Erection of glasshouse.

Ward: Hollington

Erection of glasshouse.

The following updates were reported:

·       Further comments had been received from the Traffic Manager as follows:

‘The road network is adequate to serve the existing farming practices and the glasshouse.  However, it would be undesirable for there to be a significant increase in vehicle movements without improvements to the access and highway network.’

·       A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent which:

i.               Re-iterated points made in the report and noted that the proposal accorded with the relevant landscape policies.

ii.             Commented that the development was small scale and comparable in scale to other barns in the locality, 80% of the crops grown in the glasshouse would supply local distributors and shops, the development would make a contribution to the rural economy and the glasshouse was preferable to polytunnels.

iii.            Commented that the extant permissions for glasshouses elsewhere on the holding were no longer required and therefore there was no objection to these permissions being rescinded.

iv.           Stated that a condition restricting farm sales would not be appropriate and the glasshouse would not materially affect the level of farm sales.

In response to the additional representations, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·       The rescinding of the extant permission for the glasshouses elsewhere within the holding would reduce the number of potential structures on the holding in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [AONB].  Therefore, a change to the recommendation was suggested to enable the preparation and completion of a legal agreement to rescind the two extant agricultural notifications for glasshouses.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. McCallum spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Soble spoke in support of the application.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, noted the importance of the AONB and commented on concerns in the locality that the numerous structures at the site had already had a detrimental visual impact on the intrinsic quality of the landscape.  He said that he was not unsympathetic to the applicant’s business but felt that this proposal would represent a significant intrusion into the landscape.  He did not feel that the mitigation proposed would adequately screen the glasshouse, particularly in the winter months and especially as the landscaping scheme would take a number of years to mature.

In response to a question from the Legal Practice Manager, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the two extant permissions for glasshouses were in more elevated locations.

Councillor DW Greenow noted the extensive planning history of the site and felt that the applicant had gone to great lengths to the address concerns that had been raised.  He commented that some of the issues raised in the letters of objection were overstated or could be overcome, in particular he drew attention to recommended condition 6 which would prevent the artificial illumination or heating of the glasshouse without prior approval.  Referring to the applicant’s statement that 80% of the crops grown would supply local distributors and shops, Councillor Greenow felt that the proposal would benefit the local economy and commented on the need to support small rural businesses such as this.  He also felt that the landscaping scheme would be adequate and drew attention to the comment of the Conservation Manager that the ‘landscaping scheme proposes to add to the already significant tree and shrub planting recently carried out …; principally to screen glimpsed views from the lane immediately adjacent and from neighbouring properties’.

Councillor MAF Hubbard welcomed the small scale, organic nature of the enterprise and felt that it was refreshing that a glasshouse was proposed rather than polytunnels.  He commented on the drawbacks of the elevated sites originally identified, both in visual impact and soil quality terms.  He felt that the landscaping scheme was as good as could be achieved in the circumstances and supported the recommendation of approval.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw spoke in support of the application but, noting concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed landscaping, proposed that mature or semi-mature specimens be planted to provide screening at the earliest opportunity.  This suggestion was supported by other members.

Councillor PJ Edwards expressed sympathy for the points raised by the Local Ward Member, particularly given the rapid development of this site in recent years.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the permitted glasshouses were smaller in scale than the current proposal but emphasised that the rescinding of the earlier permissions, as offered by the applicant, was considered an added benefit of the proposal rather than a primary consideration in this instance.  He also advised that the properties directly opposite the site would have more than just ‘glimpsed’ views of the glasshouse and, although landscaping would provide some mitigation, the proposal would have an impact on the outlook from these properties.

Councillor DB Wilcox felt that the proposal was acceptable, subject to the rescinding of the extant permission for the glasshouses, and commented that any further development proposals would need to be considered on their own merits; with particular attention given to the impact on the highway network in light of the Traffic Manager’s comments.

The Legal Practice Manager read out the full wording of the amended recommendation (incorporated into the resolution below).

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that officers had recommended approval in respect of the agricultural structures at the site previously; although officers had recommended refusal in respect of temporary living accommodation at the site but the Sub-Committee had considered these applications to be acceptable.

Councillor Dawe commented that the key issue was the location of the glasshouse and he felt that the original sites would have less impact than the current proposal, especially as they were further away from residential properties.  He did not feel that, in order to create a level base, there would be substantial loss of productivity if soils were removed and reinstated at those sites.  He felt that the proposal would have an unacceptable visual impact on the AONB and emphasised that the principal objectors had direct, rather than just glimpsed, views of the site in question.

A motion to refuse the application, on the grounds of the potential detrimental impact of the proposal on the landscape of the area, failed and the resolution below was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)         The Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to rescind the two extant agricultural notification permissions for glasshouses and any additional matters and terms that he considers appropriate.

2)         Upon the completion of the aforementioned planning obligation, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers.

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)(to include reference to the use of at least standard size plants) .

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

3.      G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general)).

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

4.      G07 (Details of earth works).

         Reason: (Special Reason).

5.      G26 (Landscaping management plan).

         Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.

6.      The development hereby permitted shall not be artificially illuminated or heated without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.  In obtaining such agreement, full technical details shall be provided of the lighting/heating to be used and the lighting/heating used shall not be changed thereafter without prior approval of the local planning authority.

         Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to minimise light pollution.

Informatives:

1.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.