July 2013, Braintree District Council refused planning permission for a ‘replacement’ poultry shed for a second time – 13 councillors voted against, 1 abstained (1). Their conclusion, the building was “inappropriate for this site, specifically in respect of its size, materials and appearance. It fails to reflect the character of the area and its scale is not considered sympathetic with its surroun
dings. The building would dominate the site, the surrounding area and the listed farm buildings…” (p72, minutes). The application was deemed contrary to Policies CS5 & CS8 of Core Strategy, and RLP89 & RLP90 of the Local Plan Review. Councillor Abbott pointed out that at more than 6 times bigger than the existing shed – and bigger than 6 tennis courts – rather than a ‘replacement’ shed it was a new building! They might also have noted that of the reports submitted as evidence by the applicants’ agent:
- ‘Odour’ report failed to take the ‘dung’ into account and assumed flat ground;
- ‘Biodiversity’ report failed to recognise the site was frequented by grass snakes and bats;
- ‘Traffic’ omitted to indicate lorries would come in middle of night to remove ‘finished’ birds;
- ‘Visibility’ report – see map on Facebook – was utterly incorrect with respect to the shed’s visibility. The application was also at loggerheads with majority views in the ‘Village Design Statement’ (2). The applicants appealed the decision , and a single planning Inspector, Mr Ron Boyd, appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, allowed the appeal and granted planning permission, 8th April 2014. He simply disagreed with the District Councillors views on character/scale of the building, took no apparent notice of the inaccurate reports – despite a site visit – and did not consider the nature of the operation, broiler production, and its unsustainability, as “a planning matter to be dealt with as part of this appeal”(3)! Oddly, the Secretary of State’s Inspectorate doesn’t appear to have a mechanism for reviewing its Inspectors’ decisions, so that Mr Boyd may be unawares that the District Planning Officer had to step in when his ‘schedule of conditions’ were ignored, or that the ‘replacement’ broiler shed, now built, can clearly be seen from the village entry sign for ‘Great Broilershed’ all the way down the hill and up, to Clucking Farm – clearly dominating the surrounding area! What then was the point of this government’s Localism Act 2011, the aim of which was “..to devolve more decision making powers from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils”(4)? Visit https://www.facebook.com/pages/Biddy-Broiler/1576529459285858 for more on ‘the everyday story of country biddies’. (1) Application 13/00344/FUL, Replacement Poultry Shed, Clucking Farm, Great Broilershed: https://publicaccess.braintree.gov.uk/online-applications//applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MK2BLOBF07J00
(2) See here: http://www.braintree.gov.uk/downloads/file/3614/great_maplestead_village_design_statement
(3) Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/A/13/2201761
(4) Localism Act: http://www.local.gov.uk/localism-act
