A PLANNING meeting descended into farce when councillors approved a massive egg production site, minutes after rejecting it.

City of York Council’s planning committee ruled against the £1.2 million development during a vote but failed to agree on the reasons why it was being declined.

This prompted another vote on the application and it was approved at the second time of asking, much to the dismay of around 20 protestors at the meeting.

The committee initially voted against the application by seven votes to six, however, after the reasons for rejecting the proposal were outvoted, the plans were passed six votes to five, with two abstentions.

This decision was met with cries of “rubbish”, with one resident, Ann Boynes, labelling it “a travesty of democracy” as she stormed out of the meeting. One angry protestor threw his agenda at the councillors before later coming back into the meeting to direct an outburst at Cllr Ann Reid, the chair of planning.

The development will see a laying building for 32,000 hens built on land west of Hagg Wood Farm, Broad Highway, in Wheldrake.

Those opposed to it told the meeting the roads near the site are unsuitable for HGVs and the building would harm the village.

Cllr Chris Barber, of Wheldrake Parish Council, said: "Wheldrake is a thriving, diverse community. There are several new projects underway. Broad Highway is the centre of this activity.

"Ultimately an approval of this application would completely undermine these projects, undermine conservation and undermine the residents who have objected en masse to such an evasive and unethical proposal."

Ms Boynes added: "If this is approved it could have a very real and detrimental impact on the tourism businesses operating in the area.

"Such developments are wholly inappropriate and should not be permissible in the green belt.

"The applicant has many properties which have far better access to a main trunk road avoiding holiday and residential areas."

Cllr Ann Reid explained the decision making process: "As chairman, I need to ensure that any decision is supported by sound planning reasons which could be defended if legally challenged. The first two votes were inconsistent and both fell.

"Therefore, there was a need for a third vote to achieve a conclusive outcome. The process we followed was subject to legal advice from officers and is not without precedent."