Access issues have scuppered the latest plans to build two replacement poultry houses on Ward Hill, in Norton Lindsey.

Similar proposals were twice thrown out by Warwick District Council and subsequent appeals lost prior to the latest application being considered by the council's planning committee when it met this week.

A report by planning officer Dan Charles had recommended that this was also refused due to an objection from Warwickshire County Council's highways department.

In concluding his report, Mr Charles said: "In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development proposed fails to demonstrate that vehicles serving the site can adequately enter, manoeuvre and exit in a forward gear.

"Due to the nature of the vehicles to be servicing the site, the proposal is considered to inadequately demonstrate that safe and appropriate access can be provided."

Applicant Andrew Audhali had hoped to replace two disused timber poultry sheds with two new ones of a similar size on the land off Warwick Road in the village. The access to the site would have been moved and there were also plans for single-storey farm manager's house.

It is nearly 20 years since the first plan was dismissed for the replacement units and other applications for housing on the site have also been rejected.

Norton Lindsey Parish Council objected to the latest plans along with more than 100 residents who raised a number of concerns including problems with odour, light pollution and the access talthough the council's environmental health officer had raised no concerns.

Ward member Cllr Jan Matecki also objected. He said: "The application has been heard several times previously under one guise or another and been rejected on every occasion. 

"I particularly draw your attention to two previous applications, W/05/1754 and W/08/0146, which were heard in 2007 and 2010 respectively and which were rejected by Warwick District Council. The decisions were upheld by different inspectors, appointed by the Secretary of State to review the appeals made in both of these applications.

"The fundamental reasons for rejecting the applications, and subsequently verified by the inspectors after appeal, are still valid, if not more so, today."