Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jamie Curston, a supporter. Mr Curston advised members that he is currently the Farm Manager, being a local man and is married to a local lady having a family of 3, who have connections to the District to assist with their childcare so that they can continue to work in the District and support local services and contribute to the local economy. He expressed the view that his family have outgrown the 3-bedroomed house and require a 4-bedroomed dwelling to give the children their own space, being both male and female he believes this is appropriate.

Mr Curston stated that he has spent most of his working life in the poultry industry and progressed through the ranks from a trainee stockman to the current position as manager at Hooks Drove Farm since its first opening 8 years ago and it is one of the biggest and high-profile farms in the country seen as a flagship farm. He expressed the view that they lead the industry in technology to promoting effective farming, produce antibiotic use and implement extremely high bird welfare, which has led to an increase in his responsibilities and an increase in the complexity of running the business including integrating renewable energy and water recycling that requires constant monitoring.

Mr Curston stated that the job is demanding upon his experience and understanding of the ever increasing bird welfare and husbandry, with developing environmental controls and improving health and safety conditions for workers all contributing to ensure the health and successful growth of the birds on the farm. He added that he is also responsible for the welfare of the staff and the health and safety of the farm, with lone working considerably frowned upon and they are trying to eradicate it, which can be overcome by two people working together as there are many dangerous aspects to their work such as working at height, machines jamming, electrical malfunctions, etc and being a livestock farm these need to be dealt with immediately, often out of hours greatly increasing the demands on the labour force.

Mr Curston advised that the farm has 4 full-time workers during normal working times but out of hours there are only 2 living on the farm, emergencies often occur out of hours times and if he or his stockman are on holiday then there is only 1 person to deal with the risks of ½ million birds spread over 11 acres and dealing with the operation and safety of the farm’s systems, which, in his view, is not reasonable as at times someone travelling in from distance would not fulfil the requirements of the birds welfare. He expressed the opinion that at a time of emergency a call for assistance to one of its off-duty staff living off-site, may or may not be successful and may take up to 30 minutes to respond, with the delay possibly causing serious health problems to the flock estimated to be worth £1.5-2 million.

Mr Curston expressed the view that within the industry statutory holidays and part weekends off duty this amounts to 87 days per year for each employee based on their 6 day working week and with only 1 man on site the farm operation is at serious risk and the employees welfare is compromised, the third dwelling now requested is required to allow 3 workers to live on site full time so there will always be a minimum of 2 men enabling 1 man to be absent on annual leave, sickness or for any other reason. He feels the erection of the third dwelling as proposed is in an ideal situation close to the farm entrance and immediately adjacent to the farm buildings and the proposed 4-bedroomed size will provide adequate accommodation for his family and assist his continued management and operation of the farm.

Members asked questions of Mr Curston as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to bird flu and the recent experienced outbreak and asked if the farm is closed to anybody coming in thereafter and then staff try and live on site? Mr Curston responded that restrictions are in place so visitors are kept to a minimum and it is just essential visitors, such as feed deliveries and staff.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the birds are being fed during the night as well on a 24-hour basis? Mr Curston responded that it is a 24-hour production and there is a 6-hour dark period but a 24-hour constant monitoring system to ensure the birds are well looked after. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Dominic Parker, the applicant, and Derek Salisbury, the agent. Mr Parker expressed the opinion that this application with an officer’s recommendation for refusal is largely due to the difference of opinion relating to the agricultural need and he employed Brown & Co to consider the agricultural need relating to an additional residential property, with the author of the report spending time on the farm assessing the factors and interviewing the staff gaining a sound understanding of the complexities for running a large modern flagship poultry farm, with their approach being thorough and their conclusions in favour of the requirement for a third dwelling, in his view, a well justified and well documented need in the 34 page report. He expressed the view that Sanham Agricultural Planning Limited were recommended to the Local Planning Authority by the first-choice planning consultant who withdrew, as a micro company with 1 director, 1 employee and limited resource it could not have the resource available to properly assess this complex application.

Mr Parker expressed the opinion that their report was unsubstantiated with broad sweeping statements that did not reflect the reality on the farm and the author did not accept an offer to visit the farm to understand the justification documented by Brown & Co instead it carried out a desktop assessment with no regard to the scale of the operation or the advancing requirements of bird welfare and it makes no comment on the health and safety issue of lone working as documented by the NFU nor the increasing security concerns of a single man dealing with the potential theft or violence at an isolated farm. He feels the lone voice recommending refusal contradicts the support of the NFU, CLA and numerous experienced members of the poultry industry who understand the operation of a poultry farm thoroughly and they all confirm the need for three dwellings to enable 2 workers to be always available on the farm.

Mr Parker expressed the view that provision of quality housing on an established farm business within the existing farm for a local family would be a positive outcome and the proposed residential dwelling would save car journeys, use the farm’s renewable energy and contribute to the water recycling, an added bonus in reducing the farm’s carbon footprint. He stated that if it would help the committee assess the scale of the farm, they would welcome a visit but, in his view, the farm scale justifies a minimum of 2 men on duty at any one time and, therefore, 3 dwellings, with the farm having a value of about £8 million with stock value of around £1.5-2 million so it is a very important part of his business and a big responsibility for his Farm Manager, with the additional dwelling having an agricultural occupancy restriction and he cannot think why anyone would think why he would want to invest and build this property unless he required it.

Mr Parker hoped that the committee could look favourably on this application for his farm business, farm and employees, with a vote in favour of the application being a vote in favour of enhanced bird welfare, enhanced health and safety, enhanced employee welfare, enhanced sustainability and a reduced carbon footprint and a vote for high quality British agriculture.

Mr Salisbury informed members that he is a Chartered Architect and has worked for 17 years with all sorts of farms at the cutting edge of major improvements in animal welfare and farming practice. He expressed the view that the proposal for the third worker cottage is well founded and justified as demonstrated by the forensic appraisal produced by Brown & Co.

Mr Salisbury stated that the application was registered in June 2022 and they have responded to matters raised intermittently resulting in no objection from Environmental Health, the Wildlife Officer, Environment Agency and Highway Authority and have consental support from the Town Council, from neighbours and poultry users, Middle Level Commissioners, National Farmers Union and the Countryside Land Association, with the sole dissenting voice arises from the unsubstantiated desktop study by the Council’s advisor. He stated that no response was received to their Flood Risk Assessment when submitted in January until the officer’s report and they have submitted an update which considers that if the essential need for the dwelling is accepted then the sequential and exceptions tests are not applicable and reason 2 for refusal falls away and they contest the third reason regarding the relationship of the garage, which they do not think dominates the existing poorly designed bungalow.

Mr Salisbury stated that the proposed dwelling is critical to continuation of the farm as a flagship operation and requested that members approve the application with appropriate conditions.

Members asked questions of Mr Parker and Mr Salisbury as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked who the poultry farm supplies to? Mr Parker responded presently the birds are going into Sainsburys and there is a new contract for a higher welfare bird again, which started about 2 months ago and the monitoring involved is onerous.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if CCTV was installed on the farm? Mr Parker responded that there is CCTV installed on the outside of the buildings for security purposes and part of the proposal for the new Sainsbury’s contract is that CCTV is going to be placed inside as well so the birds can be monitored.

·       Councillor Marks referred to there being an office in the roof space and asked if an office was being removed or is this a new office? Mr Parker responded that this is a new office, the existing farm office will continue but there is a bio security fence which means that when you cross it into the farm you have to carry out security verification and this will enable the Farm Manager when he is off duty or at home to still monitor and work on the flock, it will be connected to the main office but means he does not have to walk in and out all the time if there is an issue breaking the bio security and enhancing the risk of AI.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that this falls into the remit of a grey area, he can see why officers have reached their conclusion and as much as you can get experts to come in and say what is and is not needed the best person to know what is required is the person that runs it and very often the committee have to take what people tell them at face value. He expressed the opinion that this is a serious business and if the people running it say they need 3 people it seems perfectly reasonable, with you not being able to have 1 person working now anyway due to health and safety. Councillor Benney stated he has never kept chickens but he has helped rear pheasants for pheasant shooting and he knows the work that goes into looking after any bird of any sort and he feels the owner would not be spending money to build a house with agricultural restrictions if he did not have to spend this money. He reiterated that the best person to say whether something is needed for the business is the person running it and he can take this at face value and can see the problems in relation to health and safety, animal welfare and it falls in the grey area where members needs to make a decision about supporting a local business, which the Council is committed to doing, and this business will grow. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the reasons for refusal are outweighed by the need for this business and he does not accept this is damaging the landscape or the area, it is not in a built-up area, this is where this enterprise belongs on a farm. He stated that he will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Hicks referred to the site being in Flood Zone 3 and feels a precedent has already been set by allowing other buildings to be built on the land previously so he cannot see this as a valid reason for refusal.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the committee passing one very similar for a potato farmer as they had to live on site 24 hours and the security issue with the gliding company near March so he will be supporting this application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that until she read the report she did not realise there was such a business in the District, she referred to the Council being Open for Business and the owners of this farm should be helped, with it being remarkable that they are prepared to build a house for farm workers, the owners are prepared to provide high quality work and build a high quality home so she will not be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with the comments of Councillors Benney and Mrs French but made the point that it is difficult when members know what the Local Plan says should be allowed but as Councillor Benney says there is that grey area and, in her view, this proposal falls squarely in this. She feels it has been clearly explained why the owner needs this property, it is not going to be built for the sake of it, it is clearly needed and it is tied to an agricultural condition so she will be going against officer’s recommendation.

·       Nick Harding reminded members, seeing how the vote is likely to be going, that if minded to approve the development that delegated authority be given to officers to apply appropriate conditions. He stated that in the reasons for going against officer’s recommendation that if committee feels there is an essential and functional need for the dwelling it does not agree with officer’s conclusion on the impact and appearance of the dwelling in a countryside location and if members feel there is an essential and functional need the flood risk reason falls away.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions in conjunction with the Chairman and Proposer.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel there is an essential and functional need for the proposal and this is the right location for this type of business, it will not be harmful to the area and as it is considered that there is an essential and functional need this overrides the requirement for a sequential test to be undertaken.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that the had been lobbied on this application)