D-day on plans at mushroom farm
PLANS to allow a significant and controversial expansion of a Scarisbrick mushroom farm will be decided by West Lancashire’s planning committee tonight.
The proposal is recommended for approval by the council’s director of place and community despite the opposition of four parish councils, dozens of residents and a campaign which has seen signs erected through the village and a public meeting attended by around 70 people.
In her report to the committee for the Thursday, July 9 meeting, Heidi McDougall argues that allowing the expansion will keep jobs in the area and boost the local economy.
If approved, Smithy Mushrooms Ltd (SML) will be able to expand its business by buying adjacent land to build a purpose built growing and incubation room, office, laboratory, plant room, cold store, packing area, and boiler room.
The new building would extend to approximately 17,561m2 and would be accompanied by a car park with 58 spaces.
According to its application, SML started as a small family business more than 25 years ago and has grown to become a leading UK supplier of exotic mushrooms, including oyster, shiitake and coral.
It supplies large retailers such as Marks & Spencer, Booths and Tesco as well as major food service wholesalers and food processors and ready meal makers.
It employs 38 full time staff and has an annual turnover of £5.6m but has exceeded capacity at its existing site and fears being squeezed out of the market if it cannot expand.
Plans for the 7.9m (25ft) tall structure have sparked anger in the wider community and residents have campaigned against its approval.
The parish councils for Scarisbrick, Wrightington, Newburgh, and Burscough have all formally objected to the council, as has the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Among the reasons stated for objecting are the size of the new building; the increase in traffic including lorries; loss of diversity of land use; impact on pink footed geese, whooper swans and other birds; and the potential loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.
But United Utilities, Environmental Protection, Natural England and the Highway Authority were all consulted and did not register objections.
In her report for the planning committee, Ms McDougall states that as the new structure is for agricultural purposes, it does not represent inappropriate use of Green Belt land.
She states that the building will create a “vertical landmark” but that harm caused to the visual amenity “is limited as key features of the landscape would remain including the existing pattern of field boundaries”.
Her report concludes: “The proposed development would allow a local employer to remain in the area and expansion of the business would bring benefits to the local economy.
“The design of the building is appropriate, would not result in significant harm to visual amenity or the character of the landscape and there would be no undue impact on highway safety, residential amenity or biodiversity.”
West Lancashire Borough Council’s planning committee will decide on the application during a virtual meeting.