Change of use of land from agriculture to a site for the accommodation of seasonal agricultural workers in mobile homes and demountable portable buildings stationed continuously on the site and not removed at the end of the agricultural season (retrospective).

Change of use of land from agriculture to a site for the accommodation of seasonal agricultural workers in mobile homes and demountable portable buildings stationed continuously on the site and not removed at the end of the agricultural season (retrospective).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council, Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application, and Mr. Gregory and Mr. Woodman spoke in support of the application; in accordance with the Council's Constitution, SO 5.11.2, the Chairman permitted five minutes speaking time for each speaker category.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, including:

¨             It was noted that the applicants had undertaken consultations with the local community but Councillor Guthrie was disappointed that this application did not go far enough to reduce the scale and impact of the accommodation.

¨             She did not feel that the need for seasonal workers at this site in such numbers and throughout the year had been demonstrated.

¨             Attention was drawn to the comments of Marden Parish Council, particularly comments about the similarity of this proposal to the refused scheme.

¨             Improvements to the quality of accommodation were to be commended but serious concerns remained about the proposals.

¨             Although it had been indicated that a 'whole farm' approach would be undertaken, development at the farm would be the subject of a number of planning applications.  

¨             Concerns were expressed about the impact on Brook Farmhouse and its setting.

¨             The Parish Council considered that the scheme failed to meet the functional needs test of PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

¨             Concerns were expressed about the access arrangements and impact on the local road infrastructure.

¨             Comments were made about the limited monitoring of the site in the past and the need for assurances regarding this going forward.

¨             Councillor Guthrie felt unable to support the application and proposed that it be refused as being contrary to PPS7, E9, E12, LA2 and LA3, due to the scale of the development and adverse impact on the village of Marden.

The Principal Planning Officer responded as follows:

·              Attention was drawn to the recommended conditions which would mitigate the impact of the development, such as lighting and landscaping, and it was suggested that additional condition could be included to limit the maximum number of workers at the site. 

·              The applicants had changed their approach to communication significantly; it was noted that fewer letters of objection had been received about this proposal compared to previous applications.

·              The Enforcement Team was aware of the site and would continue to monitor it.

·              The Traffic Manager had no objections subject to conditions.

·              Applications would be required for other developments at the site, this application was limited to provide accommodation for seasonal workers for a temporary period of five years.

A number of Members supported the Local Ward Members' comments.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted the need to support agricultural enterprises in the county but was concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the numbers employed at the site.  He commented that migrant workers were a vulnerable minority group and there could be wider implications if on-site facilities could not be provided.

In response to a question from Councillor PA Andrews, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the increase in mobile homes from 150 to 164 would enable a reduction in occupancy levels (to 4 per unit) and would reduce the number of 'pods' from 100 to 48.  Councillor Andrews recognised the need to accommodate workers but considered that temporary planning permission should be granted for a three-year period only and strictly limited to those people working at Brook Farm and nowhere else.

Councillor PJ Edwards welcomed the improvements to the company's communication practices but did not feel that the planning policy concerns had been overcome by this application.  It was noted that the continued use of the land as a caravan site had been refused in November 2007 but activity had not ceased on site and the current application had not been received until January 2009.  He questioned why more land was required for the accommodation if the number of workers was being reduced.  He said that the scale of the development was too great and felt unable to support the application.  He also commented on the need to consider appropriate enforcement action.

Councillor DW Greenow commented on the management changes at the company and, whilst acknowledging the concerns of local residents, noted the need to support thriving enterprises in the county.  He felt that a three-year permission might not provide sufficient time for the company to achieve its stated aims; the need for effective enforcement of conditions was emphasised.  He suggested that a restriction to prevent temporary workers from working elsewhere might generate more disturbances on occasion due to increased downtime activities.

Councillor RI Matthews noted other speakers' comments about the economic arguments but emphasised the need to consider the impact on local residents.

Councillor AM Toon felt that the size of the workforce needed to be clarified, felt that comments should have been sought from West Mercia Police, considered that a three-year permission would provide enough time for reorganisation, and commented on concerns about workers from Brook Farm being transported to other sites.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the next application on the agenda, in respect of fixed polytunnels [DCCW2009/0161/F below refers], would reduce the amount of traffic on the adjoining public highways, subject to planning permission being granted.

The Development Control Manager advised that the workforce needed to be close to the farmed area and alternatives, such as removing the mobile homes at the end of the agricultural season, were considered to be more disruptive than stationing the structures at the site continuously. 

Councillor AT Oliver suggested that the maximum number of workers accommodated at the site should be limited to 752 persons, i.e. 164 mobile homes x 4 occupants, plus 48 pods x 2 occupants.

Councillor DB Wilcox felt that the standard of accommodation needed to be improved and wished to see the complete phasing out of the pods; he suggested that this should form part of any planning permission granted.  He felt that the proposals suffered from a lack of a comprehensive masterplan under which the vision of the company could be stated clearly, targets could be set and progress monitored.  Comments were made about the potential impact of refusal on the local economy and Councillor Wilcox considered that a temporary three-year permission would provide the opportunity for the company to address the concerns identified.  He added that Marden needed to be satisfied with the longer-term plans for the site.

The Principal Planning Officer said that a three-year permission might be feasible and explained that some of the delays in the submission of the application resulted from the applicants changing their planning and legal consultants.

Councillor ACR Chappell commented on the retrospective nature of the application and noted that even a three-year permission was a long time for residents to endure if the development was unsuitable.

RESOLVED:

That

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

1.           Contrary to PPS7, E9, [Minute amended at the 24 June 2009 meeting of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee] E12, LA2 and LA3, due to the scale of the development and adverse impact on the village of Marden.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation 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.

[Note:

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 and Transportation given the reasons put forward by Members.]

Referring to minute 8 [DCCW2009/0160/F – Land at Brook Farm, Marden], the Democratic Services Officer advised that reference to policy E9 in the resolution should be omitted; this policy related to home-based businesses.