Plans for chicken farm in Norton Lindsey could be scuppered by access issues

Potential access issues could scupper the latest plans to build two replacement poultry houses on Ward Hill, in Norton Lindsey.

Similar proposals have twice been thrown out by Warwick District Council and subsequent appeals lost but a new application is set to be considered by the council’s planning committee when it meets next Tuesday (January 10).

A report by planning officer Dan Charles recommends that this is also refused due to an objection from Warwickshire County Council’s highways department.

In concluding his report, Mr Charles said: “In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development proposed fails to demonstrate that vehicles serving the site can adequately enter, manoeuvre and exit in a forward gear.

"Due to the nature of the vehicles to be servicing the site, the proposal is considered to inadequately demonstrate that safe and appropriate access can be provided.”

Applicant Andrew Audhali wants to replace two disused timber poultry sheds with two new ones of a similar size on the land off Warwick Road in the village. The access will be moved and there is also a plan for single-storey farm manager’s house.

It is nearly 20 years since the first plan was dismissed for the replacement units and other applications for housing on the site have also been rejected.

Norton Lindsey Parish Council has objected to the latest plans along with more than 100 residents who have raised a number of concerns including problems with odour, light pollution and the access to the site but the council’s environmental health officer has raised no concerns.

Ward member Cllr Jan Matecki (Con, Budbrooke) has also objected. He said: “The application has been heard several times previously under one guise or another and been rejected on every occasion.

“I particularly draw your attention to two previous applications, W/05/1754 and W/08/0146, which were heard in 2007 and 2010 respectively and which were rejected by Warwick District Council.

"The decisions were upheld by different inspectors, appointed by the Secretary of State to review the appeals made in both of these applications.

“The fundamental reasons for rejecting the applications, and subsequently verified by the inspectors after appeal, are still valid, if not more so, today.”