7
Cropwell Bishop
Parish Council – Minutes of Meeting
4th July 2017
7.00pm -The Old School
(The meeting started at 7.00pm and finished at 8.44pm)
Present: Cllrs. C. Bryan, J. Gelsthorpe, L. Hazell, C. Rickells & J. Wroughton
In Attendance: Mrs J. Towndrow (Clerk), Cllr. G. Moore RBC, Cllr. N. Clarke NCC, 2 Councillors from Cropwell Butler 10 Local Residents
______
Apologies Approved
81. Cllrs J. Greenwood, J. Jones & Wilson – holiday, Cllr. N. Lockley – working & Cllr. N. Clarke – prior meeting.
Declarations of Interest & Confirmation of Agenda
82. DOI – Non Received
The Agenda was confirmed
83. Standing Orders were suspended at 7.03pm to allow the order of business to be amended to enable attendees to speak to the meeting.
Parishioners’ Question Time & Policing Report
The Crime figures for period June 2017 were read by Cllr. J. Gelsthorpe
3/6/17 – Criminal Damage, Main Road Barnstone – Damage to notice board
3/6/17 – Criminal Damage, Salvin Close Cropwell Bishop – Vehicles scratched
16/6/17 – Criminal Damage, Main Road Barnstone – Damage to vehicle, male arrested
20/6/17 – Criminal Damage, Works Lane Barnstone – Damage to lorry
24/6/17- Criminal Damage, Fern Road Cropwell Bishop – Damage to JCB
30/6/17 – Theft, Fern Road Cropwell Bishop – Donation box taken from church
There were no parishioners’ questions
84. Standing Orders reinstated at 7.05pm.
Minutes of the Previous Meeting
85. It Was:
RESOLVED: “That the minutes of the meeting held on 6th June 2017 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman”.
Progress
86. M.29 6/6/17 – Village Conservation Area
James Bates, the Rushcliffe Borough Council Conservation Officer, visited the village on Friday afternoon 16th June.
Pam Wregg, Cllr. Greenwood and Jonathan Goodmet up with James, along with Ann Mansell, Anne Terzza and Ken Shelton from the Heritage Group, and walked around the village reviewing the architecture and the history of some of the buildings.
From the walk James identifieda number of properties/terraces with unusual features and old pictures show thevillage street views are little unchanged. Everyone learned something new about the village from his visit.
Following the walk James believes the centre of Cropwell Bishop appears to fulfil the criteria to be considered as a Conservation Area. James is now considering a proposal for a conservation area. There will be the opportunity for a consultation process with residents.
Anne Terzza, Ann Mansell and Ken Shelton have agreed to form a working party with Cllr. Greenwood, Jonathan Good and Pam Wregg with assistance and guidance from James Bates.
Action: Pam Wregg will report back to the Parish Council at the September meeting as agreed.
87. M.65 6/6/17 – Saturday Café May Takings
Complete: £53.50 has been paid to the Oxfam East Africa Appeal.
Planning Matters & Applications
88. RBC: Grant Permission 17/00821/FUL – Garage conversion and single storey rear extension to create annexe – Kirkridge, 4 The Maltings, Cropwell Bishop NG12 3DA - NOTED
89. Standing Orders were suspended at 7.12pm to allow the order of business to be amended to enable attendees to speak to the meeting.
90. RBC New Application: 17/01327/FUL – Erection of 4 No. poultry buildings, highway access and associated structure – Land East of Fosse Way, Cropwell Bishop NG12 3BA
Tony Jarrow said he was amazed this planning application was put forward. It is too close to the village, the
offensive smell will affect the nearby garage, creamery storage unit, public walkways and homes. The
airflow will drift towards Cropwell Bishop and Cropwell Butler and both communities will suffer from a terrible smell. The air temperature will also affect the smell and the canal tow path will be badly affected. When the units are cleaned out the smell will be horrendous – This will also be on a rotating timescale as each unit is cleaned out at a different time.
Maria Carter – Russell Price must have known he wanted a chicken farm when he applied for the Anaerobic Digester and he has kept it quiet. How big is the development going to be with 4 units and then a further planning permission for a house to come in? This is too large a development for the entrance to our village and the loss of the green belt land. Maria stated she was also against this development ethically but knows this is not a planning issue. Maria asked the question “What will be next if all this goes through”?
Bob Ayre – Wished to raise two observations. Firstly Michael Parker has a chicken farm on Hose Lane the same size as this proposed planning application. He has never been aware of any smell and his son lives very close to the Hose Lane chicken farm. A smell is only ever noticed when the chicken muck is being spread on the land and in this application that won’t be happening as the waste is being used in the Anaerobic Digester. He stated in 5 years he has never known it to smell.
Mr. Ayre asked then what other planning is in the pipeline and stated that the Parish should be given more notice.
Cllr. G. Moore advised that the Parish Council were only consultees and the final decision will be made by Rushcliffe Borough Council. He advised the meeting that the plans for the chicken farm would indeed have been being worked on for a very long time, but this would have been necessary for the in-depth plans to be ready for submission.
Maria Carter and Cllr. Gelsthorpe stated that Samworth Farms would have had a business plan for the chicken farm for a long time – Samworth Farms is a big business.
Cllr. G. Moore advised the meeting that they have and are following the correct planning process.
Cllr. Chettle from Cropwell Butler Parish Council – What about the dangers to the local water courses, air borne and water carrying pollution, for example Avian Flu. Had great concerns over the size and scale of the development in the Green Belt and asked where the development of the land in this area stops. Also asked the question of how it will affect the new housing development plans in the Local Plan Part 2. Cllr. Chettle stated that Cropwell Butler were very aggrieved they had not been included in the consultation process by Rushcliffe Borough Council.
Brenda Day, a resident from Cropwell Butler, asked what options were available to the residents and Parish Council of Cropwell Butler as they had not been on the consultee list.
The Clerk advised they can ask Rushcliffe Borough Council for an extension to the deadline to give them time to comment. However, the public did have until the 12th of July to comment.
Pam Wregg asked if the Parish Council had gone into the plans in depth as Tony Jarrow had.
Cllr. Gelsthorpe advised that the plans had been thoroughly looked at by the members of the Parish Council.
Cllr. Moore advised the Parish Council that when a similar application went through at Colston Bassett they filled the church with objectors. Since the Chicken Farm went into operation there has not been a single complaint to the Borough or the Parish Council regarding smell. Cllr. Moore stated there will only be a smell every 7 weeks when the manure is moved into the Anaerobic Digester. Tony Jarrow pointed out that the plans show there will be an obnoxious smell for 5% of the year which is a fair point for a planning objection.
91. Standing Orders reinstated at 7.30pm.
92. The Clerk read two objections from local residents who could not attend the meeting:
Joanne Gerrard asked for her strong objection to be noted, stating not only is it morally wrong but a chicken farm would have serious impacts on the village. Houses would become unsaleable due to the odour, Alnwick and Ruskington are prime examples where the smell makes you gag as you drive past them. Once beautiful villages now become a place to avoid.
Gill Young – Stated she would be against the proposed chicken farm. Mrs. Young believes the noise, dust and traffic pollution would be comparable to the same pollution from the new Allsop Waste Site.
Cllr. Gelsthorpe asked each councillor present to give their view and reasons to the meeting:
Cllr. Hazel – Object for the following reasons – Industrial size development in the green belt, ethically disagrees and we need to consider the feelings of our parishioners.
Cllr. Bryan – Object – Russell Price always does things to the highest quality but he can see no benefit to the village of the proposed chicken farm. Planning objection on the grounds of smell and size of the development in the green belt.
Cllr. Rickells – Object – Planning Objection on the ground of Odour, he has travelled in Lincoln and the farms there do smell. The 4 proposed sheds will rotate on the cleaning so the smell will not only be for one day every few weeks. Stated that he was disgusted that Cropwell Butler had not been notified as a consultee.
Cllr. Wroughton – Object – No benefit to the village, does not begrudge the business expanding but too big a development on an industrial scale in the green belt and on the entrance to the village. The smell will be unpleasant in and around the village.
Cllr. Gelsthorpe – Object Strongly on the grounds of Odour and size of the development in the green belt. Morally wrong and it is unfortunate there is no planning consideration for the ethics involved.
Cllrs. Wilson, Greenwood and Jones had sent in statements regarding the planning which were read out by the clerk.
Cllr. Greenwood - Whilst recognising and supporting Judith’s ethical stand, I appreciate the helpful comments and assessment made by Jane. However speaking to residents who live as close to the Langar chicken farm as Cropwell will be to the Stragglethorpe farm they do experience very unpleasant smells from time to time when the sheds are cleaned and the wind is in the ‘wrong’ direction. It seems some bad smells would have to be tolerated. The smells are likely to be most unpleasant for the nearby Petrol station, shop and houses. Motorists driving into Cropwell and the Vale will experience an unfortunate odour from time to time – not a pleasant welcome. I suspect some odours will continue over longer periods as the waste is fed into the digester.
I therefore conclude that the proposed poultry farm is not appropriate for this location and would be
detrimental to our village. I vote to refuse the application.
Perhaps the applicant can be persuaded to go for a ‘free range’ poultry farm which would, like the Cheese dairy, be seen as an asset to the village.
Cllr. Wilson -Having been inside one of these proposed buildings I know that none of the birds I have seen was subjected to any stress or overcrowding, and therefore could not oppose such a development on ethical grounds or find a reason that the planning officers would also to oppose this development. However I do have concerns that with the Anaerobic Digester, the Grain Storage Buildings and now 4 very large sheds for these chickens, is spreading out and turning into a substantial industrial estate.
My other concern is that this project will be heated with subsidised Biomass imported from the swamps of Louisiana which will leave a huge carbon foot print with its importation.
Cllr. Jones - Planning application for new poultry farm; this is a significant development with potential consequences for the village. My view is that the Parish Council has a duty to raise awareness of this within the community. This is not to say that it should be opposed – but it is too big a proposal to proceed without a proper understanding, and I think we would be rightly criticised if we did not highlight it, as we did with the applications from Mr Alsop, for example. I understand that a notice, worded in strictly objective terms, has now been circulated for the village websites in response to my concerns. Also, that a summary of the proposal from the applicant is also likely to be circulated.
I have personally studied the application and associated documents. I think that there are valid concerns over the potential odours in particular, though I note the report that deals with this aspect. I expect that for a couple of days of each 45 day cycle, whilst the poultry houses are being cleared out, there will be some consequences – in particular for those households that live downwind of the prevailing wind, which would be those towards the top end of the estate. The report classifies the odour as moderately offensive, but those who experience it may beg to differ! And how much noise do 220,000 chickens make?
My view overall, though I am not a fan of intensively raised livestock, is that there are no valid grounds under planning legislation to oppose this proposed development. I consider that Russel Price’s operations generally are run on a highly professional and sound commercial basis, and I have some confidence that this operation would be run in this way too. Do I want this at the end of our village? No, not particularly. Do I think it will enhance our lives at all? No, not really. Do I think there may be some adverse consequences? Probably. Do I think there are proper grounds for opposing it? No. So, I do not oppose it. That is all you really need to know. If there is a vote on the matter, mine is to not oppose the application.
It Was:
RESOLVED: “OBJECT on the grounds of Odour, Size and Scale of the Development in the Green Belt and environmental issues”