Application (part retrospective) to erect, take down and re-erect polytunnels, rotated around fields as required by the crops under cultivation (soft fruit).

The application was refused in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

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. During the presentation Members were given information regarding the legal background of the application including details of the judicial review; a description of the colour plan that they had been provided with which had details of the lawful polytunnels; a detailed description of each of the fields including photographs and plans as well as an update in respect of policy issues regarding the application. At the end of his presentation the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the application would result in a large scale development in the AONB and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Beckett, representing Kings Caple Parish Council; and Mr Williams, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Cockburn, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Head of Neighbouring Planning addressed the Committee in reference to the judicial review lodged by a local resident subsequent to the application being granted in May 2011. He advised that the reasons initially given for the judicial review were that the Council had failed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment and UDP Policy LA1, that the Council had taken into account irrelevant issues, and that there had been a failure to declare relevant interests. He added that a second judicial review was also lodged in respect of enforcement issues. After the judicial review’s had been lodged the Council were criticised in a separate case for not having provided clear reasons for approving an application and at this stage the same reason was sought to be added to the existing judicial review for Pennoxstone Court. The Council took advice which was that there was a strong chance that the court would uphold this reason. Consequently the Council consented to the permission being quashed and this took place on 3 September 2012 with the decision being on the grounds that the Council had failed to supply sufficient reasons for approving the application. In summing up the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Members were not bound by the previous decision, however they needed to be clear in how they reached their decision and to give clear reasons in the event that planning permission was granted.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was contentious and required a balanced decision taking into account the needs of the business and the impact on the Lower Wye Valley AONB.

·         The application was approved, contrary to recommendation, by one vote at the October 2010 meeting.

·         The application had received representations both in support and in objection.

·         The impact on the AONB was not acceptable and the application should be refused.

·         There had been a number of complaints to the Council’s Enforcement Team regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182