Farm planning decision dissapointment
The NFU has expressed its deep disappointment after a farm and abattoir looking to meet strict animal welfare and food hygiene regulations lost its planning appeal.
Summers Poultry Products Ltd, at Cank Farm, Tanworth-in-Arden, sought to overturn a Stratford-on-Avon District Council decision against development at the site but yesterday, February 9, an inspector dismissed the appeal.
The poultry business appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government after the local authority refused planning permission for a slaughter house extension and other alterations in the Green Belt.
Farmer and NFU member John Summers, poultry business managing director, said the chiller unit and holding pen area were built to meet strict Defra and Food Standards Agency regulations. He said the buildings were essential otherwise they would be forced to shut down the abattoir and 96 people would face losing their jobs.
NFU environmental adviser Sarah Faulkner, who gave evidence at the planning inquiry last November, said there was deep disappointment following the inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal.
"Government makes supportive statements about the planning system supporting business but unfortunately this does not always translate at a local level", she said. "We are frustrated and deeply disappointed by the outcome of this case.
"The NFU understands the importance of the Green Belt, however the business is established and sought to make minor changes to an existing building to meet regulatory requirements for animal welfare.
"Our thoughts are with Mr Summers and also with the people who face losing their jobs as a result of planning permission being refused."
The NFU understands that the company, which processes about 100,000 chickens a week, spends £6.5 million in the rural economy using contractors and suppliers. The family has been farming at Tanworth-in-Arden for generations and the abattoir has been operating since 1967.
In his report the inspector said he had considered the impact of the proposed extension upon the openness of the Green Belt and if it would have a "harmful visual impact".
He said he accepted the proposed extensions would enable the slaughterhouse to meet current regulations for the foreseeable future, preserve jobs, maintain existing trade with local businesses and prevent disruption and expense to local and more distant poultry suppliers.
Despite Mr Summers saying the business employed 96 people, the inspector said that he had heard evidence that the existing slaughterhouse provided employment for some "20 village residents and 12 people from the surrounding area". He said if the business closed "the impact upon local employment would therefore be relatively limited and might be offset by employment opportunities arising in any future business occupying the premises".
The report said: "I therefore attach limited weight to any continued benefit to the local economy arising from the continuation of the business, were the proposed extension to take place."
In conclusion the inspector said he felt the development was industrial and the reasons to allow it did not together, or on their own, "tip the balance in favour of the proposal" or "clearly outweigh the substantial harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm that I have identified".
He said: "I therefore conclude that the very special circumstances necessary to permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist and that having regard to these and all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed."
A few weeks ago Stratford District Council’s audit and regulatory committee agreed to take direct action and demolish the two buildings should the scheme be dismissed at appeal.
