Skip to content

Cleat Hill Farm’s super coop plan refusal goes to appeal

August 7, 2013
A NO-SE FOR A STORY: Protesters outside Lichfield District Council’s headquarters

A NO-SE FOR A STORY: Protesters outside Lichfield District Council’s headquarters in March

A PLAN to build a massive farm for more than one-and-a-half million chickens – rejected by Lichfield planners in March – has gone to appeal.

John Davison has lodged an appeal – likely to be held in mid December – on the refusal of the planning application on land at Cleat Hill Farm in Syerscote Lane, Haunton.

His proposals to construct six poultry rearing units, three control rooms, nine feed bins, an office, canteen, WC, underground dirty water tanks, generator shed, pump room, water storage tanks, a new section of farm track and alterations to access to Main Road, Haunton were turned down by Lichfield District Council’s planning committee.

Protesting residents feared that the farm’s super coop – the size of two football pitches – would create unbearable smells, increase noise and bring 1,000 heavy goods vehicles on to “unsuitable” country roads

Any residents in Haunton and Clifton Campville who objected to the plans will be hearing directly by correspondence from the local authority.

Notice of the arrangements for the public local inquiry has not yet been received but if you require further information please contact Mrs Ros Robb 01543 308180.

In the meantime do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information on 01827 383886 (home), 07990 553938 (mobile) or email
susan.arnold@lichfielddc.gov.uk

DETAILS OF PLANNING APPEAL

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 
Section 78 Appeal by Mr J Davison
for Formation of 6 poultry units and associated works, including the construction of a new access track
at Cleat Hill Farm, Syerscote Lane, Haunton, Tamworth

Planning Application Reference: 11/01074/FULMEI
Inspectorate Appeal Reference No: APP/K3415/A/13/2199283

The appellant plans to assert that the proposed agricultural development is entirely “consistent with national and local planning policies” concerned with promoting the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses.

He will also claim that the environmental and traffic consequences of the proposed development have been “carefully assessed with statutory and non statutory consultees” and that the intended development “would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of local residents or pose a risk to health.”

REASONS FOR REFUSAL BY LICHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development, by virtue of the intensive scale and nature of the development and its proximity to nearby villages, would cause harm to the amenity of local residents and additionally would pose a risk to public health. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policy DC1 (Amenity and Design Principles for Development) of the Lichfield District Local Plan 1998 (saved policies); policy D2 (The Design and Environmental Quality of Development) of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 (saved policies); and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development, by virtue of the associated significant increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements on the local highway network, would cause harm to the standard of amenity enjoyed by residents in nearby rural settlements. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policy DC1 (Amenity and Design Principles for Development) of the Lichfield District Local Plan 1998 (saved policies); policy D2 (The Design and Environmental Quality of Development) of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 (saved policies); and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Prior to the determination of this application, the Local Planning Authority highlighted the issues and concerns of a technical matter that they and statutory consultees had relating to the proposals. The opportunity was presented for further additional information to be submitted to address these concerns and further consultation was carried out. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Local Planning Authority has acted proactively with the applicant. However, the decision made by the Local Planning Authority is that the proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework when taken as a whole.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: