Steve Rogers – Head of Planning & Regulatory Services Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, DG1 2HS Telephone (01387) 260199 - Fax (01387) 260188

Planning Applications Committee Report ERECTION OF 4 POULTRY BREEDING UNITS, STORAGE BUILDING, BIOMASS BOILER BUILDING, INCINERATOR BUILDING, TEMPORARY SITING OF MANAGER'S MOBILE ACCOMMODATION UNIT, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND SOAKAWAY AND FORMATION OF SURFACE WATER DETENTION POND AND ACCESS ROAD AND CAR PARKING AT LAND TO THE NORTH-WEST OF BLACKRIG FARM, LOCHMABEN Application Type: Full Planning Permission Applicant: Mr John Bowker Ref. No.: 14/P/4/0414 Recommendation - Approve subject to conditions Ward - Annandale North Hierarchy Type (if applicable) - Major Case Officer - Dean Clapworthy 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 At the Planning Applications Committee meeting of 28 January 2015, Members decided to defer consideration of the application for a site visit to take place to allow a fuller appreciation of the site and surroundings and a similar operating facility at Braehill, Carrutherstown. This site visit took place on 2 March 2015. 1.2 Under the Scheme of Delegation, this application requires to be considered by the Planning Applications Committee as it constitutes a Major development as defined in the Town & Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. It is not considered to be significantly contrary to the development plan and no pre-determination hearing is therefore required. 1.3 The application relates to land at Blackrig Farm, which is located approximately 1.1km to the west of the built edge of Lochmaben and around 110m to the south of the junction of the A709 and C24a public roads. The site has a frontage to the C24a and is bounded on all remaining sides by further agricultural land. The south-west boundary of the site to the C24a is flanked by a mature hedgerow whilst the north-west boundary is formed by an existing field boundary of mature and maturing trees of varying heights. The site is

presently part of an open grazed field and gently rises from the north-west to south / south-east. The nearest dwelling to the site, Burnbrae, is around 136m* to the north-west (it is located immediately adjacent to the A709), whilst a further 6 dwellings fall within approximately 400m of the site. There are presently two field accesses into the field off the C24a, the southernmost one of which is proposed to be widened to accommodate larger vehicles. The eastern boundary of the Torthorwald Ridge Regional Scenic Area (RSA) is aligned with the C24a to the immediate west of the site. * In the report to Planning Applications Committee of 28 January 2015, this distance was stated as being “around 150m”. However, following a query from a third party, this relationship has been reviewed in order to obtain as precise a reading as possible (between the proposed poultry buildings and the nearest dwelling, Burnbrae). From this review, the best estimate for the distance between the 2 buildings is considered to be approximately 136m. However, it is stressed that this is still an approximate distance, hence the continued use of the term “around” in the report. The revision of this distance does not affect the recommendation. 1.4 The application seeks permission for the erection of:

4 rectangular poultry sheds at 96m in length x 16.5m in width x 5.2m in height, which would be laid out in parallel with a link building measuring 6m in width x 50.5m in length (multi-ridged to the same profile as the opposing gables of the poultry sheds) connecting each of the poultry sheds and the following ancillary elements:

General storage building measuring approximately 18.2m in length x 12.1m in width x 5.1m in height;

Biomass boiler building measuring approximately 4m in length x 5m in width x 3.5m in height;

Incinerator building measuring approximately 4m in length x 4m in width x 3.5m in height;

4 circular feed bins each at 7 metres in height;

A surface water detention pond at 607m² for the collection of site surface water run-off;

Areas of hardstanding surrounding all of the buildings (including 6 car-parking spaces), a proposed access road and access improvements, site and surface water drainage and a temporary mobile site manager's office;

1.5 The layout of the above elements are as indicated on the submitted 'Site & Location Plans'. The buildings would be finished in plastisol coated box profile cladding, initially stated as being slate grey to roofs and merlin grey to walls, but since confirmed as being Olive and Juniper Green (or other colour as determined). To create a level area for the buildings, the site would be engineered to obtain a finished floor level of approximately 73m above ordnance datum (AOD) with excavated materials being used to form a screen bund of up to 4m in height along the south-west elevation to the public road. Extensive landscaping is proposed to bund and boundaries including retention of existing trees and hedgerows. 1.6 The operation of the unit would require 3 full time members of staff, with additional help required during busy periods. 10 weeks per year the farm would require staff numbers of approximately 10 / 12 people.

In support of the application the applicant / agent has submitted the following:- 1.7 Planning Statement 1.7.1 The submitted planning statement refers to relevant Local Development Plan vision and policies, specifically highlighting policy ED2, which states that "Proposals which expand existing businesses or create new ones will be supported." The statement concludes that the careful siting and design of the proposed buildings, together with proposed mitigation measures would minimise any harmful adverse effect upon landscape character. It is further stated that "... Clearly new development in the open countryside will inevitably have some adverse visual impact, the applicant considers that their approach has minimised such effects to a level where the beneficial economic effects of the proposal warrant support." 1.8 Business Statement 1.8.1 The business statement refers to general economic benefits through employment creation, the safeguarding of existing positions, exports and the employment supported in relation to the building of the proposed facility (which is estimated to take 5-6 months). 1.9 Working Practices Statement 1.9.1 This document describes the importance of bio-security and keeping flocks free of infection. The proposed facility would have a day old chick capacity of 39500 and the buildings would be heated to around 32°C for the first 28 days (heated by a biomass wood pellet / chip boiler), and thereafter house temperatures are maintained predominantly by body heat. When the birds are 18-20 weeks old, they would be transported to another facility, after which the buildings are cleared, cleaned and disinfected. 1.9.2 The buildings would be ventilated with high speed ridge extraction ventilation, which blows air above the poultry buildings and reduces the possibility of localised odour (See 'Note on Ventilation and Noise at paragraph 1.10 below). Vermin control measures would be incorporated into the build (vermin proof seals at entry / exit points). The small scale on-site incinerator would be for the disposal of mortalities and selective culls and would be compliant with the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. 1.10 Design & Access Statement This statement notes that the proposal is for the development of modern agricultural buildings suitable for the purpose of providing modern bio-secure poultry units. The buildings would be of steel portal frame construction clad in coated galvanised steel sheeting in Merlin Grey and Slate Grey [NB - colour now amended as noted at paragraph 1.4 above]. Access to the site is to be gained via an improved existing field access with the provision of parking and turning arrangements (including disabled access to the storage area). Improvements would be made to the C24a (widening at the junction with the A709 and passing place). 1.11 Landscape & Visual Assessment 1.11.1 The assessment notes that the proposal falls within a landscape that is characterised by rolling topography, mixture of rough and improved pasture, hedgerows, deciduous shelterbelts with a medium scale field pattern and a relatively dense network of mostly minor roads. Views out are restricted by topography, trees and shelterbelts and

higher ground to the north, south and west. There are many farms and associated farm buildings, particularly to the south and west. 1.11.2 The assessment states that the facility is not wholly different from the existing use of the land (albeit more intensive) and that the scale of development is similar to that of some nearby farms e.g. Hunters House Farm, and that the scale of the surrounding landscape has the capacity to absorb a development of this scale. With regard to visibility, the development would not be skylined and the finishing colours, extent of landscaping and design would minimise visual impacts. Only a small section of the existing boundary hedgerow would be lost to facilitate access improvements. 1.12 Pre-Application Consultation Report As a Major development, a Pre-Application Consultation Report (PAC) has also been submitted. The consultation exercise and report are a requirement of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The Consultation exercise included a presentation of the proposal attended by consultants. This event was held at Lochmaben Community Centre on 17 February 2014. The document highlights the main points raised at the meeting and changes / issues that have been factored into the proposal following the exercise e.g. the building was set lower, enhanced landscaping. 1.13 Note on Ventilation and Noise 1.13.1 The high speed ridge extraction ventilation would draw in fresh air from side inlets, mix with ambient air inside and be ventilated through ridge chimneys. Extracted air is blown well above the buildings to reduce the possibility of localised odour. Experience demonstrates that odour nuisance is not a problem normally associated with breeder rearing birds, due to their low stocking densities and low protein diet. 1.13.2 Noise data provided by the manufacturer states that roof mounted fans (630mm diameter) would emit 53dB at a distance of 7m. At this level, the ventilation system poses no concern in relation to potential noise nuisance, particularly as the nearest dwelling is around 150m away. 1.14 Planning Policy Note: Policy NE13 (Agricultural Soil) 1.14.1 Policy NE13 states that development will only be supported where development conforms with the Spatial Strategy and there is no alternative on less good quality land. The proposal constitutes a genuine agricultural enterprise located within the rural area which would be supported by Policy ED2 (Business Development in Rural Areas) and would therefore conform with the Spatial Strategy. The only areas of land within the Lochmaben locality which are not located within (Land Capability for Agriculture) Class 3.2 or better are constrained by the Regional Scenic Area landscape designation or by flood risk. The operational requirements of the business necessitates a sustainable location which is near the road network, but does not cause traffic or amenity conflicts within the built-up area. In the context of these matters, it is considered that the application complies with Policy NE13. The use and nature of the proposed development is agricultural and the proposal simply seeks a change from land based farming to building based farming. In relation to farming output, the food produced per sq metre would increase by 1000+ times. In the context of preserving land for productive farming, it is evident that this development significantly enhances the agricultural output.

1.14.2 The planning note states that it is inevitable that a degree of conflict may occur between LDP policies and in such situations, it should be necessary for the Council to balance the weight given to each policy against the overall vision, objectives and aspirations of the development plan. The key priorities of the LDP are to promote economic prosperity, particularly through rural diversification, to promote sustainable development by reducing the need to travel and protecting the outstanding natural beauty and landscape of the region. Soil protection is not specifically listed as a LDP priority and should be given less weight than those policies that seek to deliver specific objectives of the LDP e.g. Policies ED2 and NE2. 1.15 The applicant has submitted information in relation to the expected traffic movements associated with the development. The time period from one flock arriving to the next, inclusive of washout period is normally 24 weeks and the following vehicle movements are expected to arrive and leave the premises:-

Feed deliveries: 10 lorry loads at 27 tones each;

Baled wood shavings: 2 lorry loads at 40 tons each;

Transfer of birds to Lay Farm: 8 lorry loads;

Litter removal to biomass: 5 lorry loads;

Woodchip/pellets for biomass boiler: 3 lorry loads;

Dirty water removal: 10 tanker loads; The total lorry and tractor movements amount to 38 over a 25 week period representing an average of less than 2 vehicles movements per week. The main traffic movement to and from the farm will be staff cars, estimated at an average of 3 vehicles a day i.e. 6 movements (access and exit) per day. 1.16 The Waste Management Plan sets out in detail the waste arising and waste management regime that would be applied to the poultry rearing facility once operational. 1.17 A short statement relating to the need and functional requirement for the temporary manager's accommodation unit has been submitted. It states that the facility would generate a need for the equivalent of 12,000 man hours or 5.45 labour units and that it is essential to have at least one member of staff on site at all times to manage stock, welfare, bio-security and site security and the a temporary residential unit is therefore a necessity. This is sought for a period of three years and that an application would be likely to erect a permanent dwelling once the business is fully established. Planning history 1.18 There is no planning history relating directly to the site. However, it is noted that the planning authority has approved a number of poultry sheds in recent years (poultry rearing / egg laying), including very similar facilities built and operated by the current applicant at Carrutherstown and Kirkpatrick Fleming. Furthermore, the applicant was involved in the building and commissioning of a similar facility at Edingham, Dalbeattie, which was considered against the policies of the current LDP (when it was in draft). 2 CONSULTATIONS

2.1 Lochmaben & District Community Council:- Objection, based on the following reasons: (a) Sporadic development of a greenfield site. (b) Design / finish of the buildings is out of character with existing traditional buildings in the area and the colour would look awful. (c) Smells generated from the unit, which would intensify during warmer weather and when mucking out, would be unacceptable. (d) The increase in traffic (including HGVs) would be unacceptable on this small country road and impact on road safety. (e) Unacceptable impacts upon landscape and visual amenity and character of the area. (f) Increased run-off from the site would have unacceptable impacts on water courses. (g) Poultry are known to attract rats and other vermin. (h) Impacts upon nearby residential amenity. There are 20 properties within 800m. (i) Unacceptable noise levels. (j) Lighting would be an eyesore and would be detrimental to visual amenity and the appearance and character of the area. (k) The Proposal of Application Notice was for a smaller development and stated as being in a different location. 2.2 Council Roads Officer:- No objections, subject to conditions. (a) Further to discussions with the applicant has confirmed the vehicle movements associated with the proposed development and it is intended for the existing field entrance to be formalised as a passing place. (b) The A709 / C24a junction should be widened to 5.5m along the C24a to allow for 2 vehicles (one HGV) to pass outwith the A709 and a 9m radii on the Dumfries side of the C24a should be formed. 2.3 Council Environmental Standards Officer:- No objections, subject to conditions. (a) The applicant has been involved in the recent setting up of a smaller, though similar facility at Edingham, Dalbeattie, which has reared one batch of birds and no complaints have been received by Environmental Standards. The applicant also manages a similar facility at Upper Braehead, Dalton. Seven batches of birds have been reared since it was built and no complaints have been received. Furthermore, no complaints have been received in relation to the two lay farms at Ashrigg Park and High Nutberry also operated by the applicant. (b) The applicant has adequate control measures in place with regard to lighting and vermin control at existing units and that all reasonable steps would be taken if this unit was approved. (c) No odours were detectable at the boundary perimeters at Upperbraehead, Dalton on 6 November during a joint Environmental Health / Planning visit. The birds were at the end of the 18-20 week cycle. An incinerator was also in operation at the time of the visit. It is recommended that appropriate conditions to control odours is attached. 2.4 Council Landscape Architect:- No objections. (a) The site is shielded from Lochmaben and nearby operational farms are generally medium in scale with several including larger scale outbuildings (e.g. Burnside, Hunter House Farm and Broadchapel). Views may be visible from 5-6 nearby dwellings and the nearby A709 Dumfries - Lockerbie road, however views from these receptors are partially

screened by intervening landform, hedgerows and trees. (b) The site would be well screened from the minor road by existing planting and new tree / scrub planting on a 2-3m high bund and planting along the access road would screen the development from the access point. Retained hedgerows and trees, the setting down of the base levels by 2-3m and the new planting should help reduce potential visual impacts (though the extent of screening from deciduous trees would be reduced in winter months). (c) Planting proposals and specifications are broadly acceptable and the combination of beech and hawthorn hedges is welcomed as is the general use of locally-occurring native species. The long-term retention and care of planting areas is essential to the effective screening of the development. (d) Mitigation would be provided by the proposed bunding and planting on top will help screen the development from the west. Existing landform screens the site from the east and to a lesser degree from the north and south, however new planting and level changes should reduce visibility from these directions. The retention of established trees on the northern boundary would be valuable in the screening of the development. 2.5 Council Access Officer:- No objections. 2.6 SEPA:- No objections. (a) Roof and surface water is to be treated by means of a detention basin sized appropriately with no direct discharge to a watercourse. No details have been provided with regards to drain down times etc. to ensure that required treatment / attenuation volume is provided at all times. If a discharge to the nearby watercourse is to be proposed, the SUD system should be designed to ensure that post-development run-off does not exceed the pre-development greenfield run-off. (b) Dirty water from the washdown process is proposed to be collected and spread to neighbouring land. Each wash cycle utilises 45,000 litres of water therefore the 15,000 litre tank is not adequately sized to contain all the volume associated with each wash down. The tank should be sized to ensure that the volume from one washcycle can be contained until spreading conditions are appropriate (i.e. 45,000 litres). (c) There is a small watercourse adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. No part of the foul / dirty water drainage system should be within 10 metres of this. 2.7 Scottish Water:- No comments. 3 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 A total of 148 timeously received representations have been received raising objections to the proposal and these are summarised below. 147 of these objections are based upon a standard template letter signed and dated by the signatory. A full list of those making representations has been provided in Appendix 1 to this Report. (a) Sporadic development of a greenfield site, a proposal of this nature should be located on an industrial estate. (b) Design / finish of the buildings is out of character with existing traditional buildings in the area and the colour would look awful. (c) Smells generated from the unit, which would intensify during warmer weather and when mucking out, would be unacceptable.

(d) The increase in traffic (including HGVs) would be unacceptable on the small country roads and impact on road/pedestrian safety due to nature of the roads / junctions. A legal agreement should be required if the application is approved requiring access via a defined route. (e) Unacceptable impacts upon landscape and visual amenity and character of the area. (f) Increased run-off from the site would have unacceptable impacts on water courses. Houses in the area have been flooded due to burn overflow and other dwellings suffer surface water in gardens. The site already suffers from flooding (pictures submitted showing surface water at the site and adjacent road). (g) Poultry are known to attract rats and other vermin. (h) Impacts upon nearby residential amenity. There are 20 properties within 800m. (i) Unacceptable noise levels. (j) Lighting would be an eyesore and would be detrimental to visual amenity and the appearance and character of the area. (k) The Proposal of Application Notice was for a smaller development and stated as being in a different location. (l) The proposal will have unacceptable impacts upon wildlife found in neighbouring woodlands and watercourses and potential to spread disease to wild populations e.g. avian flu. (m) The proposal will impact on tourism in the local area. [NB - Other matters which are not material planning considerations have been raised which cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal e.g. 90% of objectors submitted have Lochmaben as their postal town and 100% of households within half a mile of the proposal have objected.] 4 REPORT Relevant development plan policies:- Local Development Plan (LDP) OP1 - Development Considerations OP2 - Design Quality of New Development H3 - Housing in the Countryside NE2 - Regional Scenic Areas NE7 - Trees and Development NE13 - Agricultural Soil IN7 - Flooding and Development IN8 - Surface Water Drainage and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) IN9 - Waste Water Drainage T2 - Location of Development / Accessibility Other material considerations include: Scottish Planning Policy (2014) 4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that:- “Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination is, unless material considerations indicate otherwise,

to be made in accordance with that plan”. In this case, the recently adopted Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP) represents the development plan. 4.2 The LDP vision envisages a viable rural economy and community characterised by more rural businesses and the spatial strategy stresses the importance of the LDP as a facilitator of economic development and acknowledges that Dumfries & Galloway's businesses are the key driver of sustainable economic growth. Dumfries & Galloway is primarily a rural economy with agriculture, amongst others, being an important sector. The rearing of poultry constitutes an agricultural activity and the development of an agricultural business in the rural area and upon agricultural land is therefore in accordance with the LDP vision and spatial strategy and is acceptable in principle in the first instance. It is accepted therefore that the proposed operation would not be suited to allocated business / industrial sites, which are all located within or adjoining main settlements and that the development could not therefore be considered as sporadic. 4.3 The approval of poultry rearing sheds at Edingham, Dalbeattie (13/P/2/0316) included reference to policies contained in the then draft LDP. Furthermore, it was noted in that instance that the applicable determining policies in the proposed LDP were not materially different to the development plan policies at that time (i.e. the former Structure Plan and Stewartry Local Plan). Paragraph 1.18 above refers to poultry rearing / egg laying facilities approved across the rural area of Dumfries & Galloway in recent years, thus demonstrating the acceptability of such schemes in the broader sense. 4.4 Given the above, the assessment of the proposal would principally relate to following matters:

Design of development and visual impact;

Impact on residential amenity (noise / odours);

Impact on the road network (access and traffic);

Servicing for water and drainage;

Other matters. Design of the development 4.5 The landscape and visual impact assessment submitted in support of the proposal acknowledges that the scale of the proposed development is similar to that in existence at nearby farms and the surrounding rolling landscape has the capacity to absorb development. The development would be set down in relation to the surrounding landscape with a low maximum ridge height proposed, which is made possible by interlinking four low sheds within a re-engineered site. The buildings would be typical of contemporary large agricultural buildings in form and proportion but, as poultry buildings, they are required to be sealed units and would therefore be finished in green plasticol coated cladding. Other buildings at the site would be finished similarly, aside from the feed bins and temporary manager’s office. The excavated materials would form bunding to the roadside frontage, which would additionally be landscaped and existing vegetated boundaries would be retained (at the north-west). The surrounding landscape is generally rolling pasture and the site would be both significantly screened and / or backclothed from principal vantage points around the site, and thus assimilated into the surrounding landscape. A summary of the assessment of the proposal by the Council's Landscape Architect is provided at paragraph 2.4 above. Whilst having some minor concerns, he

concurs that the development would be screened by existing landform and vegetation and proposed bunding and new landscaping and therefore that there would be no reason to object to the proposal. 4.6 LDP policy OP1: Development Considerations states that 'Development proposals should respect, protect and/or enhance the region's rich landscape character, scenic qualities and features and sites designated for their landscape quality at any level'. Furthermore, LDP policy NE2: Regional Scenic Areas requires that 'Development within, or which affects Regional Scenic Areas (RSAs), may be supported where the Council is satisfied that: the landscape character and scenic interest for which the area has been designated would not be significantly adversely affected'. Given the assessment above, it is concluded that the siting, scale, mass and design proposed would not be significantly different to that of other clusters of buildings in the vicinity of the application site and in the surrounding area. The proposal has evolved to take particular care to integrate into the immediate and wider agricultural setting and in this instance, the proposal would lead to an acceptably low degree of landscape impact such that the proposed development would assimilate into the agricultural surroundings without harm to the landscape character and visual appearance of the area. It is acknowledged that there would be limited areas from which the development would be more conspicuous, for example, if passing the entrance into the site along the minor road or crossing adjacent farmland. However, the landscape context of most frequent and typical views toward the site would not be harmfully undermined. The proposal would not therefore be contrary to the stated LDP policies. Existing trees would remain unaffected by the proposal. 4.7 Representations object to the design and finish of the proposed development, raising concerns that the buildings would be out of character with existing traditional buildings in the area and impacts upon landscape character and the visual appearance of the area. As demonstrated at paragraphs 4.5 & 4.6 above, the proposal is not expected to have unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape character or existing visual appearance of the area. Modern agricultural buildings are common throughout Dumfries & Galloway and within the local agricultural landscape (including within the Torthorwald Ridge RSA). There would be no identified or justifiable reason to seek a traditional design in this instance (e.g. akin to a stone build agricultural building) and it is possible that such a requirement would render the development unviable. Impact upon general and residential amenity 4.8 In this regard, consideration would be had to the potential impacts of the proposal upon amenity in terms of noise, odour, emissions, light pollution and loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Such matters are required to be considered by LDP overarching Policy OP1. The position of the site relative to sporadic rural dwellings in the locality is outlined at paragraph 1.3 above, with the nearest being located around 136m to the north-west of the site and positioned immediately adjacent to the busy A709 road. 4.9 Clearly, given the significant distance, low setting of the buildings and intervening vegetation and landscaping the proposal would not impact upon privacy, sunlight or daylight at any property in the locality. In relation to noise and odour, issues which have been raised in the objections, the Council's Environmental Standards Officer has provided a consultation response having had specific regard to these matters. This has included a

visit to a similar facility developed and operated by the applicant at Carrutherstown (11/P/4/0018). The poultry would be reared inside the building (which is sealed) and no unacceptable noise impacts would arise from livestock accommodated within (cattle presently graze the site). The 'Working Practices Statement' and the 'Note on Ventilation & Noise' as submitted with the application describe the operational management of the site and the ventilation system that would be installed and the manner in which it would operate and these are summarised at paragraphs 1.9 and 1.13 above. The Council's Environmental Standards Officer has expressed satisfaction with the proposal, based on experience relating to other similar facilities in the Dumfries & Galloway area (no reported complaints), findings at the site visit to the facility at Carrutherstown, the information submitted in support of the application, and the relationship of the site to nearest sensitive receptors (e.g. nearest dwellings). In this instance, the Environmental Standards Officer has recommended that conditions are attached relating to the control of any potential odour nuisance. Whilst the proposal has been assessed as not having unacceptable impacts, it would be appropriate to attach relevant conditions to ensure amenity is safeguarded for the lifetime of the development. 4.10 Given the above, the objections raised by representors in relation to noise and odours cannot be supported. Contemporary poultry rearing units are required to be constructed and operated such that threats to bio-security and infection are minimised and vermin control measures would be incorporated into the build. The on-site incinerator would be required to be operated in compliance with other regulatory regimes. Lighting is minimal and confined to small scale building-mounted security lighting to the principal pedestrian / vehicular accesses and would only operate during daytime working hours or emergency situations. 4.11 The proposal would therefore be compliant with LDP Policy OP1. Impact on the road network 4.12 The public roads, new access and level of traffic movements expected have been assessed as being appropriate and acceptable by the Council's Roads Officer. Access would be taken via an existing field gate (with new access track and improved geometry), with some improvements to the C24a in the form of a passing place and widening at the junction with the A709 (all within the existing roadside verge). Objections refer to the impacts of the increase in traffic and the danger this would have to road safety and pedestrians / walkers using the country roads. 4.13 The applicant has confirmed the likely vehicle movements based on bird breeding numbers, staffing levels and experience at other similar facilities and it is estimated that this would average out at around 2 lorry / tractor movements per week and 6 staff vehicles movements per day. Such levels are insignificant and it is noted that the C24a is presently used by, and services, agricultural units in this area (and associated agricultural traffic) and that such existing associated traffic would benefit from the road improvements that have been suggested by the Roads Officer (passing bay and junction widening to the C24a). It would not be appropriate or necessary to require associated traffic movements to be compelled to use certain routes. Associated traffic is not considered unacceptably significant and the obvious route via the A709 and C24a is deemed as acceptable by the Roads Officer. Parking and manoeuvring within the site is acceptable.

4.14 Agriculture and agricultural uses by their very nature require a rural location and as such are unlikely to be serviceable by means other than private transport. That said, the site is close the A709 public road, which is the main bus route between Dumfries and Lockerbie and is less than 2km from the nearest settlement of Lochmaben (potential cycling / walking), thus increasing the possibility of travelling to the site by means other than private transport. Whilst LDP Policies OP1 and T2 seek to prioritise personal travel by mode, starting with walking and the private car (or other motorised transport) being least favoured, it has to be acknowledged that it would be very unlikely that new agricultural developments could achieve such within the majority of the Council area. It is considered that in a rural and agricultural context, the proposal is located to minimise the need to travel by car, given its location in relation to a bus route and nearest settlement and therefore compliant with the relevant LDP policies. To take an alternative approach would be to render vast areas of the Dumfries and Galloway rural / agricultural community as undevelopable and clearly this is not desirable or acceptable and would run contrary to the vision, spatial strategy and other subject policies of the LDP, which encourages and supports economic development in the rural areas. Servicing for water and drainage 4.15 Surface water run-off from the buildings and hardstanding area would be drained to a proposed new SUDs (Sustainable Drainage System) feature which would be located to the immediate north of the proposed buildings. Dirty water from the wash-down process is intended to be collected and spread on neighbouring or other agricultural land (after birds have been transported from the facility) and there would be a new septic tank and an associated foul drainage soakaway at the site. SEPA has not raised an objection in this regard and the same method of surface water and foul water drainage is in operation at other new facilities developed and managed by the applicant elsewhere in the region. The applicant has updated the 'Farm Waste Management Plan' such that the capacity of the washwater tank has been increased to comply with SEPA advice (i.e. to 45,000 litres). It is noted that other consent regimes would oversee technical aspects e.g. Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as overseen by SEPA). The proposal is considered to be compliant with LDP Policies IN7, IN8 and IN9. Other matters Soils 4.16 The site is located within an area of good quality agricultural soils (Land Capability for Agriculture Classified 3.2). LDP policy NE13: Agricultural Soil states 'Developments located on areas of good quality agricultural soils will only be supported where they conform to the Spatial Strategy of the Plan and there is no alternative on less good quality land'. The policy further requires all developments to consider means of minimising impact on soil resources and to consider opportunities to re-use soils necessarily excavated from the site. 4.17 The applicant has submitted a specific statement in this regard (Planning Policy Note: Policy NE13 (Agricultural Soil)), which is summarised at paragraph 1.14 above, which acknowledges that it is inevitable that a degree of conflict may occur between specific subject policies of the LDP. It notes that the key priorities of the LDP are to promote economic prosperity, particularly through rural diversification, to promote sustainable development by reducing the need to travel and protecting the outstanding

natural beauty and landscape of the region. Soil protection is not specifically listed as an LDP priority and should be given less weight than those policies that seek to deliver specific objectives of the LDP. 4.18 As stated earlier at paragraph 4.2, the proposal is in accordance with the Spatial Strategy. Much of the land in the local area falls into soil Class 3.2 and where less good quality soils occur, other potential constraints are applicable such as the RSA or areas identified as being at risk of flooding. The proposal, in the context of the area which is identified as being of good quality agricultural soils, is negligible, would increase agricultural productivity substantially and would involve the reuse of displaced soils in the bunding on site. Whilst it is recognised in this respect that the proposal departs from LDP Policy NE13, it is recognised that the policy exists to protect the loss of prime quality agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. It is not therefore considered that the proposal significantly conflicts with the aims of LDP Policy NE13. Tourism 4.19 Objections claim that the proposal would impact on tourism in the local area. The proposal is for agricultural buildings in an agricultural setting. The assessment above has found that the development is acceptable in relation to landscape, visual, environmental, general amenity and traffic / roads interests. It could not be reasonably argued or demonstrated that the proposal would impinge on tourism or undermine the general tourism assets in the surrounding area. Temporary mobile site manager's accommodation 4.20 The proposed operation would also require a single temporary unit of residential accommodation in the form of a caravan to be positioned adjacent to the access into the site (for 3 years). It would be inconspicuous beyond the immediate locality due to the enclosing topography, land engineering works and landscaping. It is clear from the layout and supporting statement that it is intended that a more permanent form of residential accommodation would be proposed in future years, once the site is established. Such an approach has been supported at the applicant's other facility at Carrutherstown, as previously noted. 4.21 The proposed poultry facility would accommodate approximately the same number of birds as the applicant's facility near Carrutherstown and the estimated labour requirement and functional need aligns with that previously supported in relation to the temporary residential accommodation granted there. There would be no policy or other material reason to object to this element of the proposal. There is a clear need for the accommodation at the location and this is supported. The temporary period of 3 years is considered to be appropriate. LDP Policy H3 (Housing in the Countryside) states that dwellings in the countryside will be supported where an essential need for the unit can be demonstrated. In the context of the above, it is evident that the proposal meets the requirements of the policy. Any potential future application for a permanent dwelling would considered on its merits at such a time. Proposal of Application Notice 4.22 Such notices are required to be submitted to the planning authority at least 12 weeks prior to the submission of a Major planning application and are required to indicate the

development in general terms (e.g. outline the characteristics). Officers are satisfied that the Proposal of Application Notice adequately described the development and that supporting information accurately indicated the location of the development. Conclusion 4.23 The assessment above demonstrates that the proposal accords with and contributes to the broader sustainable economic development aims of the LDP vision and spatial strategy. Furthermore, no unacceptable adverse impacts have been identified and the development has been sited, designed and incorporates appropriate measures to mitigate against any such impact. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal is not wholly compliant with LDP Policy NE13, it is not considered that this weighs significantly against the grant of planning permission in this case, recognising the compliance with the other relevant provisions of the development plan, and other relevant material considerations. 5 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Approve subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the development hereby granted planning permission shall be

implemented in full accordance with the approved plans and the details specified on the application form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority or unless otherwise required by conditions attached to this permission.

2. That the development hereby granted planning permission shall not be brought into use (i.e. breeding stock shall not be accommodated in the building) unless the site operator has submitted an odour management plan designed to meet the requirements of Condition 3 below to the Council as planning authority. The said odour management plan shall have regard to odour generation at all stages of the poultry breeding process including the transfer and treatment of animal by product waste. Thereafter, any odours generated by activities at the site shall be managed such that the requirements of Condition 3 are complied with for the lifetime of the poultry breeding use.

3. That all emissions to air from the development hereby granted planning permission shall be free from offensive odour, as perceived by an authorised person, at the nearest residential property to the site.

4. That, at the written request of the Council as planning authority (in consultation with Environmental Standards or SEPA) following a complaint relating to odour emissions arising from the operation of the proposal and if perceived to be offensive from the said property by an authorised person, the site operator shall facilitate the assessment of the odour generated at the site, the impact at the property to which the complaint relates and details of mitigation measures deemed necessary to achieve suitable odour control. The said assessment shall be provided to the Council as planning authority within 3 months of the date of the written

request. All identified mitigation measures shall thereafter be fully implemented within the timescales agreed by the planning authority.

5. That the Manager's Accommodation Unit (caravan) hereby granted planning permission shall not be occupied by any person or persons other than the owner, manager or other full time employee of the poultry breeding facility hereby granted planning permission and any immediate family or dependents of such person or persons. The said caravan shall be removed from the site on or before the expiry of a period of 3 years from the date of this permission unless a planning application for its retention for a further period has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority before the expiry of the abovementioned period.

6. That no construction work in respect of the poultry breeding units hereby granted planning permission shall take place unless the C24a has been improved so as to be 5.5 metres wide for the first 20 metres from the junction with the A709 the public road and has been constructed with a 9 metre radius curve on the western side of the junction. Thereafter, these measures shall be maintained as such for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as planning authority.

7. That no development in respect of this planning permission shall take place unless and until details of the precise method for the stopping-up of the existing northernmost vehicular access off the C24a have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The development hereby granted planning permission shall not be brought into use unless the access has been stopped-up in complete accordance with such details as may be so approved. Thereafter, these measures shall be maintained as such for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as planning authority.

8. That the development hereby granted planning permission shall not be brought into use unless and until a lay-by 15 metres long at the back and 2.5 metres in depth (as measured from the edge of the carriageway of the public road) with entrance and exit tapers of 45 degrees and a 1 in 40 gradient falling away from the public road carriageway has been formed. Thereafter, these measures shall be maintained as such for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as planning authority.

9. That the development hereby granted planning permission shall not be brought into use unless and until: (a) the access has been trapped and drained to an outfall or soakaway so as to prevent any surface water flowing onto the public roads or into the site from the public road; (b) the proposed vehicular access at its junction with the C24a has been formed so as to be 5.5 metres wide for the first 10 metres from the public road, has been constructed with 9 metre radius curve and the gradient of

the access for the first 5 metres has been formed so as to be no greater than 8% (1 in 12.5); (c) visibility areas have been provided on both sides of the access between the public carriageway edge and the line joining two points defined as follows:- (i) measured 2.4 metres back along the centre line of the access from the nearer edge of the main carriageway; and (ii) measured 80 metres from the centre line of the access along the nearer edge of the carriageway of the C24a public road. (d) everything exceeding 1 metre in height has been removed from the visibility areas referred to at (c) above. (e) the off-street car parking / turning areas shown on the approved drawings have been formed in complete accordance with the said drawings or such other drawings as may be approved in writing for the purpose by the planning authority. Thereafter, nothing exceeding 1 metre in height (as measured from the adjoining carriageway level) shall be grown, placed or erected within the said visibility area and the said parking / turning areas shall be kept clear from obstruction and shall be retained only for that purpose for the lifetime of the development. All other measures specified shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as planning authority.

10. That all the planting, seeding, turfing and other works shown in the approved plans shall be implemented in the first planting season following the completion or occupation of the development hereby granted planning permission. Thereafter, all trees and shrubs forming part of the approved scheme shall be maintained and replaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the planning authority for a period of not less than 10 years. No trees forming part of the approved scheme shall be pruned or lopped during the 10 year period following planting without the prior written approval of the planning authority.

11. That, following completion of the development, no trees identified as being retained within the application site shall be felled, topped, lopped or uprooted during the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority has given prior written approval for such operations.

12. That no development in respect of this planning permission nor any works to trees within the application site shall take place unless and until a plan giving details of the proposed methods of protecting the trees which are to be retained has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Protective fencing must be chestnut pale or chain-link and must be located at a distance from the trees of at least the branch spread, in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 (‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’). No construction work in respect of the development hereby granted planning permission shall take place

unless such tree protection methods as may be so approved have been implemented in full. Such tree protection methods as may be so approved shall remain in place for the duration of the construction works.

Relevant Drawing Numbers: Location Plan date 08/09/2014 Plans and Elevations (dwg 02 Rev C) date 01/12/2014 Site Access Detail (dwg 03) date 08/09/2014 Mobile Accommodation Unit (dwg 04) date 08/09/2014 Landscape Proposals (dwg PPBF 02) date 24/10/2014 NB - All relevant drawings, and any relevant associated correspondence / reports, are available on the Council’s ePlanning website (www.dumgal.gov.uk/planning).

APPENDIX – LIST OF REPRESENTATORS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION

Objection (148): Owner / Occupier, The Hoolits, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Douglas Archibald, Caledon, Dunreggan Brae, Moniaive Rhoda Armstrong, Deil's Dike, Lochmaben Dr Andrew Armstrong, Deil's Dike, Lochmaben Alastair Beath, Glencairn, Vendace Drive, Lochmaben Isabel Bell, Vallance Rigg, Lochmaben J I Bell, Vallance Rigg, Lochmaben K Bell-McTier, c/o Watchhill Road, New Build, Lochmaben C J Bell-McTier, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben David Beswick, Kniebie, Lochmaben Susan Beswick, Kniebie, Lochmaben, Lockerbie Marcus Blunt, Craigs Cottage, Lochmaben Maureen Blunt, Craigs Cottage, Lochmaben Stuart Bowe, Lake House, Heck Michael John Briggs, Gowanlea, Lochmaben Lucy Bryden, Broomwell, Lochmaben Robin Bryden, Broomwell, Lochmaben Susan Bryden, Broomwell, Lochmaben Shiona M Burns, 1 Summerhill Cottages, Lochmaben Richard Burns, 1 Summerhill Cottages, Lochmaben Kym Cochrane, 8A Carruchan Place, Cargenbridge Julie Conroy, Woodburn, Summerhilll, Lochmaben T A Craig, Cemetery Lodge, Lochmaben Magdalene Dalziel, 19A Friars Vennel, Dumfries James Davidson, 68 Princes Street, Lochmaben Carl Dawber, Priesthead, Lochmaben Fiona Diggle, Yeomanrigg, Lochmaben Peter S Diggle, Yeomanrigg, Lochmaben K Ewart, Hillbank, Lochmaben Samuel Ewart, Hillbank, Lochmaben Douglas Fountain, Broomrigg, Lochmaben Sheila Fountain, Broomrigg, Lochmaben Mrs K Fraser, Kedana, Lochmaben Mr C Fraser, Kedana, Lochmaben Elma Green, Thorniethwaite Farm, Lochmaben Michael Green, Thorniethwaite Farm, Lochmaben Anne Grossick, The Steadings, Rockhallhead, Collin, Dumfries John Grossick, The Steadings, Rockhallhead, Collin, Dumfries Jonathan Grossick, 26 Edinburgh Road, Dumfries J H W Gutch, Rowan Cottage, Parkfoot, Lochmaben Claire Hamilton, 12 Moffat Road, Dumfries Ellie Hamilton, 12 Moffat Road, Dumfries Hazel Hamilton, Brieryhill, Lockerbie Peter Harris, Badley Hall, Ardleigh, Essex James Hastings, Summerhill, Parkfoot Road, Lochmaben

Mr & Mrs W Henderson, Wilver, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Elizabeth M Hutt, Thistle Cottage North, Lochmaben Tom Hutt, Thistle Cottage (South), Broadchapel Road, Lochmaben Mr G Hyslop, Maryfield Farm, Lochmaben Mrs C Hyslop, Maryfield Farm, Lochmaben Colin Hyslop, Netherfield, Lochmaben Elaine Hyslop, Netherfield, Lochmaben Emma Kennedy-Nicol, 2 Murrybank Cottage, Carrutherstown Sandy Kilpatrick, 79 Barkerland Avenue, Dumfries Mhorven Laurie, Summerhill, Parkfoot Road, Lochmaben Mrs Pamela Linton, Merton View, 31 Barras, Lochmaben Patricia Maddock, Bennel Cottage, Dalbeattie Stewart G Maddock, Bennel Cottage, Dalbeattie Mrs B Males, Burnbrae, Lochmaben D Males, Burnbrae, Lochmaben Steven Martin, West Leafield Cottage, Dalton Adrian McCullough, Mount Plesant, Broadchapel Road, Lochmaben E McCullough, Mount Plesant, Broadchapel Road, Lochmaben B McDermid, Burnbank, Lochmaben W M McDermid, Burnbank, Lochmaben Elizabeth Ann McEwan, Hunter House Lodge, Lochmaben Malcolm McEwan, Hunter House Lodge, Lochmaben O McEwan, Hunter House Lodge, Lochmaben M McKelvey, Burnside Farm, Lochmaben Mrs L McKelvey, Burnside Farm, Lochmaben Mr R McKelvey, Burnside Farm, Lochmaben Ian McKenna, Auchnane, Watchhill, Lochmaben Shona McKenzie, Mor Larack, Lochmaben Peter McKenzie, Mor Larach, Lochmaben June McLintock, Marlake Cottage, Lochmaben Stuart McQueen, 5 Bramble Brae, Lochmaben Helen McQueen, 5 Bramble Brae, Lochmaben Ian McQueen, Blackrig, Lochmaben R Murray, Cruachan, Hillbank road, Lochmaben Robert Murray Jnr, Cruachan, Hillbank Road, Lochmaben Janet Newbould, Smallrigg, Lochmaben Peter D Newbould, Smallrigg, Lochmaben Daniel Newbould, Smallrigg Cottage, Lochmaben Ruth Newbould, Smallrigg Cottage, Lochmaben Jill Notman, 2 Thorniethwaite, Lockerbie Kevin Notman, 2 Thorniethwaite, Lockerbie Andrew Ogden, Broadlands, Lochmaben Dr E C Ogden, Broadlands, Lochmaben Andrew Parker, Springfield, Lochmaben Pamela Parker, Springfield, Lochmaben Alex Paul, 1 Thornthwhaite Farm, Lochmaben Mr D Pettigrew, 19 Princes Street, Lochmaben Maitland A I Pollock, 1 Hunterhouse Cottages, Lochmaben

Brenda Pollock, 1 Hunterhouse Cottages, Lochmaben Lorna Porteous, 8A Carruchan Place, Cargenbridge, Dumfries William James Potts, Ashiestier, Parkfoot, Lochmaben Rosemary Richardson, Auchnane, Watchill, Lochmaben Liam Rogerson, 15 The Rand, Eastriggs, Annan Alan Rogerson, 2 Gilmour Park, Lochmaben Mrs A G Ross, Juniper Cottage, Whitelaird Farm, Lochmaben Andrew Ross, Whitelaird Farm, Lochmaben Christopher Shearman, Watchhill House, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben R B Shearman, Watchhill House, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Margery Shearman, Watchhill House, Lochmaben N J Shewdon, Cemetery Lodge, Lochmaben Sam Simpson, Broadchapel, Lochmaben Nicole Simpson, Broadchapel, Lochmaben Barrie Sinyard, Douglasburn, Lochmaben Angela Sinyard, Douglasburn, Lochmaben Andrew Sistern, 146 Lockerbie Road, Dumfries Isobel Sloan, Braehead, Hillbank Road, Lochmaben Harvey Sloan, Braehead, Hillbank Road, Lochmaben Madeline Sloan, Ranworth, Lochmaben Willie Sloan, Ranworth, Lochmaben Lynn Sloan, Ryeburn, Lochmaben Bryan Sloan, Ryemuir, Lochmaben Andrew Sloan, Hunter House, Lochmaben Beth Sloan, Hunter House, Lochmaben Sheila Sloan, Hunter House, Lochmaben Stephanie Sloan, Hunter House Farm, Lochmaben Alastair Sloan, 3 Hunterhouse Cottage, Lochmaben Kerry Sloan, 3 Hunterhouse Cottages, Lochmaben Ian Smith, Lochpark Farm, Hightae, Lockerbie Amanda Stewart, Summerlea, Watchhill, Lochmaben Rowan Stewart, Summerlea, Watchhill, Lochmaben Mary Stobbs, Auchnane, Watchhill, Lochmaben George Stobbs, Auchnane, Watchhill, Lochmaben Andrew P Taylor, Mardi, Castlehillgate, Lochmaben Agnes H Taylor, The Hoolits, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Stephen Temlett, 11 Grierson Avenue, Dumfries Cameron Thomson, Gilmourcleuch, Lochmaben Carole Thomson, Gilmourcleuch, Lochmaben Ian Vidler, 5 Barras, Lochmaben Carolyn Walker, Oakwood, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Robert James Walker, Oakwood, Watchhill Road, Lochmaben Donald Wallace, Strone, Parkfoot, Lochmaben Mrs I A Wallace, Strone, Parkfoot, Lochmaben Christine C Warner, Bankhead, Lochmaben Ian Warner, Bankhead, Lochmaben Mrs M Wilson, Glencairn, Broadchapel Road, Lochmaben Jack Wilson, Gilmourpark Cottage, Lochmaben

Martin Wilson, Gilmourpark Cottage, Lochmaben Carolyne Wilson, Gilmourpark Cottage, Lochmaben Craig Woods, Groom's Cottage, Lochmaben Bryan Lewis Woods, Gilmour Bank Farm, Lochmaben Margot Woods, Gilmour Bank Farm, Lochmaben Anne Wyllie, Greenways, Lochmaben Elspeth Graham Young, 1 Broadchapel Cottage, Lochmaben