The proposals for the unit at Manor Farm, Rotsea Road, have been recommended for approval and are to be considered by the East Riding Council planning committee next week.

A separate, but related, application to site a temporary mobile home on the site, which officers have also said should be approved, will also be discussed at the meeting on Thursday.

But a condition has been recommended that the home should be removed and the land restored to its former state by July 2011.

The plans, which have been submitted by applicant Mike Artley, allow for a new unit housing a total of 24,000 birds, plus a mobile home for use as workers' accommodation.

The development would involve the clearance of two hectares of trees from a recently-planted area of woodland. The remaining 22 hectares would remain unaltered.

The officers' report to the committee states that £250,000 is to be invested into the planned building, infrastructure and equipment on the site.

The outcome of both applications depend on each other, the report says.
The applicant also argues that the mobile home would allow for constant supervision of the site both within and outside normal working hours.
Brandesburton Parish Council has indicated support for the unit plan, but recommended refusal of the mobile home proposal.

They said they had no objection to an office during the day, but argued there is no need for housing.

One letter of objection has been received on each of the proposals, expressing concerns over the impact of extra traffic, smell nuisance, the effect on existing leisure facilities, the need for housing and whether a precedent was being set to ease the way for a permanent property in the open countryside.

But two further letters arguing that the proposals would fit well into an area of working farms were also received.

Highways officers indicated no objections, subject to the removal of a length of hedgerow to improve visibility for drivers.

The report stated that, though there would be some odour experienced during the cleaning process, it was not considered to be an unacceptable loss of amenity for the nearby leisure facilities. The plans were not considered to be out of character with the area.