Continued use of land as a caravan site and retention of accommodation block for seasonal agricultural workers.

Ward: Sutton Walls

Continued use of land as a caravan site and retention of accommodation block for seasonal agricultural workers.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Central Team Leader reported that:

§                Comments had been received from the Conservation Manager (no objections).

§                Comments had been received from the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager (no objections).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council and Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site visit that had been undertaken.  She expressed concerns about the scale of the development, both in its extent and in the impact on its surroundings and on the local community.  Attention was drawn to the objections summarised in the report and it was noted that residents were worried about the potential for the site to become a dormitory settlement, with a population outnumbering that of Marden.  The significant influx of workers had also resulted in fear of crime and anti-social behaviour issues.  Councillor Guthrie was surprised that the Conservation Manager had no objections to the application given the landscape impact and that planting had failed.  She was also surprised that the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager had no objections given the noise generated at the site.  The impact on the local road network was also noted, particularly the disturbance caused by HGVs in the early hours of the morning.  Given these considerations, Councillor Guthrie felt that application should be refused given the adverse impacts on residential amenities and felt that it was contrary to policy E13 (Agricultural and Forestry Development) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the Local Ward Member and commented on the scale of the development.  He felt that the impact on an adjacent Listed Building had been underestimated and the development was contrary to policy HBA4 (Setting of Listed Buildings).  He also questioned whether the accommodation on site was solely for agricultural workers at Brook Farm.

Councillor DW Greenow said that he had sympathy for local residents but also noted the difficulties faced by the applicants, especially given the lack of people interested in agricultural work locally.  Whilst he felt that the development was an eyesore and expressed concerns about living standards, he noted that the applicants needed the accommodation to support the operation at Brook Farm.

Councillor SJ Robertson commended the hard work of the Local Ward Member and felt that the impact on the landscape and local community was unacceptable.

In response to a question from Councillor AP Taylor, the Central Team Leader advised that the standard of accommodation was an issue for other legislation and was not a material planning consideration in this instance.  The Development Control Manager added that fire regulations were also outside the remit of the Sub-Committee.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the operation needed workers and that it was better for them to be on site than transported to and from the site every day.  However, given the rapid expansion of the accommodation and impact on the locality, she suggested that the number of units be restricted to those given temporary permission previously.

Councillor WJ Walling noted that the purpose of temporary permission would be enable the authority to retain effective control over the development but he questioned how such controls could be enforced practically given the history of the site and the issues identified by local residents.  In response, the Central Team Leader advised that temporary permission would provide further opportunities to consider the acceptability of the development periodically but noted that it was not possible to monitor the site constantly.  He advised that, if permission was refused, the applicants had a fall back position whereby permitted development rights could enable seasonal agricultural workers’ caravans to be placed on the land without the need for planning permission.

Councillor RI Matthews commented on sensitivities in the locality and felt that the applicants could do more to work with the local parish councils.

Councillor NL Vaughan expressed concern about the influx of migrant workers and social cohesion issues.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that comments were awaited from the Environment Agency but there were no objections from council consultees.  She also noted that there were large numbers of migrant workers making a positive contribution to the county.

Councillor SPA Daniels, noting that conditions had not been complied with previously, questioned whether the proposed Section 106 Agreement would be effective in this instance.  She also expressed concerns about the quality and safety of the accommodation.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented on the potential difficulties that could result from the refusal of planning permission and felt that any enforcement response should be co-ordinated and involve all relevant services of the authority.  The Development Control Manager said that the issue of joined-up enforcement was a priority for the Director of Environment.  He re-iterated the reasoning behind the officers’ recommendation and commented that the alternatives, where caravans were moved seasonally or where workers were transported to the site each day, could be more disruptive.  However, it was noted that the scale of the development was a material planning consideration.

RESOLVED:

That   

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The site lies in open countryside where residential development will not be permitted unless it is clearly necessary in connection with agriculture and cannot be located within an existing settlement.  It is not considered that sufficient justification has been provided to support the scale of accommodation currently provided at Brook Farm and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.  Furthermore the overall scale of accommodation, the size of the agricultural workers population the associated need to transport workers on the local road network and the proximity to residential property is considered to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity and setting of the village of Marden and the surrounding locality contrary to Policies DR2, DR3, DR13, E11, E13 and LA3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Notes:

i.      Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.

ii.     In accordance with SO 4.15.4, Councillors PA Andrews, MD Lloyd-Hayes and WJ Walling wished it to be recorded that they abstained from voting.

iii.   In response to a request from Councillor PJ Edwards, the Development Control Manager said that details of the areas covered by polytunnels which had planning permission at Brook Farm would be circulated to members.]