Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a brooder / duck house.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and noted the key considerations. He highlighted the complex planning history for the site and explained which buildings and structures on the site had permission and their uses. It was noted that historical business information had not been made available. A new business plan had been submitted but Economic Development had raised a number of comments and felt it not to be sound. It was therefore difficult to justify the proposal.

Ms V Saunders, objector, commented she had no objection to anyone living off grid and living off the land but felt use on this site needed to be moderated. She was of the opinion that until conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector on the 2013 application had been complied with, and a viable business plan established to indicate the enterprise was growing, then there needed to be control for use on the site.

Mr S Davis, applicant, noted he had devised unique methods of husbandry for ducks. He explained elements of his business on the site and the reasons for locations of structures. The proposal was essential in order to take the business forward and there had been much investment and expensive items purchased. He had focussed on providing infrastructure for his business without going into debt and was confident the business would succeed.

Mr P Dance, agent, felt the requirement for a detailed business plan was unreasonable. The proposed building would be needed for batch production and the siting was required to facilitate solar panels on the roof and drainage, and hence was as sustainable as possible.

Ward member Councillor Gerard Tucker, noted the application was for a poultry house in the open countryside and queried where else one would be located. The Landscape Architect had referred to residential invasion but this site was not in a high residential area. He acknowledged the main concern was regarding issues with the business plan. Figures might not currently show the business as being viable as there had been much capital investment. He supported the application and proposed approval.

During discussion mixed views were raised including:

·         Proposed building is large, feel landscape comments are valid.

·         In effect replacing what is there now.

·         Doesn’t sound like a good business plan has been put forward, no indication of where market for product is.

·         There is another similar business nearby that cannot keep up with demand

·         All small businesses put money back into the business, it doesn’t always show as a profit.

In response to comments made the Area Lead clarified some points including:

·         The existing temporary structures on site and which had permission.

·         For operational reasons the proposal was located where it was.

·         The business plan indicated mixed use. The duck element of the business would be the driver for the proposed building but not the sole business case.

At the conclusion of debate the proposal to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation was seconded, the justification being the opposite to the suggested reason for refusal. On voting there were 6 votes in favour of approving the application, 6 against and no abstentions. The Chairman then used his casting vote in favour of approving the application.

The Area Lead indicated there should be conditions for time limit, plans and landscaping and these were agreed by members.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 6 against, 0 abstentions)