Proposed use of land for the siting of seasonal agricultural workers accommodation (caravans and pods), construction of amenity building and associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

A further letter has been received from the agent for the application pointing out the following:

1    there is a significant capital investment involved in the development and it is common sense that the applicant would not seek to provide these facilities unless there is a genuine commercial need for them now and for the foreseeable future.

2    the failure of the applicant to secure planning permission for the polytunnels does not mean that the need for facilities for the workforce ceases. Indeed, other production methods (such as the use of micro cloches) may increase the need.

3    the officer's appraisal fails to recognise that other growing methods are already being used at Wickton and Wellington.

4    the officer's appraisal misses the fundamental point that picking is staggered throughout the year and the maximum total of workers required is not achieved simply by multiplying the figures of hectares in use by the number workers per hectare.

5    It should therefore be clear that there is a bona fide need for the development and the absence of planning permission for the polytunnels does not diminish that need.

6    The applicant considers that the development complies with policy H8 (i.e. residential development in the open countryside for which there is an agricultural need). In any event a time limited permission (e.g. five years or less) could be granted enabling monitoring of the effects and the need.

7     In any event it is open to the discretion of the Committee to defer the item for more evidence of need to be provided if the Committee is not satisfied that adequate evidence of need has been provided.

These comments are reinforced by a letter received from the Facilities and Welfare Director of the applicant's company pointing out the need for the workforce and the commitment of the company to provide the best quality facilities. It is his firm view, on behalf of the applicants, that the Arrow Fisheries site remains the best option for this essential accommodation and that further safeguards in respect of the wildlife interests on the site can be secured.

The Principal Planning Officer had provided the following response:

The calculation of the need given in the report is based solely (and accurately) on the information which was submitted at the time. The number of workers per hectare, as submitted by the applicant, gave no allowances for season working or other constraints which would reduce the total number. The applicant's offer to resubmit new and different figures may be helpful and would help to clarify the economic case for development based on current activity at Brierley, Ivington and Wickton.  However, the report as published acknowledges that there is a strong argument in favour of development based, inter-alia, on the premise that there is a need for a seasonal workforce to sustain soft fruit production on the various sites currently used by the applicant. That, however, is only part of the argument. The adverse impacts on landscape and biodiversity interests must also be taken into account in determining the application, and such consideration must itself be based of what is currently proposed.

On the basis of the application as submitted, officers have concluded that the damage to landscape and biodiversity interests is so great that the need for the accommodation is not sufficient to justify approval.  Members may wish to consider this point very carefully - has an acceptable balance of interests been met? A less intensive scheme which included more open space within the fisheries site and was less disruptive to wildlife interests on the site may alter the balance of the argument but is not before the Committee to determine as part of this application. Such a scheme would, of course, also imply some scaling down of the applicant's operations at and around Brierley, but that is likewise not before the Committee to consider at this meeting.

The new arguments put forward by the applicant do not change the conclusion of the report.

Five additional letters of objection had been received making the following additional points to those previously reported:

1. Do not allow the applicant to ride rough shod over the planning system.
2. Highway safety particularly pedestrians.
3. Impact on services.
4. The site flooded last year.

The Public Rights of Way Manager advises that following a site meeting the previous objection can be withdrawn upon receipt of a plan confirming PROW are outside of the fence boundary.

Conservation Manager- Ecology:

As at 30^th April the ecological survey report had not been received.  During a recent site visit it was noted that there were numerous sand martins and swallows (both amber conservation status birds species) feeding over the pools. This is obviously an important site for them. A swan’s nest was also noted.

There was evidence of otters, a European protected Species. Significant loss of habitat cannot be supported.

The proposals will result in loss or damage to Biodiversity Action Plan habitats.

Concern as to how the pools will be drained an no water or species should enter the adjacent watercourse as it is a tributary of the River Lugg Special Area of Conservation.

Consequently the proposal is contrary to policies NC1, NC5, NC6, NC7 of the UDP.

An Ecological report was received yesterday which confirms the presence of the species, and many others, referred to above.  However no mitigation strategy has been received with it.

As a consequence of the comments on the ecological issues reason 3 of the report is replaced by the following.

3. The proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact upon acknowledged important matters relating to the biodiversity of the site contrary to policies NC1,NC5,NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Ferron spoke in objection to the application, and Mr J Naerebout, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support. 

The Northern Team Leader reported that the following representations had been made since the publication of the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional; Representations:

·                     A letter of objection from the Cheesley Farmers' Campaign.

·                     Withdrawal of objection from a previous objector, based on the Environment Agency's recent comments in respect of flooding on the site.

The Northern Team Leader drew the Sub-Committee's attention to Paragraph 6.33 of the report, which related to a recent appeal decision at Pennoxstone Court, where the Inspector had concluded that there were clear economic benefits to be derived from the production of soft fruit with the aid of polytunnels.  He said that the same principle could be applied to this application site.  He added that although this application was for accommodation and not polytunnels, the two were linked, and therefore the economic arguments in favour of the application should be considered. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor RC Hunt, felt that the application, which constituted a major development, would have a significant impact on the surrounding area, especially in terms of its effect on the ecology.  Other members concurred with him, noting the many species of important wildlife present on the site, and expressing concern that the current infrastructure would not be able to support the ensuing increase in population at certain times of the year. 

Some members commented that there was a clear business case for the application, and stressed the importance of the Council liaising with the applicant to ensure that in the future, a more balanced and acceptable application, possibly spread over several smaller sites, could be submitted.  They emphasised the need to consider all aspects of the business comprehensively, including polytunnels and accommodation.  The Development Control Manager reported that, in the light of recent Government policy decisions, officers were working with all fruit growers in Herefordshire to help produce acceptable applications for polytunnels  In the case of this particular application, the factors relating to scale, landscaping and biodiversity were deemed to be too significant for officers to recommend approval. 

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1       The need for this development is dependent upon the use of the land at Brierley Court Farm for soft fruit production under polytunnels.  At the time at which this application has been determined, no planning permission exists for the siting of polytunnels on the land, and those which are currently on the site are subject to enforcement proceedings.  In the absence of any lawfully sited polytunnels, the long term use of the land for the production of soft fruit is not assured and therefore the siting of 576 caravans, accommodation pods, service pods and an amenity building cannot be justified.  Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Policy H8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2       The site lies within an area defined by the Council's Landscape Character Assessment as Riverside Meadow.  In the absence of an overriding  need for the accommodation, the proposal has an unacceptably adverse visual impact which will detract from the character of this landscape particularly by virtue of the introduction of 576 caravans, accommodation pods and service pods and a large amenity building into a landscape characterised by its open nature and absence of built structures.  The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3       The proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact upon acknowledged important matters relating to the biodiversity of the site contrary to policies NC1,NC5,NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.