Construction of four poultry sheds and feed bins, ancillary works, formation of new vehicular access, erection of biomass building and associated landscaping.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 65, Councillor David Evans left the room during consideration of this item.  The Vice Chairman took the Chair for this item.

The Team Manager – Development Management explained that a previous decision had been the subject of a successful legal challenge on the basis that no comments had been received from Natural England.  Shropshire Council had elected not to challenge the Judicial Review but sought to seek comments from Natural England.  The Judicial Review process led to the planning permission being quashed and not refused and the application was now before this Committee for reconsideration. 

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and access.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Mr J Turley, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Dr J Thain, representing Hopton Heath Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr S Thomas, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Nigel Hartin, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement against the proposal and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         There had been much opposition to this application.  An application to extend the existing operation would not have received as many objections;

·         The level of traffic created would have a detrimental impact on the highway and the access onto the B4385;

·         Would be too close to residential properties and there were a significant number of properties within the 400m zone;

·         The economic benefits of the scheme would be limited and the potential damage to local tourism interests would lead to a net loss;

·         Would be contrary to Core Strategy policies CS5 and CS13; and

·         He questioned the robustness of the Significance and Integrity tests;

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to comments, the Principal Planner reiterated that Natural England, Ecology Officers and the Environment Agency had raised no objections and robust mitigation measures would be put in place.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The proposal fails to comply with Core Strategy Policy CS5 as it relates to large scale development in the open countryside and which fails to maintain and enhance countryside vitality and character improve the sustainability of rural communities or bring benefits to the local community. Whilst the economic benefits of the scheme are acknowledged it is considered that these are limited to the developer and would be outweighed by the potential damage to local tourism interests. As such, the scheme promotes one form of economic development at the expense of another in conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS16; and

·         The proposals are located in the catchment of the River Clun which is associated with an internationally designated Special Area of Conservation which is unique in Shropshire and is afforded the highest level of protection under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.  The Special Area of Conservation requires the highest level of protection in order to conserve the habitat of the freshwater pearl mussel which is dependent on maintaining high water quality. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of objection by Natural England, it is considered that the proposals have the potential to add to pollution within the Clun Catchment and would require a very high level of control in order to ensure continued compliance in this location next to a watercourse. It is considered that the potential risk of a breakdown in control measures and an associated pollution incident represents an unacceptable risk which fails to comply with the above regulations and with Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS17.

(The Chairman returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.)

(At this juncture, the meeting adjourned at 15:14 and reconvened at 15:19.)