Super-sized chicken sheds allowed to stay after building blunder
- Credit: Archant
The eight super-size chicken sheds which were built 18 metres longer than allowed were given full planning permission on Monday.
Hemingford Grey and St Ives councils both opposed a retrospective planning application on the grounds it was not credible that such a mistake could have been made, adding that granting permission would lead to more lorries, more birds and more odour nuisance.
St Ives Mayor Councillor Nick Dibben said it was as if the developers were driving a coach and horses through the whole planning process.
Amber Real Estates Limited maintained the sheds at Galley Hill Farm, on the outskirts of Hemingford Grey and close to the A14, were built incorrectly because of a mix-up with a new building supplier.
The buildings were also closer to the A14 than originally allowed and their design differed from the original application.
You may also want to watch:
Huntingdonshire District Council’s development management panel approved the retrospective planning application seeking permission for the sheds to remain as they are.
The original planning application for the sheds measuring 104m by 23m was granted in 2010.
- 1 'Loving, caring family man' dies in hospital weeks after A141 crash
- 2 Envar deny responsibility for county's fly invasion
- 3 Man jailed for historic sexual abuse 'convinced child victims it was normal behaviour'
- 4 Elsie May's Electric Lounge to raise £15,000 for bakery school
- 5 Visiting restrictions at Hinchingbrooke Hospital partially lifted
- 6 Volunteers needed to support booster jabs programme
- 7 Appeal to Transport Secretary over Huntingdon Rail Station plan
- 8 Meet the star cast of Christmas pantomime Sleeping Beauty
- 9 Parents 'can never forgive' actions for Maddie's murder
- 10 Huntingdonshire parks awarded Green Flag status
Planning chiefs had recommended the latest application for approval stating that each scheme had to be considered on its merits and they were not tasked with punishing the company.
Cllr Dibben added: “The planning officers treated this as a new planning application.
“But the concern locally was that the developers had been allowed to build something quite substantially different from that which was first agreed.”