Variation of Conditions 1(A), 1(C), 1(D) and 2 of DCSE2008/0996/F.

Authority was delegated to officers to approve the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to the Secretary of State providing authorisation and removing an article 25 holding direction.

(Variation of Conditions 1(A), 1(C), 1(D) and 2 of DCSE2008/0996/F)

 

The Legal Officer informed the Committee that within the 24 hours prior to the meeting the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had issued an article 25 holding direction.  This meant that the Committee could not take a final decision on the application before it.  Any decision would be subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State.  However, the Committee could consider the matter and officers now recommended that authority be delegated to officers to approve the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to the Secretary of State providing authorisation and removing the holding direction.

 

She added that no detailed reasons had been provided for why the holding direction had been issued.  The letter had stated that the direction had been issued to enable the Department to have a further period in which to consider the proposal.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  She emphasised the proposal did not fall within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.  The application was for the modification of the extant permission.  It did not require consideration of the entire scheme, only the variation itself.  The principle of such development at this particular site, being within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was established.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs V Morgan (Campaign to Protect Rural England) spoke in objection to the application.  Mr E Drummond, the applicant spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member, spoke on the application indicating his support.

He commented on a number of issues including:

 

·         Planning Permission had already been granted for the use of Polytunnels on the site, following a legal challenge.  The Committee was therefore only being asked to consider the removal of certain conditions and the effect of their removal.

·         The application proposed that a smaller, fixed, area should be allocated for cultivation.  This would save both the Council and the applicant time and money. 

·         The business, which generated up to £20m for the economy of Ross-on-Wye and the surrounding area, needed significant investment and therefore the applicant required certainty, with removal of the current time limit on the development.

·         Many organisations including the AONB Officer, Natural England and Walford Parish Council supported the application considering that there were benefits and the application represented an improvement on the current situation.

·         The applicant had been an exemplar and been responsive to feedback from neighbours.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about granting permanent permission for the polytunnels noting that the site was within the AONB.  It was suggested that a Planning Inspector had recently allowed an appeal permitting the use of polytunnels on another site within the Wye Valley AONB on the basis that the permission was for a temporary period of ten years.

·         Policies LA1 and LA2 and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) referred to the weight that should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB and the need for major development in designated areas to be in the public interest.  The ten year temporary permission, granted in 2008, should remain temporary and be reviewed in 10 years time (2018).  The long term conservation of the landscape was important.

·         It was proposed that condition 1 D (the ten year time limit on the current permission) should not be removed and that the permission should remain temporary until 2018 pending approval of the Core Strategy.  To grant a permanent permission at this stage in advance of establishing an overarching policy ran the risk of creating an anomaly and a precedent.

·         In response to questions the Legal Officer accepted that such planning decisions may be used in evidence at appeals.  Once the Core Strategy was in place planning decisions would be determined on the basis of that Strategy.  Decisions taken prior to the Strategy being approved would not be changed by the Strategy’s adoption.

·         The reduction in the area covered by polytunnels was to be welcomed.

·         The safer working conditions the new production techniques entailed were to be welcomed.

·         Agriculture and tourism were both important parts of the County’s economy.  The application would benefit the local economy and would not be detrimental to tourism.

·         The AONB was an outstanding landscape but agriculture could be accommodated within it on appropriate sites.

·         The applicant had a proven track record of complying with planning conditions.  He had indicated that he would provide further screen planting and develop mature hedgerows which was to be welcomed.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his support for the Scheme.  He again highlighted the economic benefit of the Scheme which he did not consider had an adverse impact on tourism.

The Development Manager commented on the benefits of the Scheme in terms of a reduced area of cultivation in a static location. He noted that neither the Building Conservation Officer nor the Landscape Consultant had objected to the Scheme.  The officers’ conclusion as set out in the report was that it was reasonable in this instance to remove the condition that made the permission temporary until 2018.  He considered that the level of financial investment required meant that retaining the temporary permission to 2018 could be challengeable.  If the Committee wished to consider a temporary permission he suggested that a further temporary permission of ten years should be granted.

A motion that condition 1(D) (the year time limit on the current permission) be removed was lost.

RESOLVED:That the Planning Committee was minded to grant planning permission on removal of the Article 25 Direction of the Secretary of State and, subject to that removal,  officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary including any amendments thereto:

 

1.            This permission effectively updates and supersedes the previous permission under reference DCSE2008/0996/F [081040/F], which approval however continues to subsist in principle.  The development shall henceforth from the date of this permission take place only in accordance with that permission as it is updated by the proposals and recommendations in this variation.  For the avoidance of doubt, the approved plans and details are now as follows, which supersede all other operational plans:

                       i.       Fig 00 site plan ‘Application Boundaries’ (DLA Ltd March 2014);

                      ii.       Fig. A – Site detail overview (DLA Ltd 2014);

                    iii.       Fig 1 ‘Stable Field’ detail;

                    iv.       Fig 2 ‘Front Orchard Field’ detail;

                      v.       Fig 3 ‘Dillo Field’ detail;

                    vi.       Fig 4 ‘Barn Field’ detail;

                   vii.       Fig 5 ‘Balls, House and Punjab Fields’ detail;

                  viii.       Fig 6 ‘Callow Front Drive Field’ detail  (Figs 1-6 DLA Ltd all dated Nov 2013)

                    ix.       Landscape mitigation proposals described in the Landscape and Visual Impact Asessment Statement [Reference DLA1419LVIA/rpt.1/Aug ’12 (updated January 2014] 

                      x.       Biodiversity enhancement mitigation proposals described in the Ecoloy and Nature Conservation report [Reference DLA1419/Eco/Phase 1/rpt.1/June ‘12]

 

Items xi, xii, and xiii below formed part of the approved plans under DCSE2008/0996/F and shall continue to be adhered to:

                    xi.       Landscape and Visual Assessment received 14th April 2008

                   xii.       Surface Water Mitigation and Management Report prepared by JDIH Envireau and received by the Local Planning Authority, dated June 2007, addendum dated 1 April 2008, and Supplementary Report dated 26 June 2008

                  xiii.       Ecological Appraisal Ref 1226/ecorpt-1 dated 27 July 2007 and Ref 1226/2ecorpt-2  dated June 2008 prepared by Davies Light Associates

 

The development shall be carried out in acordance with the above approved plans and details subject to the following stipulations:-

 

a)         Not more than 48.5 hectares of the land shall be covered with polytunnels, or any part or parts thereof excepting the legs, at any time, for which purposes any uncovered hoops in a row shall be measured from the first to the last to be included in this coverage.

 

b)        There shall be no polytunnels sited within the applicant’s farm-holding other than within the areas of land identified and outlined in red on Fig 00 ‘Application Boundaries’ (DLA Ltd March 2014) unless a specific planning permission has been granted.

 

c)         Notwithstanding the submitted application there shall be a limit of 10 hectares on the coverage in any single block of polytunnels.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt; to ensure a satisfactory form of development in order to safeguard and maintain the visual amenity of the area; and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1, LA2, LA5, LA6 and HBA4 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.         Within 6 months of the date of this permission a scheme for additional landscaping, biodiversity and silt/surface water management enhancement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall supplement the schemes previously approved and relate to the change from rotational to static sites, shall contribute to a ‘whole farm plan’ approach, and shall include in particular:

a)         A brief summary update of the measures implemented to date since 2008 and listing any outstanding items or works-in-progress;

b)        A brief assessment of the existing planting/seeding scheme in terms of implementation and success, followed by further planting and screening improvement proposals, to include a proportion of standard and orchard fruit trees of appropriate native species, with an aim to consolidate and strengthen the existing scheme where necessary, in light of the permanent and static nature of polytunnel coverage hereby permitted;

c)         A brief assessment of the existing biodiversity enhancement measures in terms of implementation and success, followed by proposals for further measures to support wildlife and create or enhance habitats with a reference to Biodiversity Action Plan priorities and the recommendations in the submitted ‘Ecology and Nature Conservation’ report (DLA Ltd June 2012).

d)        A brief assessment of existing silt and run-off management measures in terms of implementation and success, followed by further measures where necessary, to improve diffuse pollution prevention, in light of the permanent and static nature of polytunnel coverage;

e)         Method statement and Management Plan for implementation, maintenance and after-care of the revised scheme, including time-scales, provision for periodic review, and the replacement of any failed planting or seeding.

 

The scheme shall be implemented as approved and maintained in conjunction with the previously approved schemes for the life of the development.

 

Reason: In order to secure further effective measures for landscaping, biodiversity enhancement and pollution prevention, to safeguard and maintain the visual amenity and heritage of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S2, DR1, DR4, DR11, LA2, LA5, LA6, HBA4 4, NC1, NC6, NC7, NC8, NC8 and NC9, and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in its entirety with particular reference to sections 10, 11 and 12.

 

3.         No polytunnels shall be sited within 2 metres of the centre line of any public right of way.

 

Reason:  To ensure that no public right of way is obstructed and to ensure that their enjoyment is safeguarded in accordance with policy T6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.         No polytunnel shall be sited within 30 metres of the boundary of any residential curtilage of any dwelling house unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of dwelling houses in the immediate vicinity in accordance with policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.         None of the polytunnels hereby permitted shall be covered with polythene from 30th November until 31st December in any calendar year nor during the month of January in any calendar year, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the visual impact of the development hereby permitted is limited to the growing periods in accordance with policy LA1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.         The previously-approved Landscape Management Plan (including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than privately owned domestic gardens) shall continue to be implemented as approved, in conjunction with the additional measures require by condition 2 above.

 

Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy LA6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

7.         All existing trees and hedgerows upon the land shall be retained 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.

 

8.         The previously-approved Habitat Enhancement and Management Scheme overseen by an appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works (based on the  recommendations for habitats and protected species set out in the Ecological Appraisal received 3.04.2008 - Ref: 1226/ecorpt-1 and received 27th June 2008 - Ref: 1226/ecorpt-2 prepared by Davies Light Associates) shall continue to be implemented as approved in conjunction with the additional measures require by condition 2 above.

 

Reason: To ensure the protection of all species covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), the Badger Act 1992 and policies NC1, NC5, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework: To ensure that the law is not breached with regard to nesting birds which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and policies NC1, NC5, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007: To comply with Herefordshire council's Unitary Development Plan policies NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and the NERC Act 2006 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

9.         There shall be no variation to the design or appearance of any polytunnel without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to safeguard and maintain the visual amenity of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1, LA1, LA2, LA5, LA6 and HBA4 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

10.       There shall be no polytunnels sited on land lower than 35.0m AOD, as indicated upon Figure 3 'Flood Elevations' The Homme Supplementary Report dated 26/06/08.

 

Reason: To maintain the conveyance of flood flows and to prevent the increased risk of flooding elsewhere to ensure that the development complies with Policy DR4 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

11.       There shall be no new buildings, structures (including polytunnels, gates, walls and fences) or raised ground levels within 8 metres of the top of bank of the River Wye (Main River), inside or along the boundary of the site, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or improvements in accordance with Policy DR4 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

12.       Surface Water generated from the site shall be limited to the equivalent Greenfield run-off rate, and continue to be managed as approved, in conjunction with any additional measures submitted under condition 2  and in accordance with the following:

·         Drainage Appraisal [JDIH (Water & Environment) Ltd June 2007]; addendum dated 1 April 2008, Supplementary Report dated 26 June 2008;

·         Updated Flood Risk Assessment October 2012, Water Resources Risk Assessment June 2012 and update letter dated 12^th March 2014 [Envireau Water]

·         The previously-approved Surface Water Regulation scheme, including the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

 

Reason:  To minimise flood risk, optimise water resource use and to protect the River Wye SSSI/SAC, in accordance with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S2, DR4, DR7, NC, NC3 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to sections 10 and 11.

 

13.       In the event of the polytunnels hereby permitted becoming redundant for the growing of soft fruit upon the application site, the polytunnels which including the supporting structures shall be permanently removed from application site within a period of twelve months.

 

Reason: To ensure that buildings / structures that are redundant for agricultural purposes do not remain in the landscape unnecessarily.

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.            It is hereby confirmed that the requirements of conditions 6, 7, 9 and 14 of planning permission reference DCSE2008/0996/F have been met in full and formally discharged prior to the application for a variation under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This new permission updates and varies the previous conditions.  The 2008 permission continues to subsist and the various schemes approved under it shall continue to be implemented as approved except where altered or superseded by this variation. Where relevant and appropriate, these factors have been incorporated into the above new set of conditions, which takes account of instances where all requirements are complete and where additional terms are imposed in light of the variation.

 

2.            The local planning authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying technical matters of concern which might affect the determination process and likely outcome, by negotiating and discussing these with the applicant and appointed consultant, and reaching agreement as to correct procedure and any minor amendments found necessary. As a result, the local planning authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal in light of the terms of the previous permission granted in 2008 and in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 11.15 am and 11.25 am.)

 

(The order of the agenda was varied and agenda item 10 was taken next followed by agenda item 9 and then agenda item 8.)