18 The fact that the applicants seek a permit which will limit the number of birds that can be accommodated to 80,000 birds is a relevant and important consideration. The legal environment in which a broiler farm proposes to operate is a factor which informs the maximum number of birds that a farm is designed to take. This will be more so when the restriction imposed by the legal framework is readily capable of enforcement. The tribunal does not assume that every condition that is imposed will always be complied with; just as it does not assume that landowners are dishonourable people. But there will be greater scope to rely upon a legal restriction in characterising a use of land if the restriction is likely to be complied with - particularly if it is readily capable of enforcement. The nature of the broiler industry is such that records must be maintained as to the number of birds that are grown and harvested; and as to relevant dates when birds are received and delivered. Such records are essential to the economic operation of the industry, as it is usual that a chicken processor has a proprietary interest in the birds being grown. Hence it should be an easy matter to impose conditions to ensure that the number of birds accommodated at the proposed broiler farm is no more than 80,000 birds and that this is capable of ready verification by the responsible authority. Indeed, if a permit issues, I would recommend that such conditions be imposed.
19 In my opinion, it is also necessary to consider physical and economic factors in determining farm capacity for the purposes of the code. If the proposed broiler sheds could physically accommodate one million birds in compliance with the Welfare Code, it is likely that a claim by an applicant that only 80,000 birds were to be accommodated would be treated with a grain of salt. I would be deeply suspicious of such an application because it would reek of disingenuousness. But the present proposal is not of that character.
20 I find that the proposed broiler farm is a Class A farm. I accept that the applicants now propose to accommodate a maximum of 80,000 birds; and, more importantly, are willing to accept a condition to this effect. Further, steps can be taken (and should be taken) to ensure that conditions are imposed to facilitate verification of this obligation. Further, the stocking density that would result from accommodating 80,000 birds in the two proposed sheds is consistent with sensible farming practices and does not have an air of unreality about it.
21 It is true that the change from the original proposal to the amended proposal has created doubts and concerns. It is also true that there appears to be no explanation as to the reason for the reduced stocking density, other than the obvious one that the applicants now seek to avoid third party scrutiny. Be this as it may, the stocking ratio that is now proposed is not unrealistic. And in the circumstances of this case it is reasonable to accept the word of the applicants as to the number of birds that they now propose to accommodate - as it will be possible to impose effective conditions to hold the applicants to their word.