Application (part retrospective) to erect fixed (non rotating) Spanish polytunnels over arable (soft fruit) crops grown on table tops.

Application (part retrospective) to erect fixed (non rotating) Spanish polytunnels over arable (soft fruit) crops grown on table tops.

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·        Land Drainage advice had been received which confirmed that the polytunnels were believed to have little effect on any increase in rainfall runoff and velocity of the flow due to the rainfall management on the site.

·        It was reported that this advice was compatible with the information received from the Environment Agency and the River Lugg Land Drainage Board.

 

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, made a number comments, including:

¨             Consultation by the company had raised expectations that there would be a substantial reduction in the land covered by polytunnels and local residents were disappointed with this application.

¨             Marden Parish Council had identified that the site area proposed was 40% larger than that refused on appeal and considered that the proposed scheme would have a considerable impact on the character and environment of the village.

¨             The letters of objection had highlighted the incongruous visual impact of the polytunnels which could not be mitigated adequately through landscaping.

¨             Reference was made to PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and the need to ensure that the quality and character of the countryside was protected and, where possible, enhanced.

¨             Councillor Guthrie considered that the application should be refused as being contrary to E8, LA2, LA3, S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR4, E6, E10 and E13, due to the unacceptable visual impact and adverse impact of the scale of the development on the character of the area.

 

Councillor DW Greenow sympathised with views of local residents but noted that the removal of particular fields from the previously dismissed appeal had reduced visual impact and had moved the activities of the operation further away from the village.

 

Councillor AT Oliver commented on the need to consider the application on planning grounds and noted the benefits of table-top production, particularly in terms of production efficiency and opportunities to create wildlife corridors.  The importance of protecting the countryside was acknowledged but the need for a working and sustainable rural economy was also emphasised.

 

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the refusal of the previous application [DCCW2009/0160/F above] could have an impact on this proposal.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell commented that new farming techniques often caused disruption to communities when introduced but the wider economic benefits also had to be taken into consideration.  He also made comments about retrospective planning applications and the need for representations to focus on planning matters.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the scale and the intensity of the proposal were unacceptable, particularly since the area to be covered was greater than that refused on appeal.  He also commented on the potential impact on the highway network and noted that the possible removal of unauthorised polytunnels elsewhere was not directly relevant to the determination of this application.

 

In response to questions from Councillor AM Toon, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted the areas of unauthorised polytunnels which would need to be removed and advised that a permission for five years, rather than the recommended ten years, was not considered reasonable given the investment costs required to enable the development.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained the Inspector's comments in respect of the dismissed appeal and the relevance to this application.  The Development Control Manager highlighted the policy considerations and why officers did not consider the harm to be such that planning permission should be refused.

 

Councillor Guthrie re-iterated local concerns about the need to protect the countryside and the cumulative impact of development at Brook Farm on the village of Marden.

 

Councillor RI Matthews noted that, as he had had not been present for the whole of presentation and discussion on the application, he was unable to vote on this item; the Herefordshire Council Code of Conduct for Members and Officers Dealing with Planning Matters, paragraph 37 refers.

 

A motion to refuse the application failed and the resolution below was then agreed.

 

RESOLUTION:

 

That temporary planning permission shall be granted for a period of 10 years subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      F20 (Temporary permission and reinstatement of land).

 

         Reason: In order to clarify the terms under which this permission is granted and in accordance with Policies DR1, LA4 and E13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

2.      The polythene shall be removed by 31st October each year and not replaced until or after 1st March in the following year unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

3.      G04 (Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1 and LA5 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

4.      G05 (Pre-development tree work).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1 and LA5 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5.      G11 (Landscaping scheme - implementation) – April 2010.

 

Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policy LA6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

6.      Within three months of the date of this decision, a full habitat management and enhancement scheme (based upon the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan dated December 2008) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval.  This shall include mitigation and protection measures for protected species and in particular great crested newts.  The scheme shall be implemented as approved and continued thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: To ensure the protection of European and nationally designated sites and to comply with Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policies NC2 and NC3.

 

         To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & C) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policies NC1, NC5, NC6 and NC7 of Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

 

         To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Policies NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and the NERC Act 2006.

 

7.      To ensure the footpaths and bridleways remain unobstructed appropriate signage, details of which shall first be submitted for approval in writing of the local planning authority, shall be placed in positions to be agreed and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the local planning authority while polytunnels remain on the land.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the Public Rights of Way.

 

8.      No polytunnels shall be erected within 2 metres of the centre line of a public right of way or 3 metres in the case of a bridleway.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the Public Right of Way in accordance with Policy T6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

9.      The Public Right of Way shall be maintained strictly in accordance with the submitted drawings L09A, L09B and L09C unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the Public Right of Way in accordance with Policy T6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

10.    All surface water shall be limited to the relevant Greenfield run-off rate, with attenuation for the 1% plus climate change storm event, in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (Ref:P:\SAD multi (5540)) Polytunnels\Marden Nove 08\FRA vO.1doc), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: To prevent flood risk and ensure sustainable disposal of surface water run-off.

 

11.    H30 (Travel Plans).

 

         Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in combination with a scheme aimed at promoting the use of a range of sustainable transport initiatives and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

 

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

 

[Note:

 

At the conclusion of the item, Councillor ACR Chappell suggested a motion to request the Secretary of State to review the policy of 'retrospective' planning applications.  The Legal Practice Manager commented that policy issues were outside the remit of this Sub-Committee and suggested that the motion be referred to the Head of Planning and Transportation with a view to a report being made to the Planning Committee or another appropriate body.]