A “battery farm shanty town empire” housing dozens of chickens is causing anger in a community. The site, which is located on allotment land off Andrew Avenue in Ilkeston, is said to be "immune" to enforcement due to a historic lack of action for 20 years.
It has been described as a place that causes widespread disturbance and dismay for residents nearby, including issues around noise, odour and pests, according to Derbyshire Live. It was debated in an Erewash Borough Council meeting this week (May 31) where the owner, Mark Hill, had been hoping to see part-retrospective plans for two aviaries and a boundary fence approved.
Talk about the overall use of the site for breeding and selling birds, rabbits and show birds and the nature in which this was carried out and the impact on residents dominated the discussion. Councillors and officials were clear they would ideally like the site to have never been operating but found planning laws dictate that, because enforcement action has never been taken, the business must now be allowed to continue.
Are you a true Nottinghamian? Test your knowledgea
Steve Birkinshaw, the council’s head of planning, said any “material development” of a site becomes immune to enforcement after four or more years of consistent use without action being taken, and a change of a site’s use also becomes immune after 10 or more years of continuous use without intervention. Owner Mr Hill, 52, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service there are currently 40 chickens on the site – for meat and egg sales – along with six rabbits, for personal consumption, and a number of parrots and finches which are kept as pets, with show-bird sales now stopped.
He denies the allegations of nuisance noise, foul odours, poor pest control and anti-social behaviour including burning of waste – such as dead animals. Mr Hill also denies that his collection of buildings, constructed out of breeze blocks and corrugated iron and periodically rebuilt, are a “shanty town” and aims to improve this through the buildings he has now applied for – and are part way through construction.
He also disputes that his use of the site is unlawful, saying he has a right to keep animals on the site under the Allotments Act. Council officials make clear the use of the site and buildings on it do not have permission and that a certificate of lawfulness has not been applied for or approved.
Darius Davis, who lives next to the site, said residents’ abilities to enjoy their gardens were “non-existent” and enjoyment of their properties overall has been “obliterated” by the neighbouring site. He claimed there was an ongoing “gross misuse” of the land which was “spiralling into unruly chaos”.
Mr Davis claimed Mr Hill was repeatedly constructing and deconstructing buildings in a bid to “evade and avoid detection” and said “a shed should by no means pave the way for a skyscraper”. He questioned where the council drew the line in terms of land use it would allow to continue purely because it had historically failed to act.
Mr Davis also read out statements from three other residents who live next to the site who raised issues about the quality of life and protection of the environment. They claimed the facility was a “breeding ground for diseases” and they too had health concerns about the site.
Residents claimed there is “constant chirping, squawking and other noises” coming from the birds on the site, dubbing it a “shanty town” and an “eyesore”. They said the idea that allowing more buildings on the site would improve the issues relating to “vermin” was “delusional”.
A resident claimed the owners feel they can “do what they want (as) they don’t care” and dubbed it a “rat-infested shanty town eyesore and a nuisance”. They claimed the owner frequently burns waste on the site and slaughters animals there, producing an “ungodly smell” and thick black smoke – dubbing it a “shanty empire”.
The resident claimed they had a rat nest in their own garden as a result of the neighbouring site. Mr Birkinshaw told the meeting: “Had this application come to us as a proposal to develop a small battery farm to the rear of several dwellings I would undoubtedly be recommending refusal, but regrettably that is not the situation we are in.
"The extant use has been demonstrably there for two decades. If the application applied for a certificate of lawfulness I would have no choice but to issue it. An appeal would be likely to succeed and be considered unreasonable.”
He said conditions could be attached to the new building plans in an effort to make the site less prone to causing issues, but this was effectively limited to installing further tall fences around the boundary with neighbouring homes, which he worried “would not make a great deal of difference”. Mr Birkinshaw later said “we can’t condition a chicken to be quiet”, saying most of the issues raised would fall to environmental health, not planning.
Cllr Frank Phillips said it was a case of “too little too late” regarding enforcement of the site in question, with the situation leading to upset residents. He said: “Perhaps the most upsetting thing of all is that we are letting the bad guys win.
“We could refuse the application but the council would lose at appeal and have to pay his costs.” Cllr Kevin Miller said: “I think we should regard this as a great opportunity to clear this shanty town up.
“We need to talk to environmental health about this. It is only a good thing to improve it.” Cllr Margaret Griffiths, vice-chair of the planning committee, said: “It is already there and running and all we can do is try to mitigate the effects.
“Noise, vermin and fires all need to be discussed with environmental health and (we) should ask them to take a strong stance on this.” Mr Birkinshaw said aerial photos of the site over the past 20 years were the primary source of evidence of the site’s long-standing usage, saying “we have a lot of evidence that it has been in this sort of use for a long time but not that it has been cleared and the use has not been occurring”.
He said the burden of proving the site has not been used continuously for the minimum period to be immune to enforcement was on the council and residents, not the owner. Cllr Howard Griffiths said: “Many people would say this is unacceptable if this planning committee is to move along without taking action, it wouldn’t be understandable to the general public.
“The idea that we stand back and allow this to carry on is unacceptable. The site at present is unacceptable, unneighbourly and shouldn’t give the applicants the go-ahead to continue this misbehaviour, in my opinion.
“We should fight it and we might lose but 99 percent of people would expect the council to act on the grounds that this is a right mess.” Cllr David Doyle said: “I am willing to pay my council tax for this council to stand up to these people.
“They are cocking a snook (thumbing their nose, which is a hand gesture used to mock someone else) at residents and cocking a snook at the council and if they want to take the mickey out of me then fine, but residents shouldn’t have to live with this at the bottom of their gardens. Let the courts deal with it and see what happens.”
Cllr Ann Mills said the plans should be refused due to the increased impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Cllr Tim Scott “reluctantly” said the plans should be approved despite finding the issue “disgusting” with planning legislation restrictions meaning there is no other option.
Mr Birkinshaw said: “The scheme should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and we are now trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted.” Councillors eventually agreed to defer a decision on the issue until agreements over a fence to block the site from view from neighbouring properties could be finalised.
READ NEXT:
- Anger over Nottinghamshire park that is not 'well-maintained' - but locals still have to pay for
- Mum scarred for life after 'violent' crash on smart motorway
- Nottingham independent food store in popular city centre location 'closing down'
- 'Dangerous runaway' lorry driver fails to stop in dramatic A1 police chase
