the retention of polytunnels upon fields H, M, P, Q, R, W, X and Z together with the partial removal of polytunnels from fields F, G, I, K, L, M, Q, X and Z and a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the entire site.

the retention of polytunnels upon fields H, M, P, Q, R, W, X and Z together with the partial removal of polytunnels from fields F, G, I, K, L, M, Q, X and Z and a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the entire site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

 

A further letter of objection had been received from the occupier of 8 Aylton Court Barns. 

 

Correspondence had been received from local residents and their agent(s) with regard apparent discrepancies between figures in the various documents accompanying the application and the committee report. Whilst it was not considered critical in terms of the visual impact of the development as it was known what polytunnels were proposed to be removed and the detail of the landscaping scheme, it was very important in terms of the issue of flood risk. The reason is that the Water Management Audit prepared by the Hydrologist for the applicant had been prepared on information supplied by Haygrove as to the maximum area covered in polythene during the “summer months” and the maximum area covered in polythene during the “winter months”. The matter had been raised with Haygrove who had confirmed that the resultant coverage they sought was as set out in Table 1 of the Water Management Audit – Addendum #3 prepared by David Floyd dated October 2009 received 2 November 2009. It was this report that the Environment Agency had assessed / audited and come to the view that there would not be any undue flood risk. It was therefore important that the maximum polythene coverage reflected those figures and as such additional appropriate conditions were recommended (conditions 11 and 12).

 

For the avoidance of any doubt the applicant confirmed the position to be as follows:-

 

Present Maximum Coverage of Polythene during Winter months – 28.05 hectares

 

 (15.41 hectares lawful and 12.64 hectares unlawful)

 

Proposed Maximum Coverage of Polythene during Winter months – 27.03 hectares

 

Present Maximum Coverage of Polythene during summer months – 41.79 hectares (26.64 hectares lawful and 15.15 unlawful)

 

Proposed Maximum Coverage of Polythene during summer months – 40.61 hectares

 

Following receipt of the letter from the Environment Agency dated 10 November 2009 (Annexe 2 to Agenda Report); further letters of objection were received from the occupiers of ‘Prior Court’ and their Consultant Hydrologist. These further representations have been considered by the Environment Agency who confirmed that they do not object to the proposal subject to minor revisions to the recommended conditions. They also agree that two further conditions are required to address the issue of maximum polythene coverage.

 

The applicant had made various representations upon the detail of the recommended conditions. Most conditions remain unchanged, minor adjustments to some of them but also the deletion of recommended condition 7. It is understood that over the last 18 months the organic market has contracted significantly and the business has had to change rapidly to substrate cane fruit production. To perform commercially the Californian plants they use require their roots to not be cold and wet for extended periods and therefore they need to be able to cover in winter.  Haygrove have also considerably increased plant husbandry in the winter. For this to be done safely and to minimise the use of disease reducing pesticides cover is required. Having considered this matter further and notwithstanding guideline 6 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘Polytunnels’ (September 2008), it is considered that maximum winter coverage of 27.03 hectares, as now recommended by additional condition 11, would not cause undue visual harm. In addition, in reality the amount of coverage would normally be lower than this figure during the winter months.  It is for this reason that the deletion of condition 7 is recommended.

 

Local residents have suggested that a temporary ten year planning permission would be appropriate, however having considered the advice contained within paragraph 109 of Circular 11/95 it is not considered appropriate. Recommended condition 6 more than satisfactorily deals with the matter of a change in agricultural circumstances / practices.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Mawby, representing local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Davison and Mr Woodman, the applicant and his agent, spoke in support.

 

Councillor PM Morgan, the Local Ward Member, thanked the applicant and case officer for the work that had gone into submitting the application. She noted the economic benefit to the area and felt that the application was fully supported by current planning policy. She did however note the concerns raised by the local residents in respect of visual impact. She felt that the application site was well hidden from public view from nearby and that the proposed planting mitigated the visual impact to the landscape from a distance. She welcomed the natural planting proposed on the site. In respect of residential amenity, she noted that two dwellings were affected by the proposal and felt that it was important to ensure that the application did not cause flooding to either of these dwellings. She noted that the Environment Agency were satisfied with the proposed conditions but she felt that conditions 11 and 12 had to be rigorously enforced in order to protect the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

 

In summing up Councillor PM Morgan felt that the proposed application provided much needed clarity on the site and was in accordance with planning Policy. She also felt that it addressed the landscape issues on the site and therefore she concurred with the officer’s recommendation and felt that the application should be approved.

 

Members discussed that application and felt that the proposed planting could be increased between areas outlined as J and K within the application in order to mitigate the visual impact from the Marcle Ridge. They also had concerns in respect of vehicular movements from the site onto Falcon lane.

 

In response to the points raised by Members the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that conditions 11 and 12 of the recommendation were enforceable and precise. He stated that if breaches of conditions were alleged, Enforcement Officers would investigate and consider the expediency of taking appropriate action. He advised Members that proposed screening between areas J and K could be problematic as the two areas were lawful areas of the application site. He added that increased screening had been included between areas K and L instead. In response to the issues regarding Falcon Lane, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Haygrove had stated that all Heavy Goods Vehicles were routed away from Falcon Lane, he added that Members may wish to advise Haygrove that other vehicles such as delivery vans also be re-routed accordingly.

 

Members discussed the application thoroughly and felt that polytunnels were an essential part of modern farming. They noted the concerns raised in respect of flooding but felt that the Planning Officer had addressed all of the concerns through appropriate conditions. Finally they thanked the Principal Planning Officer for producing a detailed report which had covered all areas of the application, they also thanked the applicant for working with the Principal Planning Officer in order to come to an acceptable solution.

 

RESOLVED

 

That full planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1          All of the polytunnels shown upon the approved documents to be removed, other than those at the western end of field ‘L’ shall be removed prior to February 2010.

 

Reason: To ensure that the cumulative visual impact of the polytunnels upon the site is satisfactorily mitigated in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

2          All of the landscaping shown upon the approved documents, other than woodland belt 6 at the western end of field ‘L’, shall be fully implemented prior to 1 April 2010.  Any trees or plants which prior to 1 April 2020 die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is satisfactorily integrated into the landscape in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

3          The polytunnels shown to be removed from the western end of field ‘L’ shall be removed prior to 31 December 2015.

 

Reason: To ensure that the cumulative visual impact of the polytunnels upon the site is satisfactorily mitigated in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

4          The approved planting (i.e. woodland belt 6) at the western end of field ‘L’ shall be fully implemented prior to 1st April 2016.  Any trees or plants which prior to 1st April 2026 die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is satisfactorily integrated into the landscape in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

5          All existing trees and hedgerows upon the land shall be retained other than as required by the approved Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is satisfactorily integrated into the landscape in accordance with policies LA2, LA5 and LA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

6          In the event of the polytunnels hereby permitted becoming redundant for the growing of soft fruit and cherries upon the application site, the polytunnels which includes the supporting structures shall be removed from the application site within a period of twelve months, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is satisfactorily integrated into the landscape in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

7          The recommendations for habitats, protected species and habitat management set out in the ecologist’s submitted reports (as amended) shall be fully implemented and followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved management scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the stated timescales and maintained thereafter.

 

An appropriately qualified and ecological clerk of works shall be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation and enhancement works.

 

Reasons:-

 

A)         To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & C) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and policies NC1, NC5, NVC6, and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007;

 

B)        To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Bio-Diversity and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ and the NERC Act 2006.

 

8          Prior to 1 February 2010 a scheme for the physical demarcation of bridleway AL7 from the polytunnels and associated activity in field ‘Y’ to the north shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval.  An approved scheme must be obtained from the Local Planning Authority by 1st March 2010 at the latest and the approved scheme must be fully implemented prior to 1st April 2010.

 

Reason: To protect the bridleway from surface damage caused by vehicle movements and other activities associated with the polytunnel developments ensuring enjoyment of the bridleway in accordance policy T6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

9          Prior to 1 February 2010 a Flood Management Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval.  The developer must secure the approval of such a Flood Management Plan from the Local Planning Authority prior to 1 April 2010.  The Flood Management Plan shall include the active intervention measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment to minimise the impacts of the development on flood risk.  The approved Flood Management Plan shall be implemented from the date of its approval and shall remain operational for as long as the polytunnels hereby permitted remain upon the land.

 

Reason: To prevent any increase in flooding and to comply with the Water Management Audit – Addendum #3 (Report 2098-A#3) dated October 2009 and to accord with policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

10        The surface water mitigation measures outlined in the Water Management Audit – Addendum#3 (Report 2098-A#3) dated October 2009, including diversion of run-off from presently unregulated fields W and X to the existing wetland Pool A, must be fully implemented prior to 1 June 2010 and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To prevent any increase in flood risk as a result of increased surface water run-off and to accord with policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

11        Notwithstanding the contents of all of the submitted documents associated with this application, the area of polytunnels upon the entire site skinned with polythene shall not exceed 27.03 hectares during the winter months (i.e. October, November, December, January, February and March) of any year and the polythene coverage of each individual field shall not exceed the figure stated in the Future Skinning W-Max column of Table 1 of the Water Management Audit – Addendum #3 prepared by David Floyd dated October 2009 received 2 November 2009.

 

Reason:- To prevent any increase in flood risk as a result of increased surface water run-off and to accord with policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

12        Notwithstanding the contents of all of the submitted documents associated with this application, the area of polytunnels upon the entire site skinned with polythene shall not exceed 40.61 hectares during the summer months (i.e. April, May, June, July, August and September) of any year and the polythene coverage of each individual field shall not exceed the figure stated in the Future Skinning S-Max column of Table 1 of the Water Management Audit – Addendum #3 prepared by David Floyd dated October 2009 received 2 November 2009.

 

Reason:- To prevent any increase in flood risk as a result of increased surface water run-off and to accord with policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1          The reasons for granting planning permission in respect of the development are:-

 

“It is recognised that the provisions of polytunnels upon the site creates benefits to the local rural economy. Whilst the existing development causes visual harm to the landscape due to cumulative impact of both the lawful and unlawful polytunnels, the proposal to selectively remove polytunnels and provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the entire site is considered to mitigate that harm. It is not considered that there are any other environmental reasons to justify refusal of the application. As such the application is recommended for conditional approval. In forming this conclusion the Local Planning Authority have had full regard to the relevant Central Government advice, Regional Planning Guidance, the provisions of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 as a whole and the guidance contained within Herefordshire Council’s ‘Polytunnels Supplementary Planning Document’

 

2          N11A Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) - Birds

 

3          N11C General

 

4          N19 Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

 

5          The applicant is advised to engage the services of a suitably qualified landscape consultant to supervise the implementation of the landscaping and its subsequent maintenance.