1st February 2011
PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:
2010/1376 Mr J Saunders Mr J Dryden
Dryden Goldsmith Architects
WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:
Dalton North Lindal and Charles Wilton 27/09/2010
Marton Parish Council 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE:
Maidenlands Farm, Tarn Flatt Marton
Erection of a building to house 16,000 free range laying hens. (Re-submission of
application 2010/626 in a revised form).
SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:
The Borough‟s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and
natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside
only where there is a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary
development is permitted any adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings
should be minimised subject to the development‟s operational requirements.
The Council will not permit development that is likely to cause unacceptable harm to an
interest of significant environmental importance by increasing levels of pollution through
emissions into the air or adversely increasing odour levels.
New development within the vicinity of residential areas, schools, hospitals and offices
must not generate noise above the existing background levels, as measured in
accordance with the positions, times and methods agreed beforehand with the Authority.
Following policies applied to previous proposal but not to current proposal.
Development harmful to the distinctive character of designated County Landscapes, as
indicated in the Proposals Maps, will not be permitted. Development justified on grounds
of need that cannot be located elsewhere will be permitted provided that it is sited to
minimise environmental impacts and meets high standards of design.
Page 1 of 35
1st February 2011
Development or demolition that would significantly adversely affect animal or plant species
protected by Schedules 1, 5 & 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) will
not be permitted. If planning permission is granted which may have an adverse effect on
protected species the local planning authority will, where appropriate, impose conditions
and/or will use its powers to enter into Section 106 Obligations to;
i) Safeguard the survival of individual members of the species;
ii) Reduce habitat disturbance to a minimum; and/or
iii) Provide suitable alternative habitats.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Development advertised on site and in local press
Occupiers of 56, 57, 58, The Old Chapel, Tarn Flatt, 48, 49, Holly Cottage, Glebe Farm,
Gate Farm, High Farm Cottage, Moor Road, Low Fold, 21, 23, 24, 33, 36, Fair View,
Cartref, Green View, Swallows Rest, Cosy Cottage, Tarnside Cottage, The Homestead, 1,
2, 10, Tarn Flatt, Marton, Lindal Moor Abattoir, Henning Wood, 11, Railway Terrace,
Lindal. Primrose Farm, Holmes Green, Whitriggs, Tytup, Maidenlands Farm, Dalton.
Roundhills Kennels & Cattery, Roundhills, 1, 3, Lane Ends, High Farm, 8, Silver Street,
Marton. Old Vicarage, Fell Mount, Pennington. 5, Pryors Walk, Ireleth. 6, Yeld Close,
Bakewell, Derbyshire. All informed.
The Occupiers, 3 Lane Ends, Marton.
“At the initial application some 2 months ago, I wrote expressing our opposition on various
grounds i.e. the health of villagers, especially those with breathing problems, smell likely to
emanate from such a large number of chickens, the fact that they will attract flies and,
worse, rats to the village. In fact we don‟t want this development at all.
Please – don‟t allow it to be forced upon us. We deserve to live our twilight years (after
living in the village for 70 and 50 years respectively) without this unacceptable
development being a threat to our health and welfare.”
Page 2 of 35
1st February 2011
The Occupier, Low Fold, Fairview, Marton
“I have reviewed the planning application, and wish to register my objection to this
proposal. I would ask the planning committee to consider the points below:
1. The proposed development is located approximately 300M from the domestic
properties at the centre of the village; however, the range (an essential piece of the
development), which is rarely referenced within the proposal, is within a few metres of the
nearest residential property.
2. The odour from poultry faeces is extremely unpleasant and offensive. The odour
would be permanently present in the village. There would be no reprieve from it.
3. Given the prevailing wind direction, which is over the proposed development and
onto the village, the continual odour will significantly impact on normal life. Windows will
need to be permanently kept shut; children will be unable to utilise the play area - the only
communal facility remaining in the village; residents will be unable to enjoy their garden
areas or utilise any other outside space.
4. The proposed range area extends right up to the nearest residential property. Given
the destructive nature of chickens, this land will be scratched off, resulting in large dusty
patches during dry periods. This dust, combined with chicken faeces will be blown or
carried over the village. This has significant health implications for all, but in particular any
residents with respiratory conditions. Additionally, poultry faeces is a known source of
5. Land drains are present on the land suggested for the proposed range area. This
presents an issue with potential water contamination. In addition, during periods of heavy
rain, the water runs off the field and onto Tarn Flatt road and into neighbouring garden
areas. This has significant health implications.
6. The development has potential to cause significant noise pollution, given the close
proximity to the village.
7. The development will lead to a significant increase in flies. This has significant
health implications, given the disease carried by such insects.
8. The development will significantly increase the risk of rat infestation in the village
and surrounding countryside.
9. In periods of inclement weather, it may not be possible to transport poultry manure
away from the site. This means that manure will have to be stored on site, which will
significantly increase risk of foul odour.
10. It is not possible for manure to be spread onto and ploughed into surrounding fields
at a frequency of twice per week. Ploughing is only possible at certain times of the year,
so again, this means there must be manure storage somewhere.
11. The manure produced will be spread over a number of fields within surrounding
villages. This will impact a far greater number of residents of local villages and towns with
the offensive odour and fly problems associated with chicken manure. Given the far
Page 3 of 35
1st February 2011
reaching implications of this, we feel that the surrounding villages and towns should be
consulted on this development.
I would like the opportunity to address the planning committee meeting when this
application is considered.”
The Occupier, Low Fold, Fairview, Marton
“I am 12 years old and I live in Marton. I am writing to you to object to the proposed
chicken farm in Marton.
Firstly, I and my friends love to play outside on the park and around the village. We love to
smell the fresh air of the country side. If the chicken farm was built then we would not be
able to smell the sweet fresh air, all we would be able to smell would be the chickens and
the chicken poo. This would not be very nice at all and this would maybe even stop me
and my friends from playing outside in Marton. You would not want to stop young children
of having the pleasure of playing outside would you?
Also, I used to live in Stoke-on-Trent before I moved to Marton. Where I used to live there
was a chicken farm. This used to stink so much that no-body could go outside, put their
washing out or even open their windows. All these simple tasks were undoable because of
one chicken farm! If you did walk outside then the smell was so overwhelming that you
threw up instantly! If any of my friends came over they were always ill (none of my friends
liked coming over because of the smell!).
Secondly, the chicken farm would not be the most hygienic place. The chickens would
make lots of poo which attracts rodents. I would hate this because rodents carry disease
and it is just not nice to have them running around. You would not want rats running
around where you live so why take the chance of letting us having rats running around
where I live? Finally, I hope you have taken my thoughts into account.”
The Occupier, Low Fold, Fairview, Marton
“Further to my previous correspondence, I would like to make the following comments and
observations in support of my objection to this planning application.
The application appears to ignore current legislation and industry best practice in relation
to stocking density for birds.
Current industry regulations allow for a maximum stocking density of 11.7 birds per square
metre. By 2012, this reduces to 9 birds per square metre for free range egg production.
Taking both of these figures into account, the stocking density for the proposed building
equates to 14 birds per square metre. This is above the maximum permitted under current
legislation, indicating that the dimensions of the proposed building are incorrect it will not
be fit for purpose.
I do not believe that the biodiversity report addresses the issue of effluent contamination
of Poaka Beck.
Issue 2, in the applicants “Design & Access Statement”, states that the boundary of the
range has been pulled back from Poaka beck by 10M, in line with recommendations by
Page 4 of 35
1st February 2011
the biodiversity advisers. However, the biodiversity report states that the range boundary
will be a minimum of 20M from Poaka beck. The biodiversity adviser appears to have
been misinformed. Again, it appears that the environmental impacts have not been
addressed, but rather glossed over.
Considering the contours of the land approaching Poaka Beck, during significant periods
of heavy rain, the land will become saturated. This will still result in contamination of the
beck from surface effluent.
Odour & Noise Impact
The data model does not reflect the true meteorological conditions at Marton.
The dispersion modelling has been based on meteorological data taken from the weather
station at Shap. Given that Marton is situated in an elevated position, around 2km from the
coast, then I have concerns about the validity of this assessment. Marton is more likely to
experience conditions more akin to those recorded at Walney Island. I also believe that if
the assessment were to be based on Walney Islands meteorological data, then it would
reveal dispersion modelling showing significant impact on the village, and would certainly
account for true wind direction and speed. The impacts of noise or odour have not been
addressed by this report.
The application is for a building for Free Range egg production. How is the production of
free range eggs possible without a free range area? The application surely needs to fully
include the range.
Details of the range are both vague and sketchy, with the exception of the boundary.
Further development of this area will be necessary shelters, water points, etc. Boundary
fencing will be required to separate farm birds from wild birds ( a DEFRA requirement).
Fencing will have a visual impact; it will impact wildlife movement.
I trust that you will give my comments full consideration.”
The Occupier, Low Fold, Fairview, Marton
“I am 9 years old and I am writing this letter to explain to you why I reject the chicken farm.
My first reason is that me and my friends love to play on the park next to my house but we
wouldn‟t be able to because of the smell. As well we may get ill.
My second reason is that you have to cut off their beak which is mean and their claws get
all curled up.
I hope you have taken my reasons into account.”
The Occupier, 21 Fairview, Marton
I wish to object to the above planning application on the following points:-
1. I am very concerned how my wife‟s health will be affected by the airborne dust
mites and excrement from the chickens. She has severe respiratory problems which will
be aggravated by these contaminants. I hope the necessary researches have been
carried out into the human health problems caused by poultry as there is no denying that
Page 5 of 35
1st February 2011
the prevailing wind over the village comes from the direction of the farm and the range
which extends into the village.
2. Although the building and the range has been altered to be further away from
Poaka Beck there is still the potential for it to be contaminated and as the beck contains
and attracts a diverse variety of wildlife; trout, minnows, otters, kingfishers, dippers and
yellow wagtails to name a few, these could all be potentially affected and the whole
ecology of the beck along its course to the sea at Cavendish Dock.
3. I am also very concerned about the extra traffic (mostly heavy) on the lane to
Melton. We often have to reverse into a gateway to allow heavy traffic to pass. Lorries,
cranes, diggers, tractors and trailers, cattle trucks going to Hindles, Crowes and Duerden‟s
Abattoir all use this lane, we don‟t need any more. Apart from the narrow width of this
lane the road surface is in a bad state of repair now and can only get worse by more
heavy traffic use.
I trust that you will take all my above concerns into account when making your decision
about this application.”
The Occupier, 21 Fairview, Marton
I wish to object to the above planning application.
I suffer from chronic asthma and bronchialitis and both the conditions will be worsened by
the air based contaminants from the chickens which are to be housed in the shed but will
spend their daylight hours on the surrounding range. It is a proven fact that chickens can
have a severe detrimental effect on people‟s respiratory health even the fittest.
Although the position and size of the shed has been modified since the previous
application it and the range are still in a position to pollute the village.
There appears to be a lot of hypotheses to prove the smell from the shed will only be an
occasional nuisance but the larger problem is the dust mites and smells that will be carried
by the prevailing wind from the chickens and their excrement on the range into our homes,
gardens and over the children‟s park.
Although the shed may be situated approx 370 yards from our home in the centre of the
village the range extends to within approx 200 yards. The other health worry is the
infestation of the village by rats, I quote “re-infestation of rats to be controlled so as not to
access the shed” but they will be attracted to the surrounding area and then where to? I
have read that for every 1 chicken, 5 rats could be attracted, I hope for our sakes this is
To say I am concerned is an understatement, I am frightened at what effect this will have
on my health and I am not alone as quite a number of villagers, including children, suffer
from respiratory complaints.
I would be grateful if when making a decision on this application you would consider which
is the most important, one man‟s extra business venture or the health and welfare of the
Page 6 of 35
1st February 2011
The Occupier, 24 Fairview, Marton
“I am writing to inform you that I wish to object to the above application because the
chicken farm is positioned on a hill, which gravitates down to a stream therefore this, has
the potential to pollute the water and fisheries and other live stock.
The amount of chickens indicated in the planning application will attract rodents, foxes,
flies and this is concerning as it is within a very close proximity to the village of Marton.
Chickens carry diseases which can affect other live stock within the vicinity.
This amount of chickens will produce a large quantity of excrement which will have a high
ammonic substance within it and the chickens will dig and scratch up the dry earth which
will then become air Bourne into the atmosphere and could have an effect on the health of
the residents within the village as this may have a detrimental effect on residents who
have a known chest complaint i.e. asthma etc. This ammonia will also create a pungent
stench and smell and there is no guarantee that this waste will not be spread within the
vicinity of the village or surrounding villages which will make it unbearable for villagers to
spend time outside.
Please can you inform me when this application is going to be considered by your panel.”
The Occupier, 24 Fairview, Marton
“I am writing to object to the above application for a chicken farm . The reasons for my
objections are that I do not see that this second applications has addressed the previous
concern regarding the range where the 16.000 chickens will be roaming on during the day
and the concern that they have not addressed is the health concerns with regard to the
dust, air Bourne pollutants which will be carried onto the close proximity of the village as
the range for the chickens continues to be within a village environment.
The concern from the amount of chickens on the range is the excrement onto the land
which will create stench and smell which will attract flies, vermin and foxes. The concern is
for the children within the village when they play out in the fields with this type of livestock.
The concern from this type and amount of livestock is the effects on the environment from
the amount of excrement and whether this will pollute the local becks and affect other
livestock as although the waste is being removed from the shed it is not being removed off
the range. The positioning of the building has changed but it is now more visible to the
roadside and this may create noise pollution. The building is smaller and this will reduce
the space and movement for the chickens. The applicant has identified within his planning
application who is going to remove the waste product from this building and within his
previous discussions wit11 the local community stated the waste product would not be
spread within the local community as residents were concerned about the stench this
would create there is no guarantee this won't happen therefore this would have an added
affect on the community life and villagers will not be able to sit in the local community with
the affects of this excrement being spread with the high ammonia component within this
mix. I would like to be informed of when this application is going to be placed in front of
Page 7 of 35
1st February 2011
The Occupier, Roundhills, Marton, Ulverston
“I object to the development as the range area has not changed and I feel it would provide
significant disturbance to the residents of Marton by means of smells, dust and noise.”
The Occupier, Roundhills, Marton
I object to the proposal on the grounds that the application does not provide sufficient
information. For example: - Where will the manure storage facility be located. There will
be times of the year when they are unable to spead ie. on frozen or waterlogged ground
so where will the constant supply of manure be stored.
The Occupier, 11 Railway Terrace, Lindal
The Occupier, Holly Cottage, 38 Moor Road, Marton
“I live in Marton and own the land that borders Mr Saunders proposed development. I am
very concerned about possible health issues related to the “range”. According to DEFRA
figures 1000 birds produce 3.5t of excreta per month, so if 16000 birds are on the “range”
for 8 hours per day this would mean that there could possible be 18t of excreta deposited
on the land per month which would attract flies and vermin. With this amount of birds on
the “range” I would imagine the land would be quite baron and scratched up leaving the
excreta to dry in the warm months and with the prevailing wind blow into the village and in
wet times cause a very bad constant smell.
So on these grounds I object to this application.”
The Occupier, High Farm Cottage, Moor Road, Marton
I am writing to object to the planning application B12/2010/1376 erection of a building to
house 16,000 free range hens at Tarn Flatt, Marton.
Even with the building being sited slightly further from the village all my previous concerns
still remain. These were the increased fly and rodent population and the use of
insecticides/poisons. Also with the site being raised above the village the problem of smell
and dust hanging over the village. This large building is now going to be more visible and I
feel the extent of this development is not in keeping with the village and can only have a
detrimental effect on our properties and lives.
The Occupier, High Farm, Moor Road, Marton
I am writing to object to the following application B12/2010/1376 the building of a 16,000
free range hen unit at Tarn Flatt, Marton.
The reasons I am objecting are as follows:-
The large building is now going to be more visible on entering the village than the last
application. Even with the building being sited slightly further away from the village it does
not reduce the negative impact this development has on the village.
Page 8 of 35
1st February 2011
There will still be an increased fly and rodent population due to fee and manure. Even
though the building is a tier system it is not possible to remove all manure from all internal
fixtures until the building goes through its deep cleaning process. During this period the
rodents will need to find an alternative feed source which means they will need to find an
alternative feed source which means they will move to village properties during the
cleaning process. Where will all the disinfectant/waste water go? Will this be removed?
Are there facilities on site for collection of this? Several farmers have shown an interest in
using the manure, but where and what provision has been made for storage of the manure
should any problems such as poor weather or infection risk arise.
The traffic volume will still be greatly increased with the majority of these vehicles being
large. In conclusion I feel the site is too close to the village and can only have a negative
impact on the village. I would like to speak at the Planning meeting.
The Occupier, Primrose Farm, Holmes Green, Dalton
“With reference to the application for Free Range Hen Unit consisting of some 16000 hens
at Tarn Flatt, Marton. I am against this proposal despite the changes from the original
application none of the problems has been solved.
I have concerns about the deposit of droppings on the range, which will be substantial,
considering the amount of hens involved. The smell from this development would also
affect the people in the vicinity of the above. It's too close to any dwellings. Plus, the fact
of rodents and the increased traffic to the area (i.e. wagons.)
The list of farrners willing to take this muck is laughable and requires further investigation.
Where is this land - exactly? How close to residents are these locations? What happens
when due to weather (etc) this muck cannot be transported away from site or cannot be
spread at the locations specified? Several of these locations would require the
transporting of this muck though Dalton Town Centre and one all the way to Ulpha.”
The Occupier, Cosy Cottage, Tarn Flatt, Marton
“Mr Saunders is once again applying for planning for a chicken farm.
He has relocated the building which is now going to be closer to my property I looked at
the plans and noticed it says on (Ouestion 14 existing use) is the site currently vacant The
answer is marked as NO. To my mind it should be yes as there is nothing built there ,it is
a green field.
As I have Cosy Cottage as a HOLIDAY COTTAGE I am not very happy about this new
The Barrow Tourism is looking to attract visitors to the area and I don't think this Chicken
Farm will help my business as it is within a stone throw away from the cottage.
1 can't see my people wanting to return if this planning application goes through. Would
you vourself like to think you were going on holiday next to a chicken farm, put your self in
this position. It says there are going to be 12 fans in the structure of the building so there
is bound to be some noise from them as I have never heard a Quiet fan so the constant
humming or what ever noise will eventually get on ones nerves The twice weekly removal
of manure is another problem as that's more heavy tractors and trailers on the narrow
road The end of the lane leading of into Tarn Flatt where Cosy Cottage is, Is used as a
Page 9 of 35
1st February 2011
passing place and the drainage on that part of the road needs work doing maybe resisting
of the drain .The road is permanently flooded when we have the least amount of rain, as
the drain is blocked with mud from heavy plant, tractors and general traffic driving over it I
have given up telephoning the highways. They clean the drain out and in no time at all its
as bad as ever and they won't keep coming back.”
The Occupier, Green View, Tarn Flatt, Marton
“The application is for an industrial scale farming operation in an area that is
predominantly traditional agriculture.”
The Occupier, Bramble Cottage, 58 Tarn Flatt, Marton
I am writing on behalf of Mark Scott, the owner and occupier of Bramble Cottage, 58 Tarn
Fiatt, Marton. I refer to the above planning application and to your letter of notification to
local residents. I note that this is a resubmission following the withdrawal of the previous
application after the Committee at which the Council resolved to refuse the application on
a number of grounds. The current application seeks to address the reasons for refusal of
the previous application.
I have studied the resubmitted application and the attached documents.
Notwithstanding the revisions to the proposal and the additional information provided on
behalf of the application, I wish to submit an objection, on behalf of Mr Scott, to the
proposal to a building to house 16,000 chickens.
I have examined the plans and supporting documents submitted with the planning
application and I am familiar with the site and its relationship to houses on Tarn Flatt,
which lie to the north-east of the application site.
The revised proposal continues to raise a number of important issues which, I consider,
justify refusal of the planning application. The key concerns relate to:
the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
the impact of the development on the residential amenity of nearby houses;
the effect of the proposal in respect of highway safety; and
the impact of the proposed development on ecology and wildlife.
As with the previous application, and for ease of reference, I have attached a copy of an
appeal decision relating to a more or less identical proposal on a site at East Marton, in
Craven District. Whilst I appreciate that every site is different and applications should be
considered on their merits, there remain some striking similarities between the two sites
and the proposals. The site at East Marton is in a rolling drumlin landscape, as is the site
at Maidenlands Farm, Marton. Both schemes propose a building remote from the existing
farm group and they are similar distances from residential property. Finally, as can be
seen from the descriptions of the development, they are more or less identical
development, with a single building of 90 metres at Maidenlands and 75 metres at East
Marton, together with two feed hoppers.
Dealing first with the issue of the impact of the proposed development on the landscape, it
is important to stress that even in its reduced form this is a large, industrial scale building.
82.5 metres in length (as compared to 92 metres on the previous application), together
Page 10 of 35
1st February 2011
with two feed hoppers. The previous location for the building was relatively remote from
the existing farm building group and would have required significant earth works to
accommodate it on one level. The revised location is closer to the existing building group
and is an improvement in this respect. However, we remain concerned that the erection
of a building of this industrial scale and utilitarian character would clearly have a significant
impact on the local landscape. This development would undoubtedly have a significant
detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. It Is, despite its
RSPCA Freedom Food credentials, an intensive, industrial-scale of livestock rearing that
does not relate well to the traditional scale and grain of farming and farm buildings in the
Furness peninsula. The building would inevitably appear as a large industrial shed in a
location in the open countryside, with the associated and ancillary developments such as
feed hoppers and access areas exacerbating this impact. The slight reduction in length
and the relocation, whilst welcomed, do not overcome this fundamental objection.
Approval of this application would therefore be contrary to Policy Dl of the adopted Local
below for extract).
The second issue is the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of
dwellings in the area, particularly those on Tarn Flatt. The previous application proposed
to locate the building approximately 240-250 metres from the houses at Tarn Flatt. In an
attempt to resolve the concerns about the relative isolation of the previous proposal, the
siting has now been revised so that the building would be closer to the existing building
group. Whilst this is clearly beneficial in terms of landscape Impact, it has the unfortunate
consequence of moving it closer to the houses at Tarn Fiatt, reducing the separation
distance to just 130 metres to the northern end of the building. The Design and Access
Statement sets out the possible areas of concern (noise, dust, smell, rodents, disposal of
manure) and explains how these will be dealt with. With regard to odour, the ADAS report
commissioned by the applicants deals with this in a highly technical (and not easily
accessible) manner. It concludes that there is unlikely to nuisance or loss of amenity
experienced by properties in the area, but it is clear that there will be an increase in odour
experienced at nearby properties. It should be noted that the highest levels of odour would
be experienced by the properties east of Tarn Flatt (i.e. Mr Scott's property and the
neighbouring properties) - see table 2.
We remain concerned that a development of this scale will produce a level of activity and
disturbance that would have a serious and detrimental impact on the amenity of the
dwellings on Tarn Flatt, most notably through smells, airborne dust, noise and, potentially,
traffic. Some of these concerns were expressed in relation to the proposed development
at East Marton, near Skipton and the inspector in that case concluded that the proposed
development could have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby housing.
Given the striking similarities between the two proposals and their setting, I would ask that
the Council also take the possible impact on residential amenity very seriously.
We continue to have serious concerns about the ability of the 8 hectare parcel of land to
accommodate the manure which would be produced by the proposed building, particularly
given the management requirement to avoid spreading manure on waterlogged or frozen
ground or near to Poaka Beck. This will lead to one of three possible outcomes: the
disposal of excessive quantities of manure on the ground, causing pollution and amenity
problems, or the storage of large quantities of manure on site, causing similar problems,
or removal of manure to other sites. The application statement indicates that the applicant
intends to dispose of the excess manure to other farm sites in the Dalton area. This raises
Page 11 of 35
1st February 2011
two concerns. Firstly, this intention is not enforceable through a valid planning condition.
Secondly, the removal of manure to other locations will result in additional traffic
movements which would cause disturbance to local residents, particularly given that the
site access is close to the cottages at Tarn Flatt.
This leads on to the third issue, which is the level of traffic that the proposed development
is likely to generate. The figures given in the submitted transport statement are still
surprisingly low and, if accurate, would suggest that the building would not generate a
significant level of traffic. However, these figures do not appear to take into account
additional visits from other such as reps, vets, the possibility of manure being moved
elsewhere (as stated by the applicant), and the possibility that the building could be
operated independently of Maideniands Farm (the remote siting makes this much more
likely). The level of traffic generated by a very similar building at East Marton led to this
being a reason for dismissal of the appeal, albeit onto an A. class road (see attached
The fourth issue raised when the previous application was submitted was the possible
impact of the proposed development on local ecology and wildlife interests. The
biodiversity report prepared by Lloydbore has been up-dated to reflect the revised
location. The original report noted that the site may provide habitat for a number of
species, several of which are of national importance, such as Otter, White clawed crayfish,
and Great crested newt. Many other species are also mentioned in the report as being
present or having the potential to be present on the site.
The letter from Lloydbore is carefully worded but there appear to be some outstanding
concerns that the proposal could affect wildlife near the site. As the site lies close to
Poaka Beck, which is recognised in the Local Plan as local wildlife corridor and it is also
mentioned in the biodiversity report as a feeder stream for the Cavendish Dock, which is a
SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI (these being the highest levels of protection available for
ecology and wildlife areas), a precautionary principle should be adopted in assessing the
potential impact of the development. On this basis we consider that the proposal remains
contrary to policy D13 of the Local Plan.
In summary, we consider that the proposed development is unacceptable in terms of its
probably impact on the character and appearance of the area, its impact on residential
amenity, the level of traffic is likely to generate, and its possible impact on local ecology
and wildlife. The proposal is for a large, utilitarian building of an industrial scale with no
relationship to the agricultural land on which it would be constructed.
I would be grateful if you would take these objections into account in determining this
application. Please keep me informed of the progress of this application, particularly if it is
reported to a Committee as Mr. Scott may wsh to be represented at a Committee
The Occupier, Whitriggs, Tytup, Dalton
“I wish to register my opposition to this application (for the construction of a new chicken
barn to house 16,000fiee range chickens,) together with the associated "range" covering
some 8 hectares of land. (The two are inexorably linked, you can't have a "free range"
chicken farm without a "range" but this application seeks to concentrate only on the
building and neglects anything adverse cause
by the "range" This seems to me to be deliberate and therefore somewhat disturbing.
Page 12 of 35
1st February 2011
1. The Application Form, item 7, Waste Storage and Collection
"All manure will be taken from the site twice weekly to local farms listed in the design and
This does not take into account ANY unforeseen circumstance whereby transportation of
the waste FROM the site is interrupted/stopped. (i.e. due to inclement weather conditions
in winter at the site, or adverse weather conditions prohibiting the spreading or storage at
the specified farms.
The list of farmers provided ONLY specifies the amount of land these farmers are willing
to provide to spread the waste. There is no specification of where this land is and its
proximity to water courses, wildlife habit, land of special interest or proximity to dwellings.
Neither does it provide details of storage of the waste material should there be Any
unforeseen circumstances that prohibit the spreading of the waste at those locations. This
MUST be taken into consideration, as ANY inability to deliver, store, or spread the waste
at any of these locations the probability of a build up of waste at the place of origin ie
13. The Application Form item 12 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation In all three
sections (a. Protected and P1.iority Species, b. Designated sites, important habitats and
other biodiversity features and c, Features of geological conservation importance) the
applicant states that in every instance, on land adjacent to or near the development, these
are likely to be affected by the proposals.
I don't believe that these implications have been fully addressed. As far as I am aware the
land at this location has previously been classed as of "County Landscape Quality -
(Barrow in Furness Borough Development Plan). Whilst this is not a nationally recognized
designation, it should not be discarded lightly and as such is worthy of greater planning
consideration than that given to land of a lower classification. I also believe that the
planned site is adjacent to an area designated under this same development plan as "A
Wildlife Corridor" covered by the plan at section F. 5.3.18 and then Policy D13.
16. The Application Form item 16 Trade Effluents
"Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluents or waste".
Here the applicant has answered ''No."
Surely this is a "trade" Surely the droppings from 16000 chickens is "trade effluent or
waste" No reference is made to droppings left on the range, only that collected from within
the shed. (To this end I carried out my own enquiries via the internet and found that 4
tonnes of manure are produced for every 100 birds per year, on the "range" of a free
range system. This potentially has to be scaled up by a factor of 160 times to equate to
the volume of birds proposed at this location.) This is an industrial size building of some
82 metres in length, and whilst I appreciate that steps have been taken to minimize visual
impact "from the road" it is of a scale totally out of proportion to any other developments in
this area and as such could be equated to Marton's own Devonshire Dock Hall.
I have concerns regarding noise, smell, fly infestation associated with the use of poultry
manure, potential rat (and other vermin) infestation(s) and wildlife.
Page 13 of 35
1st February 2011
Taking these in turn:-
The application documents only deal with the noise from 16,000 chickens whilst inside the
barn. As these are 'free range" there is the potential for noise arising from 16,000
chickens whilst on the "range" -this has still not been addressed. The accompanying
Noise Assessment quite clearly states that the only noise considered is that of the night
time noise levels of the ventilation system -
completely ignoring ANY other potential noise(s) from whatever source. It therefore does
not assess the whole situation
The application documents only deal with measures to be taken for the treatment of
chicken manure from inside the barn. There is no mention of any control of the droppings
lei3 on the "range", which would be open to the elements and which would not be able to
be "moisture controlled" and would therefore produce strong ammonia smells, which
potentially would adversely affect local properties. This appears to have been totally
ignored in the documentation. Further -How reliable is this report -when at para 5.3.4 and
6 Table two, they fail to identify correctly the location of "Discrete Receptor 11" and in so
doing miss out two other properties ?
There is no planned storage of manure and Manure will be transported twice weekly.
Therefore any claims that transport will be kept to a minimum are clearly a
misrepresentation - see locations of farms accepting waste - Ulpha? Poultry manure
cannot be applied to ground that is waterlogged, flooded or frozen – so where is it stored
in the interim and what impact will that have on any properties in those locations? Have
these been included in a list of consultees. This Has to be taken into account.
Nowhere does it state that there will be removal of any manure from the 8 hectare area of
the "range" (whatever that amount is).
From these statements I find it difficult to envisage that there will NOT be an unacceptable
level of smell arising from this development, either at the location of the barn and "range"
but also from any land associated with the spreading of large amount of chicken manure,
and indeed from the transportation of such waste to the locations specified by the
applicant. This leads to the next points.
3. Flv Infestion
Insecticides, larvicides to prevent fly larvae developing into adults and adulticides to kill
This would appear again to only deal with the inside of the premises where the various
chemicals would to a certain extent be contained. It would appear to not take into account
fly infestation arising from the area of the outside "range". These chemicals would
presumably also add to the potential for the presence of unacceptable levels of
Page 14 of 35
1st February 2011
4. Rodent Infestation
Again this will inevitably add to the already unacceptable level of smell arising from this
5. Wild Life,
The applicants Biodiversity report accompanying lis original proposal stated "The beck
(Poaka Beck) and associated riparian habitat is likely to act as important wildlife corridor
within the wider landscape, providing shelter, dispersal and foraging habitat for wildlife…."
The report goes on to identify several protected species that will require further
investigation and gives time periods when this work should be carried out. For example,
they quote.- Skylark and Curlew, Bats, Otters, Badgers, Water Vole and Dormouse,
Common Lizard, Slow Worm and Adder, Great Crested Newt and the White-clawed
crayfish. The same Biodiversity report states that, under the heading of "Nutrient/Sediment
runoff' that this “May be caused during construction” and that there may be “runoff from
chicken waste/feed during site operation” These could lead to sedimentation and/or
eutrophication of the beck (Poaka Beck) which could impact on wildlife …” “Therefore any
pollution or siltation of Poaka Beck may ultimately impact on this designated area " (The
S.P.A., S.S.S.I., and R.A.M.S.A.R., between Dalton in Furness and Cavendish Dock).
The biodiversity report accompanying the current application only states that the adverse
effects identified in the first report "will not impede the movement of wildlife along the beck
and through the wooded area or cause the loss of habitat potentially used by protected
species" No reference is made to any other parts of the 8 hectares covered by the new
application which presumably these species will still have access to, albeit now 20 metres
away. This new report goes on to state "Potential impacts of noise, lighting and
sediment/nutrient runoff during construction/operation are likely to be reduced."
Are likely to be reduced. - Not "definitely!" - In other words it is still "maybe" could be".
There are no guarantees!
Without further qualification this statement is worthless and should be treated as such
I am still not convinced that this application will guarantee resolution to ALL of the
problems (potential or actual) that arise should it be granted –I therefore oppose this
The Occupier, 96 Beach Street, Askam.
“I would like to make an objection against the chicken farm at Maidenlands in Marton. I
am not a resident however, I spend a lot of time in Marton visiting family and feel the
proposed chicken farm would be disasterous to the village and it's surroundings.
Firstly, there will be a huge risk of pollution by means of run off into Poaka Beck which is a
important wildlife corridor for many flora and fauna (still in the same field!) It is suggested
that surface water will be disposed of via a soakaway which may be the case for the
drainage off the roof of the building but the application fails to show how biocides and
cleaning wastewater will be disposed of.
Page 15 of 35
1st February 2011
The application is only mentioning the erection of a building to house 16,000 free range
laying hens and the distance of the range has not been included. By looking at the map it
seems the nearest residential property is less than 200m away.
There is a huge risk of infestation from flies and rats.
This type of operation will produce a huge amount of waste which will be left untreated on
the range and liable to pollute Poaka Beck.
The risk of avian influenza to name just one that is harmful to human health needs
addressing. Chicken faeces contain high amounts of salmonella if untreated.
The chicken farm will produce significant odour. As Marton has predominantly Westerly
winds, the odour is bound to hit the village making life unbearable for residents. There is
approx 40 children in Marton and the park is central to them.”
The Occupier, 4 Silver Street, Marton.
“I wish to express my objection to the application for a building to house to contain 16,000
free range chickens at Maidenlands in Marton (B12/2010/1373).
The resubmission of this application on this site is outrageous due to its close proximity to
the residents of Marton and the considerable harm to the environment and therefore it is
not an appropriate site.
The application is still lacking vital information, which were raised and argued the on the
The application is for the construction of a new barn to house 16,000 chickens to produce
free range eggs. The barn itself may have moved but it will be less than 150m away from
the nearest residential property. From the map provided it seems that approximately
180m from the edge of the site will encompass the majority of Marton.
As the range will be self managing and all poultry have full access to the range, over a
period of time the land will be damaged through foraging and contamination through
faeces. Waste will never be fully removed from the land and will leach out of the soil into
Poaka Beck which a susceptible wildlife corridor, rich in flora and fauna.
Run off contaminated from waste from the process will increase the biological oxygen
demand of water courses, chemical changes in the soil and severe eutrophication of
groundwater and water courses.
Ammonia has the potential effect on air, water, soil and people. There is evidence to
show that long term exposure of ammonia can have toxic affect on trees close to sheds.
Furthermore, as there is no foul sewage connection and only soakaway, any foul material
produced from cleaning, disease control will end up in the environment.
The manure from the site will be twice weekly removed and spread around the area
without any control of volume or timings which long term will have a detrimental effect
around the area. Increased traffic movement will also be detrimental to the village which
now has high number of children in the village.
Marton suffers mostly from the prevailing winds from the Irish Sea (westerly) and any
odour will be blown over Marton causing a nuisance to residents and other users of the
locality when at concentrations abnormal to the area. Dust has the potential to damage
plants and trees and contribute to odour. The odour assessment is flawed as the
assessment was made at Shap and not a true representation of the Marton area.
Human health should be for most and with avian influenza and other poultry related
diseases these need to be dealt with and understood before the application is
Page 16 of 35
1st February 2011
The Occupier, 5 Silver Street, Marton.
“In response to the application I wish to strongly object for the following reasons.
The process is going to have a severe environmental impact by means of contamination
to both soil (on the Range)and water (Poaka Beck)not to mention the effect on local
As the land slopes down there is potential to pollute Poaka Beck by means of run off. The
range will become nutrient enriched and in turn this will leach from the soil.
There is the issue of disposing of disinfectants used in the process which also has the
potential to contaminate the soil and watercourses.
As the application states surface water will be disposed of by means of a soakaway, the
surface is liable to contain possible disinfectants, salmonella enriched faeces.
The emission of ammonia and potential odours and dust to the atmosphere is beyond
means of measure and also as the waste from the site will be deposited on various other
pieces of land in the area it is bound to have knock on effects further down the line.
As Marton predominantly experiences westerly winds the odour will engulf the village and
life for residents will be changed.
With poultry farming there is an immediate risk from rodent and fly infestation.
As the chicken farm including the range is far to close to the village and residents there
are various health issues such as bird flu which needs to be addressed.
In conclusion the Maidenlands Farm is not an appropriate site to house or rear 16,000
hens for environmental and the detrimental effect it will have on local residents and the
impact on the entire area.”
The Occupier, 5 Silver Street, Marton.
“I would like to OBJECT to the planning application B12/2010/1373, the construction of a
barn to house 16,000 chickens to produce free range eggs at Maidenlands Farm, Marton
for the following reasons.
The application states it is a significant distance from Marton but the nearest
residential property is approx 130m away from the proposed barn itself (Tarn Flat,
Marton). The range doesn‟t appear to be included and as part of the application making it
significantly close to the habitants of Marton. The building is not enough to grant
permission, the range must be included as part of the application.
There is an issue with stock density as according to the area provided there will 14
birds per m 2 and yet by 2012 this is to drop to 9 birds per m2. These changes should be
recognised in the plans. As the chickens will predominantly have access to the range they
will be free to roam causing damage to the landscape which is listed as having county
The odour assessment is very woolly as the assessment was based at
Shap/Carlisle to represent the conditions found at Maidenlands. Firstly Marton
experiences microclimate conditions, is coastal and suffers predominately from westerly
winds, therefore winds will bring any dust, odour, and ammonia into the centre of the
village. This will severely impact the lives of the residents of Marton.
Page 17 of 35
1st February 2011
There is a severe risk of pollution to Poaka Beck by means that the land is running
down and any contaminates on the land will be leached into the watercourse as the range
will be self managing. Chicken faeces contain high levels of salmonella if left untreated
proving further risk to the environment and health. The Environment Agency should give
consent of any possible discharge into water courses.
This scale of farming will produce a high volume of waste which will be transported
twice weekly and spread at various farms in the local area. The protection of water
against agricultural nitrate pollution should include timings and rates of applications and
the storage of potential waste. As long term waste on the soil will never be fully removed.
There will be use of various biocides for cleanliness and to tackle infestations such
as flies/ rodents. The planning application lacks foul drainage and this needs to be
addressed due to the potential of environmental damage and risk to health.
Avian influenza, Newcastle disease, red mite all have the potential to be harmful to
human health and these need to be discussed further before an application can be
Planning Policy Statement 9 states that all protected species must be accounted for
before planning is determined. The application is devoid of critical information on the full
impact on protected species. In relation to the great crested newt that has European
protection, the unmanaged grassland and scrub in the North West corner may have the
potential as a terrestrial habitat. The slow flowing areas of the beck may provide an
aquatic habitat. The fact there is 5 water bodies within 500m of the site may also provide
breeding areas for the great crested newt as well as roots, stone walls providing
hibernation areas. The great crested newt could be prone to attack from the poultry
Another example is the Badgers that are also a protected species and the site is likely to
provide foraging and sheltering areas. Signs of badgers were seen in the North West
corner of the site. Fencing needs to be clarified as not to impede badger movement.”
Full survey is required to understand the full impact on protected species as this could
lead to future prosecutions.
In summary, Maidenlands is not an appropriate area for this type of development,
environmentally, and the huge effect it will have on the habitants of Marton.”
The Occupier, 6 Silver Street, Marton
“I wish to object to the planning application on the grounds of noise and smell. I believe
the plans would lead to a deterioration in quality of life for the villagers of Marton.”
The Occupier, 7 Silver Street, Marton.
“I feel after viewing the documents on the proposed Erection of a building to house 16,000
free range laying hens. (Re-submission of application 2010/626 in a revised form) that it
would not be conducive to the area and cause issues from an environmental and personal
nuisance point of view. There is an obvious risk regarding pests, smell and noise which I
would very much object to.”
Page 18 of 35
1st February 2011
The Occupier, 8 Silver Street, Marton
“The application for the second time on this site is a moral shambles based on the
environmental impact and effect on local people that was clearly argued the first time.
The main site has now been shifted what amounts to less than 100m on it¿s boundary
and the chicken shed approx 200m to the south.
There is still a grave risk of pollution to Poaka Beck and the wild flora + fauna due to the
intensive nature of the proposal.
From the edge of the site , 175m encapsulates the majority of Marton Village. Prevailing
SW winds will still have a serious effect on the village. Part of the site is still clearly visible
from Marton and from our garden. Maidenlands Farm is not an appropriate site.
The new site appears to move slightly off the watercourse of Poaka Beck, it is still
however within the same field space and will be contaminated.
The application form is incorrect and direct contamination will result. Furthermore, all fields
in Marton drain to the sewage facility, to the E of the proposal, via surface streams.
Also under item 12 of the Planning Application, risk of flooding is stated as not a risk ¿
Poaka Beck Drains many thousands of hectares and it can go from virtually dry to full
spate very quickly. It has flooded roads this year. Further analysis of no flood risk needs
Under item 11 of the planning application, it is suggested that no sewage connection is
required - surface water will be disposed of via a soakaway/s. The run off from the shed
roof may well be, but the run off from the total 8 Ha site, due to the impermeable nature of
the local soil, will be on the East watershed of the site, to Marton Village and on the W
watershed if the site to Poaka Beck.
The lack of foul drainage to the application ¿ intensive cleaning on stock change
over/hygiene and disease control, plus egg processing all requires a massive fresh water
usage, which needs to be contained and treated on site, or removed, for such an intensive
Having worked in the poultry industry I can clarify that odour from intensive farming on this
scale cannot be contained. The shed, although the main centre and cause of intense
smell, the surrounding land that will become barren and overpowerered will stench. It is
not feasible to continually remove litter from 16,000 free range birds.
I would also point out that 16,000 free range hens do not have the legislation on hygiene
of , for example, an abbatoir or a food production facility and it is common for waste, dead
animals and slurry to be stored until it is commercially viable to clear it. Waste that causes
stench does not get cleared for the benefit of local people ¿ it is financial. The odour
analysis data is presented on the basis of the best apparent model, i.e. cold weather with
no wind, not warm weather and gentle wind to carry the stench.
Page 19 of 35
1st February 2011
All 16,000 chickens have access to pop holes, meaning that for the majority of the day
they will be free to permanently roam and make barren the land directly visible from
Marton Village on the Western and Eastern Watershed of the site. The impermeable land
will fester, ploughing in is not feasible for much of the year due to the waterlogged soil.
The application still suggests that the barn is sheltered Marton and the surrounding area is
know for the strong local wind. Storm damage is common in the village the siting of Wind
Turbines W of the proposal is evident of the prevailing strong winds. Chickens will also
find shelter by the hedge directly adjacent to Tarn Flatt. The prevailing SW wind will take
dust and smell direct to houses.
The potential for rodent, fly and smell control have not been adequately addressed in the
application. The 8 Ha site has a boundary with Tarn Flatt at first floor level to the houses,
a limestone retaining wall providing a solid, but porous barrier to run off and rodents. I
reiterate that an intensively used free range site, with non absorbent land will smell badly,
affecting the quality of life of the whole village.
Farming on this scale produces a vast quantity of waste, which can for the barn be
collected and removed by lorry. Waste on the soil will never be fully removed (Risk Poaka
Beck) and the field will become rapidly barren, again adding to the waste run off hazard W
and E to the village.
Marton has a diverse flora and fauna. The risk of damage to water eco-systems and land
based ecosystems and the cross contamination and poisoning via rodents of a healthy
Owl and respected avian population has not been considered fully.”
The Occupier, Wayside, Kirkby
“Despite my current address we will be moving to Marton in 2011.
As last time this application was made I would like to once again make an objection to this
application, for the following reasons.
1. Despite what has been said (within this application), we have lived near a chicken farm
in the recent past and the smell is horrendous.
2. I have great concerns about the vermin this kind of operation attracts, I have children
that play in the park which is less than 66m away from the edge of the farm (which is not
much further than walking out of the front of the town hall in Barrow across to the Forum¿s
front door and back again!) and I do not want them being confronted by rats.
3. The size of the Building has been reduced in size from the original application, I
understand from research that the recommend size of building for 16,000 chickens is
approx. 116m x 18m with a height to the ridge of 5m, however this application is for a
Page 20 of 35
1st February 2011
much smaller building 73m x 15m (and no height is clearly detailed on the application),
this has to be to the detriment of the chickens welfare.
4. In an article published in "The Farmers Weekly" in April 2010 it commented " ...the
industry's rapid expansion (of the production of free range eggs) may soon need to be
checked as the threat of an oversupply looms" - if this happens and the applicant is
unable to make a profit from his business, what guarantees will he give that standards on
things such as pest control are going to be met. Secondly on this point, if the chicken
business fails what will become of the building, will the applicant apply for change of use
for its footprint to be turned into a house or another business!
5. In the Odour assessment submitted by the applicant it mentions that the nearest
weather station is at Walney, however this was not used for the calculations as it was
considered coastal and unlikely to be representative of the conditions experienced around
Marton, so the weather station at Shap was used instead. Marton is 2 miles as the crow
flies to the coast, where as Shap is 33 miles.
We should be allowed to see what the outcome of this report would be if the Walney
weather station was used.”
Agent Supporting Statement
Following your query regarding the calculation for size of barn based on the number of
chickens to be housed as raised by the objection letter from the occupier at Low Fold,
Fairview, Marton; I comment as follows:-
The barn is the correct size to house 16,000 chickens the regulations require 9 birds per
sq.m of usable area under the Code of Practice for lion eggs published by the British Egg
Industry Council. This is calculated by measuring the whole area of the floor of the shed
less the service area, the access to the hoppers, the control panels and the muck
conveyors. Added back in is the floor space created by the multi-tier system.
I can confirm that the building is the correct size for housing 16,000 free range hens. I
think that the person who raised the query does not realise that this a multi-tier system.
I attach abstracts from Potter brochure. These are the suppliers of the equipment.”
Lindal and Marton Parish Council
“It was pointed out that this was a re-submission of the application first considered by the
Parish Council in June 2010, when the Council declined to support the application on the
grounds that it would be "detrimental to the health and well-being of the local residents
(vide minute 77/10(a) 3rd June 2010) . The application had then been discussed by Barrow
Borough Council's planning committee, the planning officer recommending refusal, but it
had been withdrawn by the applicant before the committee had made a formal decision.
The latest application was an attempt to address the objections as identified by the
planning officer, the main ones being the siting of the 90m-long shed in open countryside,
and the inclusion of Poaka Beck within the free-range area. Instead, the shed would now
be sited immediately to the rear of the applicant's farm-house and it had also been
Page 21 of 35
1st February 2011
reduced in size. The boundary line had also been re-drawn so that Poaka Beck would
now be completely outside the free-range area.
In a wide-ranging discussion, involving the floor, many issues were highlighted, with all
concerned remaining adamant in their objections to this application. It was, therefore,
PROPOSED by Councillor Howarth and SECONDED by Councillor Lord that the Council
formally object to the application, for the reasons as set out in its resolution in June 2010,
and also as discussed by all those present during the current meeting, both lots
of points being summarised as follows:- .
Whilst the change of site for the shed ensured that the open countryside would
not be despoiled, it would mean that it would be closer to the residential properties
on Tarn Flat, immediately adjacent to the applicant's farm house, thus moving the
potential for nuisance nearer to such residents. The reduction in size, of less than
10%, was insignificant in this regard.
The boundary of the free-range area, whilst it would now exclude Poaka Beck and
its wooded environs, was still close enough for the potential for contaminated water
run-off into the beck in times of heavy rain.
There were no details as to the practical requirements of the chickens whilst on the
free-range area in terms of feeding and watering mechanisms and whether these
would so substantial as to cause further visual intrusion on the landscape.
There were no details regarding the fencing requirements for this large 8 ha, site.
No indications were given as to height, materials to be used, depth to be inserted
into the ground etc. The danger of a major visual intrusion for the surrounding
countryside was considerable.
No reference was made to the potential for attracting vermin to the area, with the
potential for frustrated foxes, rats etc, if they were unable to actually gain access to
the free-range area, looking for alternative food sources within the local residential
Concern was expressed at the number of chickens (16,000) to be housed in the
building, with no reduction in numbers to reflect the reduction in the size of the
building. It was suggested that the planning officers would need to clarify the legal
requirements regarding bird density for such developments.
Questions were asked as to the future use of the building if the commercial use as
a chicken farm (if approved) was eventually found to be unviable.
Notwithstanding the optimistic report produced for the applicant in respect of Odour
Impact, doubts remained regarding the potential for offensive smells from the
proposed development, particularly in the light of this being an all-year-round
operation as opposed to many other farming activities being seasonal. (ie. "muck-
spreading") This problem would be exacerbated by the prevailing wind pattern
being south-westerly, with any contaminants thus being blown towards the
In a similar vein, it was suggested that manure dust off the free-range area could,
during dry conditions, be blown towards residential areas.
Whilst the applicant was confident that he would be able to control flies etc by the
appropriate use of insecticides, it was feared that this could not be 100%
successful, particularly as far as the outdoor areas were concerned, and that
infestation of local properties was, perhaps, inevitable.
Doubts still remained regarding the health implications from concentrated ammonia
which, it was suggested, could arise out of the accumulated manure with this being
a particular problem for asthmatics.
Page 22 of 35
1st February 2011
There was no information as to whether the land would need to be "rested" from
year-round occupation by chickens and whether this would require additional land
outside the 8 ha already identified (with the consequential need for further planning
approval) or whether there were alternative solutions.
The question of the removal of manure was not satisfactorily dealt with by the
applicant in that he indicates that "a management plan will be submitted in due
course to Environmental Health". This was considered to be of such importance
that any planning consent should be conditional upon a satisfactory plan being
submitted and approved in advance.
Whilst the applicant's report on noise pollution was noted as giving a positive
assessment, with no annoyance predicted for local residents, it was assumed that
the planning officers would subject such report to appropriate, expert, scrutiny.”
County Archaeologist – (Dated 14/10/10)
“I am writing to thank you for consulting me on this application and to confirm that I do not
wish to make any comments or recommendations.”
Environmental Health – (Dated 18/10/10)
“Noise from the development must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR 30 in daytime
hours (0700 - 2300) and NR 25 in night time hours (2300 - 0700) in any noise sensitive
Environmental Health – (Dated - 01/12/2010)
“Further to our telephone conversation regarding the above, the applicant states that an
environmental management plan will be submitted to the Environmental Health Dept
before operation commences.
However, I recommend that a condition be included as follows:-
"An environmental management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Authority before operation of the chicken barn commences. This should cover the
1)Manure Management (to include collection, storage, transport and spreading).
2)Pest Prevention (specifically flies, but also vermin).
With regard to air quality impacts, as you know I am required by law to assess air quality
in the Borough by Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, on a yearly basis. Defra has
produced national guidance to help LAs undertake this task and poultry farms have been
identified as a possible source of particulate matter (dust) in this guidance. However, the
following criteria have to be satisfied before it becomes necessary to undertake an
1) Farms have to house in excess of 200,000 birds if naturally ventilated or 400,000 if
mechanically ventilated; AND
2) There must be relevant exposure (i.e. residents) within 100 metres of the poultry unit.
Page 23 of 35
1st February 2011
The proposed chicken barn will house 16,000 birds therefore it is well below the first
criterion. As a result, Defra deem that no air quality assessment for particulate matter is
required in relation my air quality duties.
If you want to discuss any of the above further, please don't hesitate to contact me.”
Environment Agency- (Dated 20/10/10)
“Environment Agency mapping indicates that the site is located within Flood Zone 1 which
is identified as being at low flood risk. The application site is above 1 hectare. PPS25 -
Development and Flood Risk states that all developments greater than 1 hectare require a
Flood Risk Assessment. The proposed free range poultry building, and any associated
hard-standing appear to be much less than a hectare and therefore the Agency would not
consider it worthwhile to object on this basis on this occasion.
The applicant, as owners of will be aware of the potential flood risk and frequency. The
applicant should be satisfied that the impact of any flooding will not adversely affect their
proposals. The applicant should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a
result of their proposals due to loss of permeable surfacing.
The attenuation and re-use of rainwater via on site storage may wish to be considered if
practicable as it would control run-off close to source and provide sustainability benefits.
Poaka Beck is designated 'main river'. Therefore, under the terms of the Water Resources
Act 1991 and Flood Defence Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Agency is required
for any works in, over, under or within 8m of the 'main river'. If any future works are
required within 8m of the top of bank then a Flood Defence Consent application should be
applied for. The applicant should note that the Agency has a period of two months to
determine a valid application for Flood Defence Consent. We would advise that this period
is taken into account when planning works which require such consent.
We support the changes that have been made to the application to protect the wildlife
corridor provided by Poaka Beck and welcome the proposed planting of species of local
provenance to enhance the Biodiversity value of the site.
The inclusion of a 10m buffer strip along Poaka Beck should provide good attenuation for
any silty run-off from the field area.
The poultry building should be constructed using the Best Available Techniques (BAT). If
the number of birds for this site ever reaches 40,000 the operator will need to apply to the
Environment Agency for an Environmental Permit under the terms of the Environmental
Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010.
Agricultural waste generated from the operation of the poultry building should be stored
and disposed of in accordance with Defra‟s Code of Good Agricultural Practice „Protecting
our Water, Soil and Air.‟
Appropriate wash water tanks are required for the building to prevent any pollution of
ground or surface waters. Poultry manure should be stored within either a midden with
contained drainage or at an appropriate field heap location.
If the building has roof vents all roof water should be directed to soakaway via sealed
Page 24 of 35
1st February 2011
downspouts as it likely to be mildly contaminated with dust from the poultry building; there
should be no direct discharge of roof water to any watercourse or drainage ditch without
Any waste excavation material or building waste generated in the course of the
development must be disposed of satisfactorily and in accordance with the Environmental
Permitting Regulations 2010. Carriers transporting waste from the site must be registered
Cumbria Highways – (Dated 26/10/10)
“I refer to the above consultation received on 4 th October 2010 and would comment as
The applicant has not identified how they propose to secure adequate visibility splays at
the access point or a tracking plan to demonstrate how an articulated vehicle will access
and egress the site in a forward direction.
I would therefore recommend that the applicant is requested to supply the above as
supporting information to their proposal. Should the above information not be supplied
then I would recommend that the application as submitted should be refused for the
1) Inadequacy of Submitted Information
Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority
that the proposal is acceptable in terms of ……
a) visibility splays
b) on site turning facilities
c) its effect on local traffic conditions and public safety
To support Local Transport Plan Policy: LD7, LD8”
County Highways – (Dated 19/01/11)
“Whilst I am happy the proposal is achievable I would ask that the application is suitably
conditioned to secure the submission of detailed plans for the access and associated
carriageway lining works to both sides of the carriageway, these works to be approved and
built before the development becomes operational, it should be noted that these works will
have to be the subject of a Section 278 Agreement funded by the applicant.
I think I recommended other conditions previously, if not and you need some for the
construction and drainage arrangements to the new access then let me know.”
“Thank you for your letter dated 4th October 2010 regarding the above planning
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure
that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of
present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Page 25 of 35
1st February 2011
Natural England has No Objection to this proposal. From the information provided with this
application we do not feel that the proposals are likely to significantly affect the natural
The recommendations outlined in the Lloydbore Landscape & Ecology biodiversity report
(4th August 2010) should be implemented to avoid undue risk to breeding bird interest.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the
natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.”
“This response is based on the details submitted on the planning application form; any
changes to the planning application will invalidate this response.
I will have no objection to the proposal provided that the following conditions are met: -
This property is not on a drinking water catchment; however the application states
that the chicken waste will be removed to other farms. The farms are named but
there are no grid references with farm boundaries to deduce whether these are on
catchment. Chicken manure is a significant risk to the quality of the raw water.
Poaka Beck reservoirs are in the vicinity therefore the waste should not be applied
to the catchment of these or any other drinking water reservoirs.
The developer provides a surface water management plan, that demonstrates that
there is no contaminated surface water run-off from the site into the adjacent
watercourse. This plan must be approved by United Utilities
This site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected
into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to a soakaway as stated in the
This response is based on the details submitted on the planning application form; any
changes to the planning application will invalidate this response.”
Cumbria Wildlife Trust
“Having read the revised ecological scoping report, Cumbria Wildlife Trust would like to
see Lloyd Bore's bullet point recommendations on page 2 of their letter regarding the
timing of works to avoid the bird breeding season and tree and scrub planting placed as
conditions on any permission granted to ensure that biodiversity on site is protected.”
Highway consultant's comments on behalf of applicant'
“I confirm that there is only loss of hedge at the actual access point.
I will produce an alternative as requested in your other email.
The point to take about the narrowing on this section of Tarn Flatt is the width will still be
more than occurs over most of the length of the road. In my view there is merit in this
narrowing as it will act to reduce speeds on the approaches to Marton and just a little
Page 26 of 35
1st February 2011
away from the point where the village 20mph limit starts. At present traffic approaching
the 20mph limit is travelling along a section of highway that is more than 9m wide. This
means that drivers do not get any feel that they are approaching a part of the highway on
which they are expected to slow from the national limit to 20mph.
From a highway point of view there is nothing to be said against reducing the carriageway
width over the whole section.”
This application involves the erection of a free range poultry unit at Maidenlands Farm.
Maidenlands is a relatively modern agricultural holding receiving planning permission in
1990 (90/0775). Detailed plans were subsequently approved for livestock and silage
buildings in 1991 (91/0317), an agricultural workers dwelling in 2004 (04/0078) and
additional cattle housing and covered middenstead again in 2004 (04/0714). More
recently a cattery has been established.
This proposal is a resubmission in a revised form of an application placed on your June
agenda but which was withdrawn prior to the issue of the decision. As a consequence the
application was not determined. The applicant has however sought to address the issues
raised in response to that application by providing further technical information and
making changes to the scheme.
The application remains for a 16,000 free range laying hen unit. There has been a
modest reduction in the length of the building from 90m (295 feet) to 82m (269 feet). Its
width has increased slightly from 15m (49 feet) to 15.5m (51 feet) with a consequent effect
on its height 5.5m rather than 5.2m to ridge. Standing above the ridge are 12 ventilation
stacks (previously 6) though the tallest elements are 2 feed hoppers whose height remains
unchanged at 7.5m (24 feet).
There has however been much more substantial changes in terms of the siting of the
building and the location of the 8 ha free range area. These changes are commented
upon under the various issue headings below.
Countryside Protection Policies
Planning policy seeks to protect the undeveloped, rural character of the countryside.
Saved policy D1 directs development to urban areas except where a rural location is
necessary. As this is an agricultural building it meets the locational requirements of D1.
Saved policy D2 imposes additional criteria for development proposed in areas of highest
landscape value (County Landscapes). The previous scheme showed the building within
the County Landscape 180m north of its current position. It is now proposed adjacent to
the existing range of farm buildings and outside the County Landscape. D2 is no longer a
material planning consideration.
National planning policy exists in the form PPS7. This recognises that a balance should
be drawn between protecting the environment and encouraging economic activity. In
terms of the siting of development it advises as follows:
Page 27 of 35
1st February 2011
Governments overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its
intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and
wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources so that it may be enjoyed by all
New buildings shall normally form part of a group rather than stand in
isolation, and relate to existing buildings in size and colour (Annex E
The revised scheme no longer proposes an isolated location and would form part of a
group. The revised scheme therefore meets national planning policy in terms of its siting
and as commented above the stricter saved policy D2 no longer applies.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The proposed location is directly to the rear of the existing farm dwelling and cattle/silage
buildings. The ridge height of the proposed poultry building at 5.5m is lower than that of
the adjacent silage building (8m). A section through the site shows that the ridge height
would however be approximately level. This is because the poultry unit would occupy a
more elevated site. The increased height is due to the rising ground which climbs away
from the existing farm buildings. The proposal would involve creating a terrace from this
sloping site so as to site the building on level ground.
In terms of visual impact from a view point in the highway immediately outside the site the
proposed building would be largely hidden by either the taller cattle and silage buildings or
the farm bungalow. Moving north towards Marton the cattle/silage buildings would
completely obscure the proposed poultry unit. Moving further along the public highway
beyond the existing farm buildings, the gable of the poultry unit would become visible.
However in these views the building would appear rather discrete. This is because it
would be seen in line but beyond the two much larger gable elevations of the existing
cattle and silage buildings. These are appreciably taller and wider, and built closer to the
highway, whereas the poultry unit is a minimum of 70m from the road. The poultry unit
would also be screened by hedgerows. As a consequence of the above the building
would not have a significant visual impact on views from the north (direction of Marton).
Moving south the existing farm bungalow and farm buildings initially provide some
screening, however it would soon become visible. This is because it extends further south
than the bungalow and it is built on higher ground. The development would therefore be
visible on approaching Marton from the south. In assessing the significance of this,
consideration should be given to the sensitivity of the site to change and the sensitivity of
the view points.
Both the sensitivity of the site to change and of the viewpoints are reduced by the
presence of existing buildings. The proposed building will therefore always be seen
relative to and forming part of a group of buildings. Close to it will be the other farm
buildings which will be seen at the same time. From further away the view points pick up
other large buildings at Tarn Flat. In terms of scale the proposed poultry unit would be
longer than the existing farm buildings having a length of 82m as compared to 50m.
However these are considerably wider at 34m (poultry unit is 15.5m wide) and taller to
both eaves and ridge. As such the existing buildings have greater bulk than the proposed
poultry unit and they are built closer to the highway. The proposed poultry unit would not
be out of scale with its setting. As a consequence I do not consider that the visual impact
Page 28 of 35
1st February 2011
would be so significant to warrant refusal particularly in the context of national planning
policy and saved policy D1. Both recognise that economic and operational matters should
be taken into account.
Potential pollution of the water environment
United Utilities objected to the previous application. This related to the site‟s proximity to
active reservoirs. United Utilities have now withdrawn their objection confirming that the
property is not within a drinking water catchment zone. They do however require both a
surface water management plan and confirmation that waste will not be deposited within
the catchment area of active reservoirs. The applicant has produced a list of farms who
wish to receive waste as fertilizer none of which are within the vicinity of Poaka Beck.
However this is a matter controlled by other legislation and as a consequence does not
need to be subject of a planning condition. A condition requiring a surface water
management plan could be imposed, however this is more an issue for the Environment
Agency. They have been consulted and have not raised this as an issue.
Nature Conservation Issues
A large (8ha) outdoor range forms part of the proposal. While temporary fences will
restrict access to a particular part at any one time the limits of the range are to be defined
by means of a 1.2m high electric fence.
On the original scheme this area extended into and across a wildlife corridor which follows
Poaka Beck. It also extended into an area of unimproved grassland. These areas of
nature conservation importance all fall outside of the revised range. This has come about
by the general movement of the development in a southerly direction.
The fencing would generally follow the lines of existing hedgerows and would have little
Detailed reports have been commissioned to provide detailed information on the above.
These have been provided by ADAS formerly the Agricultural Development Advisory
Service. They conclude as follows:
The most significant source of dust would be from the ridge mounted vents. The report
concludes that emissions from pop holes (hen access) and the ranging area would be
negligible in comparison.
ADAS have used an industry accepted computer model (AERMOD) to calculate the
concentration of dust at various locations. Concentration is measured in particles per m³
namely µg/ m³. The National Air Quality Strategy objectives for dust (31/12/10) set the
following limits (31/12/10).
Limit (µg/ m³)
Annual exposure 20
Page 29 of 35
1st February 2011
24 exposure 50 Not to be exceeded more than 7
times per year.
The Calculations arrived at for 14 specified receptors are as follows:
Dust Concentration (µg/ m³)
Receptor Name/description X (m) Y (m) Maximum 24 hour Annual mean
1 Houses East of Tarn Flat 324017 476694 3.91 0.48
2 Houses East of Tarn Flat 324056 476680 4.37 0.33
3 Premises East of Tarn Flat 324052 476790 3.97 0.27
4 Houses East of Tarn Flat 324060 476857 4.86 0.37
5 Houses East of Flat 324080 476996 1.73 0.17
6 Marton 324067 477086 1.90 0.12
7 Houses south-east of Marton 324274 477003 1.50 0.08
8 Houses south-east of Marton 324354 476934 0.90 0.06
9 Cottage south-east of Marton 324282 476877 1.49 0.07
10 Houses west of Lindal Moor 324294 476614 2.19 0.07
11 Whitrigg 323872 476171 1.47 0.03
12 Farm to SW of Maidenlands 323539 476216 0.43 0.01
13 Scale Bank 323614 476574 1.05 0.03
14 Farm west of Moor Road 324001 477147 1.99 0.13
This shows the maximum concentration arising from the poultry house as 4.86 µg/ m³ -
24 hours. This has to be added to the natural background level. The report has added
the 4.86 to the natural background of 11.86 to conclude there is no exceedance of the
50 µg/ m³ limit.
The report concludes as follows:
“The predications from the dispersions and deposition modelling demonstrated that
the process contribution from the proposed poultry unit at Maidenlands farm to dust
levels in the surrounding area would not lead to any breaches in the Air Quality
Strategy Objectives (Stage 2, December 31, 2010).”
Odour is defined by means of concentrations expressed in forms of European Odour units
per m³(OUE/m³). A maximum level is specified depending on the offensiveness of the
order ranging from a maximum of 6.0 OUE/m³ for the least offensive odours to 3.0 and 1.5
for moderately and highly offensive odours respectively. Odour from a poultry housing is
normally given a moderately offensive rating a maximum of 3.0 OUE/m³ based on a 98
percentile – only exceeded for 2% of the time.
Computer modelling shows the following results:
Approximate 98 percentile
No. Name Grid Reference Distance from the odour
1 Houses East of Tarn Flat 324017 476694 120 0.8
2 324056 476680 160 0.7
3 Premises East of Tarn Flat 324052 476790 140 0.5
4 Houses East of Tarn Flat 324060 476857 180 0.6
Page 30 of 35
1st February 2011
5 324080 476996 290 0.3
6 Marton 324067 477086 370 0.2
7 Houses south-east of Marton 324274 477003 440 0.1
8 324354 476934 480 0.1
9 Cottage south-east of Marton 324282 476877 390 0.1
10 House west of Lindal Moor 324294 476614 410 0.2
11 Whitrigg 323872 476171 580 <0.1
12 Farm to SW of Maindenlands 323539 476216 650 <0.1
13 Scale Bank 323614 476574 350 0.1
14 Farm West of Moor Road 324001 477147 400 0.3
It can be seen that the odour levels are shown not to exceed 0.8 OUE/m³. This is well
below the 3.9OUE/m³ where problems can be expected. The report concludes as follows:
“……. that odour concentrations from the farm would be undetectable at these
locations for almost all of the time. In these circumstances, it is the conclusion of
this report that the proposal outlined would be very unlikely to result in nuisance or
loss of amenity at any of the properties in the area.”
Complaints are likely when a noise exceeds the background level by more than a certain
amount. BS4142 advises that:
A difference of around +10dB or more indicates that complaints are likely. A
difference of around +5dB is of marginal significance.
The background established by measurement was a low 31.7dBA (LA90). The noise at
source is calculated as 60.9dBA (12 x fans). Taking account of the reduction affect of
distance the figure arrived at for the nearest noise sensitive property is 30.9. This is below
current background levels. As fans are considered to have a tonal element a 5dBA
loading is applied resulting in a rating level of 35.9 dBA. This is 4.2 dBA higher than
background which is still less than marginal significance (BS4142).
The proposal involves the creation of a new access onto the public highway at Tarn Flat.
This would join the highway just north of the existing farm buildings.
The applicant has involved a traffic engineer who has recorded average speeds and
designed the visibility splays to suit (in consultation with Cumbria Highways). The required
visibility in either distance is 90m. This is proposed to be achieved by means of a build
out into the highway. The Highway Authority have removed their previous objection.
Specified weekly vehicle movements are however low at:
1 x 15m articulated vehicle delivering feed.
3 x 5.7 ton transit vehicles (e.g. collections).
2 x tractors waste removal.
1 annual delivery of chickens.
Page 31 of 35
1st February 2011
The development would bring economic benefits in terms of increased agricultural
production. It would provide additional employment both to the applicant‟s family and is
likely to lead to the creation of the equivalent of a 1½ full time jobs.
I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:
Condition No. 2
The development shall be carried out inaccordance with the application dated 24/09/10
and the hereby approved plans ref: CBM/2010/601A, 602A, 610 and SK-01-261.
To keep the development within the terms of this permission.
Condition No. 3
The roof and wall cladding shall have an external colour of either BS4800 12 B 27 or
BS4800 12 B 29 and which shall be incorporated into the cladding during the
manufacturing process and which shall be permanently retained unless any variation is
agreed in writing by the planning authority.
To reduce the visual impact of the development having regard to saved policy D1.
Condition No. 4
Prior to the beneficial use of the building hereby approved, a landscape scheme for the
site, showing the trees, shrubs and hedgerows, including verges together with details of
any phasing of such a scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted on a plan not greater than 1:500 in
scale and shall contain details of numbers, locations and species of plants to be used. All
planting and subsequent maintenance shall be to current British Standards. The
approved scheme must subsequently be implemented by the end of the first planting
season following initial beneficial occupation of the development or by such a programme
as may be agreed in writing. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying being severely damaged
or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by the
landowner with trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally required to
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to contribute to biodiversity.
Page 32 of 35
1st February 2011
Condition No. 5
Noise from the development shall not exceed a noise rating NR30 during day time hours
(0700 -2300) and NR25 during night time hours (2300 – 0700) in any noise sensitive
To protect the amenities of nearby property.
Condition No. 6
Prior to the beneficial use of the building hereby approved an environmental management
plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and
which shall cover the following areas:
1) Manure management (to include collection, storage, transport and
2) Pest prevention.
3) Odour control.
To minimise any impacts arising from the above referred to issues.
Condition No. 7
Unless the works involved in carrying out the development hereby approved take place
outside the bird nesting season (mid March to August) then habitat subject to disturbance
shall be checked by a suitably qualified ecologist for the presence of breeding birds prior
to works commencing on site. Where breeding birds are found no development shall
proceed except inaccordance with a scheme to mitigate any disturbance to nesting birds
and which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
To protect nesting birds from disturbance.
Condition No. 8
No hedgerows shall be removed other than those shown to be removed on the plans
forming part of this consent.
The hedgerows have an important screening role and contribute to bio diversity.
Page 33 of 35
1st February 2011
Condition No. 9
Were the use of the building for the purposes of agriculture within the unit to
permanently cease within 10 years from the date on which the development was
substantially completed and planning permission has not been granted on an
application or under Part III of the Act, for development for purposes other than
agriculture within 3 years from the date on which the use of the building for the
purposes of agriculture within the unit permanently ceased, then, unless the Local
Planning Authority have otherwise agreed in writing the building shall be removed from
the land and the land shall, so far as is practicable, be restored to its condition before
the development took place and within a period of 3 months following the expiration of
the 3 year period referred to above.
To avoid buildings detracting from the rural character of the area once no longer
required for their original purpose.
Condition No. 10
The building shall not be beneficially occupied until the hereby approved access has
been completed inaccordance with drawing No. sk-01-261 unless a variation is agreed
in writing with the Planning Authority.
To ensure adequate visibility is provided at the access in the interest of highway safety.
Condition No. 11
Prior to the beneficial use of the building hereby approved measures for preventing
surface water discharging onto the highway shall be implemented inaccordance with a
scheme which must have first been approved in writing with the Planning Authority.
In the interests of highway safety.
Condition No. 12
The first 8m of the new access road measured from the edge of the existing metalled
highway shall be constructed from a bitumous or cement bound material and which
shall be permanently retained unless any variation is agreed with the Local Planning
To avoid loose material being deposited on the highway.
Page 34 of 35
1st February 2011
Condition No. 13
The only poultry which shall be kept within the building hereby approved are free range
Further assessment would be required to ensure that more intensive poultry farming did
not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the area through increase dust and odour.
Reason for Approval
That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed
conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation,
will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties and its impact on the
rural character of the area has been minimised. As such, the proposal complies with the
Development Plan for the area, specifically policies D1, D55 and D58.
Page 35 of 35