A DECISION on whether to approve the construction of two turkey-breeding buildings was this week deferred by Denbighshire’s planning committee.
Clay Burrows, of Aviagen Turkeys Ltd, applied to the council seeking permission to knock down seven poultry sheds and replace them with two linked units at his farm at Bryn Golau, Saron, Denbigh.
The plans caused concerns about road safety, river pollution and disturbance to neighbours.
Mr Burrows has plans for a turkey-laying unit with a capacity for 6,000 birds.
Llanrhaeadr Yng Nghinmeirch Community Council was among those objecting to the plans.
Speaking for the development, agent Sam Harrison said the current site operates from poultry sheds with an environmental permit for the rearing of 87,200 broiler chickens.
He said the new modern turkey-laying unit would be “far less intensive” with just 6,000 birds, made up of 5,500 hens and 500 stag turkeys.
Mr Harrison said the new venture would create five full-time jobs.
He added: “The impact of the development has been assessed in various technical reports, covering odour, noise, ecology, transport and waste management.
“As a far less intensive use, the proposed development results in a number of improvements, including but not limited to a reduction in odour and ammonia, reduced night-time catching operations, and less day-to-day traffic.”
Cllr Elfed Williams said he was concerned about the hours lorries would be going in and out of the site, arguing the unit should close at 5pm on weekday evenings, not 7pm as proposed.
“This process (loading) can be a very noisy process. It can distract local people in the evening at a time when people will have arrived home from work and just want to enjoy and relax,” he said.
He added it was unreasonable that the proposals included plans to allow lorries to come and go 24 hours a day for six weeks of the year when turkeys needed “treating”.
He also said the access to the site was near a crossroads and houses and asked that the access point was moved.
But officers said the plans couldn’t be changed and that the proposed access was a fundamental part of the application that couldn’t be altered.
Consequently the committee voted 14-4 with one abstention in favour of deferring the application whilst negotiations continued between the applicant and officers.