and ecological road to overcome these issues. It is practice to consult NIEA and SES if a proposal for intensive rearing is proposed within 7.5km of a watercourse. NIEA and SES have been furnished with the submitted reports and have concluded that it has been demonstrated that the proposal won t have a detrimental impact on any designated sites or species. Therefore I would conclude that part (d) of this policy has been satisfied. Part (e) asks the applicant to demonstrate it will not result in detrimental impact on the amenity of residential properties outside the holding or enterprise including problems arising from noise, odour and pollution. EHD advised that the proposals will not result in any demonstrable harm in relation to noise and odour.
There is adequate separation distance between the proposal and any third party residential property and therefore I am satisfied that there will be no physical impact as a result of the buildings. The policy then goes on to say that in cases where new buildings are proposed the applicant will need to provide information to confirm; -there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding; There are numerous outbuildings within the holding however the applicant has advised that all buildings are required for the continued operation of the farm business. Furthermore none of the existing buildings are suitable for housing poultry. Given the specific purpose of the sheds I do not believe that there are any suitable buildings to house this operation. -the design and materials to be used are sympathetic to the locality and adjacent buildings; the materials do match those of other poultry houses in the area. - the proposal is sited beside existing farm buildings; the proposal is not sited beside any of the main farm buildings however the policy states that exceptionally consideration may be given to an alternative site away from the existing farm buildings where there are demonstrable health and safety reasons. As considered previously to access from the existing site would not be acceptable in road safety reasons and would also be contrary to protected routes policy. Therefore I believe that the site is acceptable and meets the exceptional circumstances as set out in CTY 12. Therefore having considered the proposal against CTY 1 and CTY 12 of PPS2 1 I would conclude that these policies have been be satisfied. PPS 2: Natural Heritage The proposal must be considered against the policies contained within this document. Policies NH1 and NH 2 are applicable to this application. These policies deal with protection of designated sites and protected species. The applicant has submitted additional documentation to support his application including ammonia emission reports, nutrient management reports and ecology reports. NIEA and Shared Environmental Services are the relevant consultees in relation to designated sites and protected sites and they have concluded that the proposals would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features of any European site or any protected species. Therefore I am satisfied that the proposal is compliant with the relevant policies contained within PPS 2.
Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) The SPPS supersedes PPS 1 General Principles, however the guiding principle of what PPS 1 aimed to achieve in terms of public interest is supported through the SPPS; in particular, paragraph 2.3 states that the planning system operates in the public interest of local communities. It does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Paragraph 5.72 of the SPPS further emphasises this in that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In such cases the planning authority has power to refuse planning permission. Rural policy The SPPS states that for agriculture and forestry development that provision should be made for development on an active and established (for a minimum 6 years) agricultural holding or forestry enterprise where the proposal is necessary for the efficient operation of the holding or enterprise. New buildings must be sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings on the holding or enterprise. An alternative site away from existing buildings will only being acceptable in exceptional circumstances The above provisions are also within the retained policy and have been considered earlier in the report. Amenity When considering the proposal I have considered the impact of the proposal on the surrounding land uses and buildings. I have outlined within my consideration under CTY 12 of PPS 21 that the proposal is not likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity. EHD are satisfied that the proposal will not impact in terms of noise and smells. I am satisfied that adequate separation exists between the development and any nearby properties. 11. Conclusion and Recommendation Having considered all material considerations before me including the development plan, planning policies, consultations, site history, I would recommend that the Planning Committee give consideration to my professional report and my recommendation to grant full planning permission for this proposal.
12. Conditions 01) As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time Limit. 02) The vehicular access, including visibility splays of 2.4 x 45m in both directions, and Forward Sight Distance of 45m shall be provided in accordance with the approved drawings, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users. 03) The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway before the development hereby permitted is commenced and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users 04) The access gradient(s) shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users. 05) Gates or security barriers at the access shall be located at a distance from the edge of the public road that will allow the largest expected vehicle to stop clear of the public road when the gates or barriers are closed and shall be sited so that when open they do not project over the footway, verge, or carriageway. Reason: To ensure waiting vehicles do not encroach onto the carriageway. 06) The applicant shall adhere to all mitigation and disposal methods for poultry litter generated by this proposal as detailed in Moy Park s updated Litter Utilisation Strategy as agreed with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) on 4th November 2015. Reason: To ensure that the poultry litter arising from this proposal will be utilised in a sustainable manner and in compliance with legislative requirements, therefore providing protection of the aquatic environment.
07) The mechanical extraction fans serving the development shall not exceed 53dBL Aeq at 7 metres. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity 08) Where it is proposed to install a standby generator it shall only be used in emergencies or whilst being subject to periodic testing and shall have a sound pressure level no greater than 70dBL Aeq at 1metre. All testing shall occur within the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity 09) Deliveries to or collections from the site shall take place within the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity