Development Management Report - Shropshire...2013/03/05 · currently contains two free range poultry buildings and a static caravan. The buildings are no longer used for poultry

`

Committee and date North Planning Committee 5th March 2013

Item

11 Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: [email protected] Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619 Summary of Application

Application Number: 12/04582/FUL

Parish:

Myddle And Broughton

Proposal: Construction of a building to house a biomass boiler and fuel store associated with a 150,000 broiler chicken unit (phase 4 of a 5 phase development)

Site Address: Meadowland Sleap Harmer Hill Shrewsbury SY4 3HE

Applicant: Mr R Price

Case Officer: Karen Townend email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 349123 - 326123

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

North Planning Committee – 5th March 2013

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Meadowland Sleap 12-04582-FUL Page 2 of 24

Recommendation:- Grant Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. Recommended Reason for Approval It is considered that the development will provide a sustainable source of heating for the proposed poultry farm which is the subject of four other applications on the site. The siting, scale and design of the building is considered to be acceptable and will not be visually intrusive in the locality or result in unacceptable harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residents, businesses, the character of the area or highway safety. As such the scheme complies with policies CS6 and CS8 of the Shropshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

REPORT 1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1

This application is one of five which overall proposes the erection of three poultry sheds, 6 feed bins, control rooms, a biomass boiler building and a new agricultural workers dwelling. This current application is for the building to hold the biomass boilers and the storage of the fuel for the boilers. The building is to be 30m by 18m with an eaves height of 7m and a pitched roof ridge height of 9.572m. The application form advises that it is proposed to erect the building with low level concrete walls and grey box profile metal cladding above. One gable end is proposed to have two roller shutter doors to enable delivery of fuel, pedestrian access doors are provided are also provided on three sides of the building.

1.2 The overall development also includes and outline application for an agricultural workers dwelling, alterations to the access, hardstandings, drainage and landscaping. It has been submitted in five separate applications by the agent and there is no reason in planning legislation to prevent this method of applying for permission. However, to ensure that the development is considered as a whole all five applications need to be considered alongside each other. The separating of the composite parts can allow the authority to grant parts and refuse parts if not all of the overall scheme is acceptable and as such each application will also need to be considered on its own merits.

1.3 EIA requirements The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 requires that for certain types of development an EIA must be undertaken. The proposed poultry development falls within the criteria in Schedule 1 of the Regulations (as it will accommodate in excess of 85,000 broiler chickens) and an EIA was therefore a mandatory requirement of the application submission.

1.4 The EIA procedure is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project’s likely significant effects on the environment. The Regulations at Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, stipulate the information to be included in an Environmental Statement (ES). An ES should identify, describe and assess the likely significant impacts of the development on the environment.

1.5 The application has been submitted with an ES and a non-technical summary as required by the regulations and the contents of this document will be considered in



the relevant sections of the report below.

2.0 SITE LCATION/ DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is located at Meadowlands, a 46 acres (18.6 hectares) farm which

currently contains two free range poultry buildings and a static caravan. The buildings are no longer used for poultry but currently provide shelter and housing for sheep grazed on the surrounding land. The site sits in an area of countryside for planning purposes as it outside any of the development boundaries set within the saved North Shropshire Local Plan. Sleap sits to the south of Wem and is made up of sporadic houses and farms, the private airfield operated by Sleap Aero Club and a small number of other businesses.

2.2 Access to the site is proposed to be via the minor road known as Burma Road which is accessed off the B5476 Shrewsbury to Wem road. Within the ES the agent as identified the surrounding settlements. Wem, Clive and Myddle are all approximately 3km from the site and Loppington is 3.75km away. There are a small number of houses and farms in Sleap, it is not an identified settlement in the North Shropshire Local Plan but is recognisable on an OS map. The site is therefore considered to be countryside in planning terms with the main use being the airfield which is still in active use by small aircraft.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The proposed development is Schedule 1 development under the Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 which under the Councils adopted scheme of delegation requires determination by Committee.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultee Comments 4.1.1 Myddle and Broughton Parish Council – After consideration by Members they

have decided to make a 'no comment' response to all the applications and there seems nowhere on the internet response page to make a no comment statement.

4.1.2 Environment Agency – Commented on all five applications and noted that intensive poultry sites are regulated by the EA under Environmental Permitting Regime (2010). Confirmed that Grocott Packaging Limited has applied for an Environmental Permit (EP) to operate an installation at Meadowland, which was issued on 19 July 2012 (ref. SP3737FF). The planning application proposals are within the limits of the EP, which allows for a combined capacity of 350,000 bird places on site. Under the Environmental Permitting regime a permit covers management, operations, emissions to water, air and land, records and reporting, and their impacts. The operator will have a legal obligation to comply with the conditions in the EP, which requires that the site is well run by competent operators in accordance with written management systems. The EA will regulate this site to ensure that the operator complies with the EP. The EP does not however cover activities outside of the permitted area. This would include the spreading of poultry litter and traffic movement to and from the site.



Air Quality: As noted in section 6.3 of the ES, the impact of emissions on designated sites was considered during the determination of the EP application. There are two SACs, two RAMSAR, three SSSIs and two LWS located within the selection criteria distance for emissions assessment. The assessment undertaken concluded that the installation would have no adverse effect on these nature conservation sites. Note that biomass boilers are proposed as a means of heating the proposed units. No information is provided with the planning application on the size of the boilers (thermal inputs). We understand it will be fuelled by wood chip. In this instance, due to the permit requirements for the poultry units (detailed above) the biomass boilers would be regulated under the EP as a source of emission. The biomass boiler proposals were therefore considered through the poultry permit application as a ‘directly associated activity’. The location of the proposed biomass boiler building within the site is in a slightly different position and orientation on the planning application layout plan to the layout assessed as part of the permit application. The alteration to the proposed biomass boiler building will therefore need to be picked up through a minor variation to the EP once the site is ready to operate. The proposed biomass boiler building is within the installation boundary and the matters assessed as part of the permit application are still considered relevant for the planning application submission. Figures for the biomass boilers were included in our assessment of emissions for the EP application, which concluded no adverse effect from the proposals. The issued permit allows for the operation of 6 biomass boilers with a rated thermal input of less than 20 megawatts for site heating requirements, burning biomass fuel not comprising waste or animal carcasses. The proposals as part of the planning application should be within the requirements of the EP.

4.1.3 Natural England – Raised no objection and recommended conditions. This application is in close proximity to Ruewood Pastures and Brownheath Moss Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as



is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

4.1.4 Council Conservation Officer – Has no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions requiring details of the hard and soft landscaping and cladding colours for the buildings being agreed.

4.1.5 Council Public Protection Officer – Has no comment to make on this application.

4.1.6 Council Highway Officer – The 5 planning applications submitted in respect of the site at Meadowlands, Sleap, which essentially include 3 separate applications for each individual poultry shed, Biomass building and a single dwelling. Whilst these applications are submitted individually I propose to assess the proposal as a whole as it is my understanding that the site will be fully developed over time. The application submission is supported by a Highways & Transport Assessment (TA) which considers the traffic generation including types of vehicles and traffic movement patterns set against the current traffic using the same route between the site and the Class II road B5476. The conclusion of the TA is that the traffic generated by the poultry units can be accommodated on the local highway network. As part of the application submission and included in the TA, 2 localised improvements are shown on drawings ML-RW-113 & 114. Following further discussions with the applicant’s agent, the B5476 junction is to be improved with the provision of 15.0 metre junction radii. This would better facilitate the manoeuvring of hgv’s and articulated vehicles onto and off the B5476 in the interests of highway safety. This is considered to be a positive measure benefiting all highway users. The TA sets out the pattern of vehicle movements throughout the 48 day cycle. As with all poultry units, the peak hgv movements take place during a limited number of days. These relate to the thinning collection of birds on day 38 and final removal of birds on day 44. These 2 periods relate to the size of the birds. Following the final collection of birds the bird manure is taken from the site to be spread on adjacent farm although this is commercially driven in terms of who buys it and where it is taken, but clearly it is more cost effective to export it over shorter distances. Whilst the 2 periods of birds collection results in some 11 hgv’s or 22 hgv movements, a number of these movements take place during the late evening and early hours, where background traffic movements are minimal, as this suit both the poultry factory recipient and welfare of the birds. Poultry manure would be taken from the site via tractor and trailer although this activity does not in itself require planning permission. Whilst it is considered that there are some deficiencies with the approach road leading to the site from the B5476, it is considered that the approach road is adequate to cater for the level of traffic generated by the poultry units subject to the highway improvements set out above. I raise no objection therefore to the



granting of planning consent subject to a condition requiring full engineering details.

4.1.7 Council Rights of Way Officer – This application does not appear to affect any Public Rights of Way.

4.1.8 Council Ecologist – Recommends conditions and informatives on the decision notices for all 3 poultry sheds and the biomass boiler building. There are no habitats of high ecological value on the site to be developed. There are 33 trees on the site but Star Ecology (2012) concludes that none of them have potential for roosting bats. The buildings on the site also have no potential for roosting bats to be present. However, there is potential for nesting wild birds on the site. There are 5 ponds and 4 ditch sections close to the proposed development which were all surveyed in spring 2012 by Star Ecology and no Great Crested Newts were found to be present. A further 8 ponds were identified within 300m of the proposed site but no access permission was granted by neighbouring landowners and so surveys of these ponds (P6 – 13) were not undertaken which is a constraint to the survey according to Star Ecology (2012). Star Ecology (2012) acknowledges the potential presence of Great Crested Newts in the un-surveyed ponds but concludes that the development site itself has little value for Great Crested Newts being largely short grazed grassland and hard standing and that the low risk of killing or injuring Great Crested Newts can be mitigated for by following a Reasonable Avoidance Method Statement provided in section 6.3.2.2 of the Star Ecology (2012) report. Pond 4, the onsite pond, is proposed for infilling and Reasonable Avoidance Measures for that work are provided in section 6.3.2.3 of the Star Ecology (2012) report. A new pond will be created on site and Star Ecology (2012) provides guidance on that process in section 8.5. I am satisfied that the potential presence of Great Crested Newts has been appropriately considered within the Star Ecology (2012) report and that the lack of survey information from ponds p6 – p13 has been taken into account through the use of precautionary methods of working. Star Ecology (2012) confirms that signs of badger foraging were recorded on the site and that precautionary methods of working are recommended to ensure the protection of the species. No badger setts were recorded on the site. The Reasonable Avoidance Measures for Badgers are in section 6.3.1 of the Star Ecology report and are covered under proposed condition 3 above. There was evidence of some foraging curlew in land adjacent to the site according to Star Ecology (2012) and it is proposed that this field is kept wet and retained as long grassland to maintain the foraging opportunities for this species. This proposal is covered under section 8.4 of the Star Ecology report and is dealt with under proposed condition 3 above. Star Ecology (2012) also recommends a scheme of native species planting around the site including on the proposed bunds and provides a list of native species which should make up this planting. Recommends a condition requiring



details of the landscaping to be submitted. This application must be considered under the Habitat Regulation Assessment process in order to satisfy the Local Authority duty to adhere to the Conservation of Species & Habitats Regulations 2010 (known as the Habitats Regulations). A Habitat Regulation Assessment matrix is attached with this response. The HRA matrix must be included in the Planning Officer’s report for the application and must be discussed and minuted at any committee at which the planning application is presented. Natural England has been formally consulted on these 4 planning applications and have responded to each stating ‘no objection.’ The Local Planning Authority must have regard to their representations when making a planning decision. Planning permission can only legally be granted where it can be concluded that the application will not have any likely significant effects on the integrity of any European Designated site.

4.1.9 Council Drainage Engineer – The application form states that surface water drainage from the proposed development is to be disposed of via a sustainable drainage system (SuDS). The Environmental Statement suggests that surface water will enter the watercourse via a swale with attenuation. Full details, plan and calculations of the proposed SuDS and attenuation should be submitted for approval together with the treatment for dirty water. As part of the SuDS, the applicant should consider employing measures to reduce surface water. Assuming there will not be a connection to the mains foul sewer, a treatment method should be determined. Percolation tests for the drainage field soakaway, and full details/ sizing of system should be submitted for approval using the FDA1 Form. British Water Flows and Load: 3 should be used to determine the number of persons for the proposed development. Design and installation should be in accordance with the Building Regulations H2. The above drainage details, plan and calculations should be submitted for approval prior to the determination of the planning permission.

4.2 Public Comments 4.2.1 A site notice has been erected, press notice published and the 3 nearest

neighbouring properties were directly consulted. 3 letters of representation have been received as a result raising the following concerns:

• The scale of the proposal vastly exceeds the previous free range egg production use of the site

• The applicants permit application refers to 7 poultry houses and 350,000 birds

• The site is close to Sleap airfield which is also used by RAF Shawbury

• The staffing levels are not clear and may result in poor management or financial difficulties

• Adds little to the local community

• Loss of amenity from odour, noise, dust, light and traffic

• Nearest dwelling is 510m from the development

• Impact of manure removal and spreading and associated fly infestations, odour and leakages from trailers



• Impact on Wem

• Burma Road is already heavily used by Shropshire Aero Club, the café, wood yard and others and is only just wide enough to allow two cars to pass

• Impact on tawny owls, little owls, barn owls, kestrels, sparrow hawks, buzzards, great crested newts, bats, badgers and other protected species. The ponds in the vicinity have not been assessed

• Curlews are not suited to the area and as such mitigation for them is not required

• The land around the site is prone to flooding and the development will increase flood risk and the risk of contamination of the watercourse and residential bore holes

• The proposed new dwelling is not for an established business

• An anaerobic digester would be preferred to a biomass boiler

• The boiler will increase traffic and pollution

4.2.2 Shropshire Aero Club, who run the airfield at Sleap, have also written with the following objections:

• Environmental Impact on air quality from smells adversely affecting the enjoyment Sleap

• Traffic will put increased pressure on the lanes and make them considerably more hazardous

• Air safety will be affected by the increase in insects and therefore feeding birds and risk of air strike

4.2.3 In addition 5,409 identical emails have also been received which object to the

principle of this form of poultry farming but are not site specific to this planning application or raise any material planning issues which are not covered above.

4.2.4 Hanson UK have also written. Hanson owns Sleap Airfield located in the vicinity of the proposed development. The Airfield is currently let to Sleap Aero Club they noted that they have already submitted their comments on the application. Sleap Airfield has the benefit of an existing planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. Although mineral extraction is currently mothballed it is the company’s intention to re-activate workings in the future, which will inevitably lead to lorry movements. In determining this application we would ask that the full highway implications are taking into account in terms of traffic numbers and impact on the Burma Road.

5.0 THE MAIN ISSUES • Policy & principle of development

• Reason for biomass

• Layout, scale and design of proposed structures

• Landscape and visual impact

• Impact on heritage assets

• Impact on residential amenities and local businesses

• Traffic and highway implications

• Trees and ecology

• Drainage

• Other matters



6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Policy & principle of development 6.1.1 This application is for the erection of a building to hold biomass boilers and

storage space for the fuel. On its own there is no reason for the building, it would not be required other than in connection with the new poultry sheds and as such the principle of the agricultural development is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The nature of the wider development in relation to this form of poultry farming is considered in greater detail in the three applications for the sheds.

6.1.2 Clearly some of the local community is greatly concerned by the perceived impact the proposal could have on their local environment and quality of life. The Local Planning Authority has a duty to remain objective and to ensure that the proposal is considered against the policies of the Development Plan, and that the proposal is determined in accordance with those policies unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. National and local policies require the LPA to use its judgement in determining whether a proposal is sufficiently harmful to interests of acknowledged importance to justify it being refused in the public interest. Of key importance in weighing the merits of a planning application and reaching that judgement are the views of statutory consultees who provide advice within their fields of expertise.

6.1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework has at its heart a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

6.1.4 Policy CS5 of the Shropshire Core Strategy states:- New development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies protecting the countryside and Green Belt. Subject to the further controls over development that apply to the Green Belt, development proposals on appropriate sites which maintain and enhance countryside vitality and character will be permitted where they improve the sustainability of rural communities by bringing local economic and community benefits, particularly where they relate to inter alia:- Agricultural/ horticultural/ forestry/ mineral related development. Although proposals for large scale new development will be required to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.

6.1.5 Policy CS6 encourages the use of renewable energy generating systems and policy CS8 states that the Council should positively encourage decentralised, low carbon and renewable energy generation. As stated above the boilers within the



proposed building are to provide heating for the three poultry sheds and will therefore reduce their consumption of energy from the national grid. This is considered by officers to be supported in principle by all of the above policies as it helps contribute towards the sustainable objectives of the Core Strategy as a whole. The key issues are whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact and these are considered below.

6.2 Reason for biomass 6.2.1

The Design and Access Statement (D&A) submitted with the application advises that the overall proposal includes a biomass boiler in order to heat the poultry sheds. It is intended that wood chip is the fuel used for the boiler and this is to be stored within the building and the D&A advises that given the size of the proposed building there would be space to store 300 tonnes of wood chip. Automated hoppers will be used to feed the boilers from the store.

6.2.2

Officers consider that the principle of a building to hold biomass boilers in association with a poultry development is acceptable providing the scale and design of the building is appropriate and providing the boilers do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the local environment. These matters are considered in greater detail below.

6.3 Layout, scale and design of proposed structures 6.3.1

The overall development, subject to the five applications, covers part of the overall 18.62 hectare land owned by the applicant. The access is existing and the proposal is to provide a vehicular service road within the site. Adjacent to the access is the proposed agricultural workers dwelling, beyond the dwelling the three poultry sheds sit on the south of the service road and the biomass boiler building and vehicle turning area lie to the north of the road. Beyond the buildings the applicant owns other land which it is proposed to retain in agricultural grazing with sheep. This additional land will also provide for an additional landscape buffer, drainage pond and swale and ecology mitigation.

6.3.2

The proposed biomass boiler building is to have a footprint of 30m by 18m with an eaves height of 7m and a pitched roof ridge height of 9.572m. The application form advises that it is proposed to erect the building with low level concrete walls and grey box profile metal cladding above. One gable end is proposed to have two roller shutter doors to enable delivery of fuel, pedestrian access doors are provided are also provided on three sides of the building. Officers do not consider the use of grey cladding would be appropriate given the existing woodland and hedge and tree boundaries and suggest a brown or green would reduce the visual appearance of the building. However, the building has agricultural and industrial character which officers do not considered to be out of keeping with the other developments on the overall application site and the wider are.

6.3.3 In addition to the proposed building the wider site will require a LPG back up system in case of failure of the boilers. The agent has confirmed that there will be 3 x 250kw LPG boilers also within the biomass boiler building and will provide a back up. Three tanks will be required to hold the gas which are proposed to be located outside the building, on concrete pads. The tanks and boilers are not considered to have any greater impact than the biomass building and boilers.



6.4 Landscape and visual impact 6.4.1

The application site is surrounded by existing native hedges interspersed with trees and is adjacent to mature woodland. In addition to retaining and maintaining this existing landscaping the applicant proposes new landscaping to the rear of the proposed sheds and to provide a buffer to the nearest neighbour, within the land retained for grazing. The D&A states that the landscaping is proposed both for visual benefits of additional screening and also to connect and improve wildlife habitats.

6.4.2

Chapter 7 of the ES provides the applicants landscape and visual assessment of the proposed development but also acknowledges that this assessment is subjective and that the conclusions within the ES is the author’s professional views. The ES advises that the area is dairy farming with some stock pastures and small broadleaved and mixed woodlands, it accepts that there will be effects on the area during the construction phase but that is expected to last 3 months and suggests that the height of the poultry sheds and the proposed landscaping would reduce the visual impact of the proposed development. Overall the ES concludes that the impact would be minor and that the majority of sensitive receptors are located at a distance from the site. The ES also considers that the quality of the existing view is a material consideration and the existing buildings and landscaping is taken into account in the conclusion of minimal impact.

6.4.3 The Shropshire Landscape Typology for the application and surrounding area is Estate Farmland which is defined as mixed farming with clustered settlements, planned woodland character and gently rolling lowland. This landscape covers large areas of Shropshire and officers consider that the area surrounding the application site is a good example of Estate Farmland. However, this does not preclude development. What needs to be determined is whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and the wider area. In assessing this matter the case officer visited the application site, the immediate surrounding area and potential view points in the wider area. The conclusion of this was that the overall development will be visible from Burma Road but only near to the site and the neighbouring property. In the wider landscape the buildings will be viewed amongst other agricultural buildings and with the backdrop of the woodland and field hedges and trees. The biomass building will be screened from view by the existing brick building, the woodland and the proposed poultry buildings and as such on its own is not considered to be visually harmful.

6.5 Impact on heritage assets 6.5.1 Sleap airfield and the surrounding area was used by the military during the 2nd

World War and there is still evidence of military uses and buildings in the area, including what remains of the airfield and the brick building within the application site. As such Sleap could be considered to have some historic merit though this includes built form and has not been preserved in its historic form as other newer buildings have been developed on and around the airfield. In the wider area there are four listed buildings within 2km of the site. However, the Conservation and Design Officer has confirmed that, in her opinion, the proposed development will not adversely affect the setting of any designated or non-designated heritage assets. As with the impact on the landscape the proposed buildings will be read amongst other agricultural developments and will be broken up by existing and



proposed landscaping.

6.6 Impact on residential amenities and local businesses

6.6.1 Policy CS6 requires all developments to safeguard residential and local amenity and policy CS5, although supportive of agricultural developments requires large scale developments to ensure that they do not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the environment. It is acknowledged that poultry sites can be an issue with the potential for noise, odour, dust, flies and vermin. Local objections have been received raising these concerns and also concerns about the storage and spreading of manure and the impact from smells and flies on the airfield use and operations. These concerns are dealt with in the reports on the three poultry sheds. With regard to the biomass building, although it is accepted that this is only needed in association with the poultry sheds, the building will lie adjacent to the existing brick building on site.

6.6.2 The D&A suggests that other than the dwelling proposed on the application site the nearest dwelling is New House Farm which is over 500m from the application site with Sleap Gorse in between. The case officer noted on their site visit that the dwelling can be viewed from the existing poultry shed and the shed can be viewed from the dwelling. However, the current application proposes the biomass building on the opposite side of Sleap Gorse to the neighbouring dwelling and also notes the proposed additional landscaping.

6.6.3 The Environment Agency (EA) have also commented that the biomass boilers, as part of a larger development for poultry farming, will need to operate in accordance with the conditions of the Environmental Permit (EP) issued by them. Figures for the biomass boilers were included in the EA assessment of emissions for the EP application, which concluded no adverse effect from the proposals. The issued permit allows for the operation of 6 biomass boilers with a rated thermal input of less than 20 megawatts for site heating requirements, burning biomass fuel not comprising waste or animal carcasses.

6.6.4 The concerns of the local residents are acknowledged and any such operation is likely to result in local concern. However, the advice from the EA is that the system can operate without detrimental harm to the neighbouring residents. The neighbours request for an anaerobic digester instead of biomass boilers is also noted, however the current application is for biomass. If the applicant seeks to provide alternative arrangements separate consent will be required and the impact on amenities re-considered.

6.7 Traffic and highway implications 6.7.1 To support all five applications on the site a Traffic and Highway Statement has

been submitted. The assessment details the access as existing and proposed, the route proposed for the traffic to access the main road network and the existing and predicted traffic levels. There is an existing access to the site off the Burma Road which leads to the B5476, Wem to Shrewsbury road. The applicant is proposing to improve the existing access, provide an additional passing place on the Burma Road and amendments were requested by the Highway Officer during the consideration of the application. The D&A states that the fuel for the boilers will be delivered in tractors and trailers and this was queried with the agent.



6.7.2 In order to assess the potential impact of the development traffic the Highway

consultant for the applicant has undertaken a traffic count and taken into account the accident records for both Burma Road and the B5476. The accident records show 2 incidents which were not attributed to traffic levels. The consultant has advised that the traffic counts and observations show that the highway network operates well with peak traffic movements between 08:00 and 15:00 westbound and 11:00 and 17:00 eastbound and a significant drop in traffic levels between 20:00 and 06:00. The consultant has concluded that the cumulative impact of HGV and tractor and trailer movements on the Burma Road is not significant. On 44 out of 48 days of the cycle there will be, on average, less than one additional vehicle movement on the road and the majority of increase during collection and cleaning will be during the night when existing traffic levels are low.

6.7.3 The proposal includes areas of hard standing for delivery of the fuel and a turning area to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. It is recommended that this hard standing wash down also pass through an oil interceptor to ensure that any vehicle leakages do not enter the waste water, which is to be spread on fields. The proposed passing place is approximately 200m from the site and will widen the carriageway to 6m for a distance of 25m and improve the ability of two HGV’s to pass on the Burma Road. The improvements to the access to the site are to widen the first 20m to 6m wide, again enabling two HGV’s, or two tractor and trailers, to pass in the access. This will reduce the need for vehicles to wait on the highway if another vehicle is leaving the site. The works to the junction of Burma Road to the B road will widen the splay at the junction improving entrance and exit paths for large vehicles by reducing the angle of the corner to turn. The works would all need to be done to highway level and of the specification required by the Council.

6.7.4 The Council Highway Officer has assessed the information submitted, the proposed improvements and the predicted traffic movements and has raised no objections as detailed in section 4.1.6 of the report. It is the Highway Officer’s conclusion that the traffic movements will be mainly at times when there is limited existing traffic on the immediate road network. Subject to the improvements detailed above being undertaken in accordance with an appropriate specification, which should be submitted for approval under a discharge of condition, the Highway officer has no highway safety reasons to not support the application.

6.7.5 The comments from Hanson UK are also noted. Hanson own Sleap Airfield and have extant planning consent for extraction of minerals from the site. Although this is not currently being extracted the company have the right, under the consent, to commence this work and as such this would increase traffic movements along Burma Road. This matter has been discussed between the Council Minerals and Waste Officer and the Highway Officer and the conclusion of these discussions were that the proposed poultry development and associated highway improvements will not conflict with the works Hanson will undertake when then act on their consent and that the majority of HGV movements for the poultry development will be at night whereas the mineral extraction HGV movements will be during the daytime. As such officers do not consider that the poultry development proposal, in combination with the approved mineral extraction, will not result in detrimental highway safety implications.



6.8 Trees and ecology 6.8.1 Policy CS17 seeks to protect, enhance, expand and connect Shropshire’s

environmental assets which include landscape and ecology. The proposal is to retain the existing landscaping and provide additional landscaping and ecology areas. A new woodland area is proposed on the northern edge of the applicants land to provide a buffer between the development and the neighbouring property. Additional native trees are proposed on the boundaries of the site to enhance the existing hedge and tree lines which make up the field boundaries and also enhance habitat for wildlife.

6.8.2 Within the Ecological Assessment the ecologist has identified the boundary treatments and hedge qualities and has also identified 33 trees on or immediately adjacent to the application site. The majority of these are Oak with occasional Beech, Willow, Ash, Hawthorn and Silver Birch. The nearby Sleap Gorse is dominated by Common Ash and Silver Birch. It is not proposed to remove any of the existing trees and the gorse is outside the applicants land and as such is protected by its ownership. Overall the landscaping proposed by the development is considered by officers to enhance and add to the existing situation and will not result in any landscaping which is out of character with the area.

6.8.3 The Ecological Assessment undertaken and submitted with the planning application was done by a suitably qualified ecologist. The assessment detailed that the site is not close to any Nationally designated habitat site. The site is managed agricultural fields with two existing free range poultry sheds which are to be demolished and a large area of concrete. In the wider area there are several ponds and a woodland known as Sleap Gorse. Although the ecologist was not able to access all of the land within 250m of the application site the assessment has surveyed the accessible land and the application site and also researched background information and data. The assessment identifies the County Wildlife site at Ruewood Pools and the wild flower meadow benefits of this site and the Ramsar’s and SSSI’s in the wider area. The surveys have recorded evidence of birds, Barn owl, Great Crested Newt (GCN), badger tracks and latrines, Tawny owl, Kestrel, a Rookery and Curlew within 250m of the site.

6.8.4 The pond within the site is a waterfowl pond and as such is not a suitable habitat for GCN. None of the ponds or ditches surveyed had any GCN or eggs, though the ecologist has acknowledged that he was not able to survey all of the ponds in the surrounding area and as such absence of newts can not be assumed. No physical evidence was found on site, either within the buildings or the trees, of bats. The assessment has concluded that the site has low ecological value itself but that wildlife may occasionally cross the site. The ecologist has concluded that the development will not result in an adverse impact to protected species either directly or through atmospheric emissions.

6.8.5 Due to the presence of protected species in the wider area the ecologist has recommended the following mitigation measures. For badgers, which may forage the site at night, protection will be afforded by covering excavations during the construction of the development. Long term enhancements will be through the provision of 12 bat boxes, 14 bird boxes including a Kestrel box and Tawny owl box, additional tree, hedge and scrub planting, and an area of permanent wetland



is proposed to encourage the extension of the existing Curlew habitat on the adjoining land to enhance the habitat for this declining species.

6.8.6 In assessing the permit the EA have also assessed the potential impact on the SSSI’s in the wider area and predicted that the ammonia emissions at Brownheath Moss, the closest SSSI, would be just over 4% and that this would not have an adverse impact. The Council Ecologist has considered the submitted information and proposed mitigation and advised that there is no potential for roosting bats but that bat boxes should be provided to improve the habitat for this species and lighting details should take into account bats, there is also a potential for nesting birds and bird boxes are recommended. With regard to badgers reasonable avoidance measures are suggested which would ensure the protection of this species and full details of the landscaping should be submitted for approval.

6.8.7 The concerns of the local residents are noted and although they have questioned the presence of Curlew the applicants ecologist is an appropriately qualified professional who has advised that there is evidence of Curlew in the neighbouring field and therefore the proposed area for Curlew would enhance the habitat for this species. With regard to Great Crested Newts the Council Ecologist has noted that not all of the ponds in the surrounding area were surveyed however the advice is that the mitigation measures and precautionary working methods proposed will ensure the protection of this species. Overall the Council Ecologist has not raised any objection to the development and as such it is considered that the development meets the requirements of policy CS17 with respect to ecology.

6.9 Drainage 6.9.1 The site for the proposed buildings is within flood zone 1 and as such is not at risk

of flooding, however the proposed swale and replacement pond was initially proposed within flood zone 3 and such it was recommended that these parts of the development were relocated. Notwithstanding this matter the application has been submitted with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) due to the size of the development. The FRA concludes that the development will not increase the risk of flooding and proposes measures to control surface water flows.

6.9.2 The application proposes the use of Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) for all of the surface water from the buildings. The water from the hard standings and washing out of the insides of the buildings will need to be collected and disposed of off site as this will be similar to the collected manure. The collection tanks should be fitted with level indicators to identify when they need emptying and the Environment Agency have provided advice to the application on pollution prevention measures which are commented on by the agent in the ES. The SuDS proposes that the surface water is collected and taken to a swale prior to discharging to Sleap brook approximately 250m from the site which in turn joins the River Roden at Wem. The swale will have both infiltration and attenuation capabilities and hold the surface water close to source, releasing it slowly over time to not exceed green field run off rate. Both the EA and the Council Drainage Engineer have advised that this method of dealing with surface water is acceptable in principle.

6.9.3 Amended plans have been received which move the swale and pond out of flood zone 3 and additional details have been submitted which the Council Drainage



Engineer has confirmed shows that the surface water system proposed is acceptable and will not result in an increase of flood risk either within or outside the application site.

6.10 Other matters 6.10.1 Objectors have also raised concerns about the limited benefits to the local

community, the low number of jobs created and the confusion between the submitted documents in relation to the number of jobs to be created.

6.10.2 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application and additional information provided post submission has enabled officers to fully consider the environmental impact of the proposed development and conclude that, subject to proper management, the site will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact. The concerns that the site will not be managed properly have no evidence or justification or any defendable grounds in planning terms to refuse the application. Policy CS5 does not require all developments to show economic or community benefits beyond the support for agricultural development which itself supports Shropshire as a whole.

6.10.3 A number of objections have also been raised on the basis that the development proposes factory farming which the objectors consider is cruel to the birds, harmful to the area and that the consumption of meat should be reduced. These objections, as detailed at 4.2.2 are generic objections to large scale poultry developments and do not include any site specific issues. Notwithstanding that all of the site specific issues are considered above and the advice is that, in officer’s opinion, the development will not be harmful to the area. With regard to animal cruelty and the preference of these objectors to reduce meat consumption there is no reason within planning policy to refuse the development on either of these grounds. There is a national presumption in favour of agricultural development to support this business sector to feed the country and reduce the need for importation. The welfare of the animals is dealt with through legislation separate to planning.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1

It is considered that the development will provide a sustainable source of heating for the proposed poultry farm which is the subject of four other applications on the site. The siting, scale and design of the building is considered to be acceptable and will not be visually intrusive in the locality or result in unacceptable harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residents, businesses, the character of the area or highway safety. As such the scheme complies with policies CS6 and CS8 of the Shropshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL

8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.



The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol

Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the

public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of

conditions if challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. Local financial considerations are capable of being taken into account when determining this planning application – in so far as they are material to the application. The weight given to this issue is a matter for the decision maker.

10.0 BACKGROUND 10.1 Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework - The relevant sections of the NPPF are sections :- Section 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy



Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 13 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: PA15: Agriculture and Farm Diversification QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment QE5: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment QE6: The Conservation Enhancement and Restoration of the Regions Landscapes QE7: Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Regions Biodiversity Resource QE9: The Water Environment Core Strategy: Policy CS5: Countryside and Green Belt Policy CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles Policy CS7: Communications and Transport Policy CS8: Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Provision Policy CS13: Economic Development, Enterprise and Employment Policy CS17: Environmental Networks Policy CS18: Sustainable Water Management

11. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price

Local Member Cllr Brian Williams

Appendices APPENDIX 1 – HRA Matric APPENDIX 2 – Conditions



APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 1

Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) Screening Matrix & Appropriate Assessment Statement

Application name and reference number:

Meadowland, Sleap, Harmer Hill, Shrewsbury 12/04582/FUL - Construction of a building to house a biomass boiler and fuel store associated with a 150,000 broiler chicken unit (phase 4 of a 5 phase development) 12/04574/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 1 of a 5 Phase development) 12/04580/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 2 of a 5 Phase development) 12/04581/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 3 of a 5 Phase development)

Date of completion for the HRA screening matrix:

21 February 2013

HRA screening matrix completed by:

Fran Lancaster Planning Ecologist Shropshire Council 01743 252578 [email protected]

Table 1: Details of project or plan Name of plan or project Meadowland, Sleap, Harmer Hill, Shrewsbury

12/04582/FUL - Construction of a building to house a biomass boiler and fuel store associated with a 150,000 broiler chicken unit (phase 4 of a 5 phase development) 12/04574/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 1 of a 5 Phase development) 12/04580/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 2 of a 5 Phase development)



12/04581/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 3 of a 5 Phase development)

Name and description of Natura 2000 site

In 10km: Fenn`s, Whixall, Bettisfield, Wem and Cadney Mosses SAC and Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 (949.2ha) together form an outstanding example of lowland raised mire. The site as a whole supports a wide range of characteristic acid peat bog vegetation. Annex I Habitats that are a primary reason for selection of site:

• Active raised bog. Annex I Habitats present as a qualifying feature but not a primary reason for selection of site:

• Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration Clarepool Moss Midland Meres & Mosses Ramsar Phase 1 and West Midland Mosses (184.18ha) is a collection of sites which between them represent nationally important dystrophic water bodies, transition mires and quaking bogs. Annex I Habitats that are a primary reason for selection of site:

• Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

• Transition mires and quaking bogs

Fenemere Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 1 (16.34ha) is a particularly rich and interesting mere with eutrophic water. Fenemere is also important for its rich aquatic invertebrate fauna. It is designated for its open water, swamp, fen, wet pasture and Carr habitats with the species Cicuta virosa and Thelypteris palustris White Mere Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 1 (31.97ha) is one of the richest of the North Shropshire meres for aquatic plants. Designated for its open water and carr habitats with the plant species Carex elongata and Eleocharis acicularis Brownheath Moss Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 (31.32ha) differs from the other North Shropshire Mosses in consisting of a series of pools set in an area of heathland and woodland, rather than an expanse of peat. It is designated for its fen and carr habitats with the species Carex elongata.

Cole Mere Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 is one of the largest of the Shropshire meres, with an almost complete fringe of woodland. There is a comparatively rich flora of aquatic macrophytes and the aquatic invertebrate fauna of Cole Mere is particularly diverse and is designated for its Open water, Wet pasture and Carr habitats with the species Carex elongata Most of Hencott Pool Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 (11.5ha) is swamp carr on very wet peat dominated by alder Alnus glutinosa and common sallow Salix cinerea with frequent crack willow Salix fragilis. Although there are considerable areas of bare peat beneath the trees, there is a rich flora of fen plants. It is designated for its Carr habitat and the species Carex elongata and Cicuta virosa

Sweat Mere and Crose Mere Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 (38.58ha) are two dissimilar meres constituting a site of exceptional importance. The meres and their surrounds form a complex of open water, reedswamp, fen and woodland habitats unrivalled in Shropshire for the variety of natural features of special scientific interest. It is designated for its Open water, Swamp, Fen, Wet pasture and Carr habitats with the species Carex elongata and Thelypteris palustris

In 5km: Ruewood Pastures SSSI Grinshill Quarries SSSI



In 2km: Ruewood Pastures Reserve Local Wildlife Site Ruewood Pools Local Wildlife Site

Description of the plan or project

12/04582/FUL - Construction of a building to house a biomass boiler and fuel store associated with a 150,000 broiler chicken unit (phase 4 of a 5 phase development) 12/04574/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 1 of a 5 Phase development) 12/04580/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 2 of a 5 Phase development) 12/04581/EIA - Construction of a broiler chicken building to house 50,000 birds (Phase 3 of a 5 Phase development)

Is the project or plan directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (provide details)?

No Natural England, Shropshire Council and Environment Agency have identified that the proposed broiler units have the potential to impact upon the European Designated sites within 10km via the effect pathway of aerial emissions. The biomass boiler (12/04582/FUL) does not have the potential to impact upon the European Designated Sites and can be screened out of the HRA process.

Appropriate Assessment Statement The biomass boiler (12/04582/FUL) does not have the potential to impact upon the European Designated Sites and can be screened out of the HRA process. This application is therefore not considered in the Appropriate Assessment below. The 3 EIA planning applications cover phases 1, 2 and 3 of the development a total of 3 broiler units at 50,000 birds each with a total of 150,000 birds on the site. The Environmental permit reference EPR/SP3737FF/A001 covers a total of 350,000 birds on the site since it takes into account proposed future phases of development which are not included in the current planning applications. Brownheath Moss Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 is the closest European Designated Site at 4.8km. Brownheath Moss has a Critical Level for ammonia of 1µg/m³ since lichen interest is deemed to be an important interest feature of the site. The process contribution for ammonia from the permitted activities is 4.2% of the Critical Level according to modelling carried out by Environment Agency. This is above the threshold used by Environment Agency as an assessment of significance (for European Sites 4%) and so further detailed consideration is required. Environment Agency have not identified any other permitted intensive farming units within 10km of Brownheath Moss Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 and so, since the process contribution is below 20%, Environment Agency have concluded that there is no likely significant effect and no likely effect on the integrity of the European Designated site at Brownheath Moss Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2. All the other European Designated Sites within 10km are at a greater distance from the installation and many have a Critical Level of 3µg/m³. Environment Agency has concluded no



likely significant effect on any of the other European Designated Sites within 10km on this basis. There are 2 SSSI’s within 5km: Grinshill Quarries SSSI and Ruewood Pastures SSSI. Environment Agency modelling shows that the process contribution at these sites is below 20% and so there is no likely significant effect. There are 2 Local Wildlife Sites within 2km of the proposed installation: Ruewood Pools Local Wildlife Site and Ruewood Pastures Local Wildlife Sites. Environment Agency modelling shows that the process contribution at these sites is below 50% and so there is no likely significant effect. Are there any other projects or plans that together with the project or plan being assessed could affect the site (provide details)?

No Environment Agency confirm in the emissions modelling carried out for Environmental Permit reference EPR/SP3737FF/A001 that all European Designated Sites can be screened out as no likely significant effect except for Brownheath Moss Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 where there is a process contribution of 4.2% of the critical level for ammonia. However there are no other permitted intensive farming units within 10m of the European Designated site at Brownheath Moss Midland meres and Mosses Ramsar Phase 2 and the process contribution is below the 20% threshold used by Environment Agency and Natural England. Environment Agency have concluded, and have advised Shropshire Council, that there will be no significant effect alone or in-combination.

Shropshire Council is relying on the evidence and reasoning of Environment Agency and Natural England under Regulation 65 of the Habitats Regulations in completing this Habitat Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The Significance test

There is no likely significant effect alone, or in-combination, from development proposed under planning application references 12/04574/EIA, 12/04580/EIA and 12/04581/EIA for a total of 150,000 broiler bird places in 3 units at meadowlands, Sleep, Harmer Hill on any European Designated Site.

The Integrity test

There is no likely effect on the integrity of any European Designated Site from planning application references 12/04574/EIA, 12/04580/EIA and 12/04581/EIA for a total of 150,000 broiler bird places in 3 units at meadowlands, Sleep, Harmer Hill.

Conclusions

There is no legal barrier under the Habitat Regulation Assessment process to planning permission being granted in this case.

Guidance on completing the HRA Screening Matrix

The Habitat Regulation Assessment process Essentially, there are two ‘tests’ incorporated into the procedures of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, one known as the ‘significance test’ and the other known as the ‘integrity



test’ which must both be satisfied before a competent authority (such as a Local Planning Authority) may legally grant a permission. The first test (the significance test) is addressed by Regulation 61, part 1: 61. (1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project which – (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

The second test (the integrity test) is addressed by Regulation 61, part 5: 61. (5) In light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 62 (consideration of overriding public interest), the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be).

In this context ‘likely’ means “probably”, or “it well might happen”, not merely that it is a fanciful possibility. ‘Significant’ means not trivial or inconsequential but an effect that is noteworthy – Natural England guidance on The Habitat Regulation Assessment of Local Development Documents (Revised Draft 2009).

Habitat Regulation Assessment Outcomes A Local Planning Authority can only legally grant planning permission if it is established that the proposed plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the European Site. If it is not possible to establish this beyond reasonable scientific doubt then planning permission cannot legally be granted.

Duty of the Local Planning Authority It is the duty of the planning case officer, the committee considering the application and the Local Planning Authority is a whole to fully engage with the Habitats Regulation Assessment process, to have regard to the response of Natural England and to determine, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, the outcome of the ‘significance’ test and the ‘integrity’ test before making a planning decision.



APPENDIX 2

Conditions STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years

from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and

drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. All development, demolition or site clearance procedures on the site to which this

consent applies shall be undertaken in line with the Ecological Assessment by Star Ecology (2012)

Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife.

4. No development shall commence on site in connection with the approval until samples

of materials including colour finishes for the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved materials for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the materials are appropriate in the landscape.

-