For:      S & A Produce (UK) Limited per Antony Aspbury Associates 20 Park Lane Business Centre Park Lane Basford Nottingham NG6 0DW

 

Ward: Leominster South

The Principal Planning Officer explained that as with the previous application, this one was deferred on Counsel’s advice at a previous meeting in order to allow time to consider the additional representations received.  The report had been updated to take account of these matters.  He advised that the number of proposed units had been reduced in relation to the reduced area for polytunnels approved in the previous application.  He said that if the polytunnels were removed, the accommodation and related facilities would also be removed.  He explained where the units would be located on the land in relation to the polytunnels and the landscaping and screening that would be undertaken by the applicants.  He also advised that the Committee should take into consideration the cumulative impact of the two applications.  He also drew attention to proposed planning condition No.5 which would impose limitations on the number of units of accommodation which would total no more than 250 with 500 seasonal workers occupying them. He presented the following updates:

 

 

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

 

Correspondence received from Mr Greene as chairman of AVRA.  In relation to this application the relevant paragraphs read as follows:

 

change of use when works are clearly contemplated (DPDS letter March 2009). Not addressed or reported properly. It is clearly not enough to say the application is flawed and incomplete without saying somewhere in the report why DPDS/AVRA are wrong. Since Counsel has considered the earlier report, one would have expected his view on the change of use to have been reported.

 

Bias and Consultation – Failure to report comments adequately or to consider the issues raised in them – for instance the report on the nature of the application. Equally the comment made about the nature of application DCNC2009/0168 is repeated in relation to the polytunnels. The Council have clearly not understood or considered the objections.

 

Failure to Review the Search for Alternative Accommodation – This was an element of the Secretary of State decision in 2004 – that less objectionable alternatives for accommodation had not been properly considered. The applicant submitted a case that it had done so now and this is reported in the committee report on DCNC2009/0168 para 6.3 – 6.11. With the halving of the required workforce the exercise needs to be reviewed but this has not been done.

 

In relation to the proposed conditions Mr Greene comments as follows:

 

Condition 2 – inadequate. “Employed at Brierley Court Farm” is insufficiently precise – anybody living in accommodation could be considered to be employed at Brierley regardless of where they are working on the day.

 

Condition 3 – insufficiently precise “in the opinion of the local planning authority” gives a vetting procedure to the LPA contrary to para 32 of circular 11/95 and gives no indication to the applicant (or anybody else) when the use might be considered to have ceased. A proper definition of the polytunnel use ceasing is required in the condition, but this is just poor drafting and considerably more care is needed to include a proper definition at this stage.

 

Condition 5 – does not mean what the Council thinks it means, because of the ownership change. Another camp could be built on the fields not leased back and used by S & A Davis. It needs an entire rethink and includes in S106 obligation for the reasons set out in DPDS letter of Oct.

 

Condition 6 – This should have been sorted out in the 7/8 months the application has been running or before the application was submitted. There is no guarantee that the necessary works could be carried out on highway land or without needing other land.

 

Condition 7 – Is unenforceable. It is impossible to measure whether the run off has exceeded Greenfield rates + I% for climate change and circular 11/95 para 42 applies. Any resolution of surface water drainage is likely to require engineering operations as recognised in the condition. (PD rights will not apply because the land will not be in agricultural use and the works would be required for accommodation not agriculture). The Council cannot allow development without a planning application and following the regulations and the GDPO.

 

Condition 8 – The application is for change of use but refers to buildings, common areas and parking areas. The management plan would take out of the public domain, matters which should be considered in public as part of the application such as lighting and noise. Such conditions were considered in relation to the earlier appeals, but the proposal was rejected in part precisely because of these impacts.

 

Correspondence has also been received from AVRA’s legal advisors, Brook Street des Roches LLP.  In summary the points it raises in addition to those raised by Mr Greene are as follows:

 

·         The Council has not dealt with AVRA’s concerns that the application is flawed and incomplete.

·         The Council has inaccurately reported Leominster Town Council’s consultation response.  The author believes that the Town Council objected to the application due to a lack of information.

·         The comments made by Mr Greene in relation to conditions are replicated in this letter.

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

With regards to ownership issues, the schedules contained within the Unilateral Undertaking not only refer to first and second owners, but also successors in title.  Your officers are satisfied that this ensures that its requirements are incumbent upon any future owners.  Similarly the conditions are not specific to the applicant and therefore run with the land. 

 

The comments in relation to the conditions are noted and amendments/alterations are proposed below.

 

CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION

Condition 2 – after the word ‘employed’ add ‘in agriculture’

 

Condition 3 – after the application reference number remove the words ‘in the opinion of the local planning authority’

 

Condition 5 – to be re-worded to read as follows:

 

This planning permission relates solely to the land hatched blue on Drawing No 1856/29A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification, no other mobile homes, caravans or demountable portable buildings shall be placed on land within Brierley Court Farm as identified in blue on Drawing No 1856/29A. Those other mobile homes or demountable portable buildings currently located on land lying to the west of the application site (hatched blue) shall be permanently removed within 12 months of the date of this permission.

 

Condition 6, 7 and 8 remain unchanged

 

 

The following spoke In accordance with the Council’s criteria for public speaking: Councillor Westwood of Leominster Town Council;

 

Mr Sladen of AVRA spoke against the application; and

 

Mr Greg spoke in favour on behalf of the applicants.

 

Councillor PJ McCaul, a local Ward Member welcomed the reduction in numbers of the pods and agreed with the views of the Town Council that occupancy should be limited to two persons to each unit.  He drew attention to the considerable concerns about the welfare issues that had previously arisen for seasonal workers and trusted that these would be greatly improved under the new arrangements.  Councillor JP French, one of the Leominster Ward Members, also had concerns about the need to improve the welfare conditions for the workers.  She felt that this was important to address by the new owners and management.  There was also an issue about ensuring that the accommodation would not be suitable for children and that workers would need to be aware of this.  She also noted that the company had undertaken some advertising for workers locally but felt that more effort should be put into this by them.  She asked for consideration to be given to the pods being finished in a more suitable colour than yellow so that they would blend more into the landscape. 

 

Councillor Brigadier P Jones, another Ward Member also welcomed the reduction in units and also shared the concerns of other Members about the welfare issues and the problems that had arisen when workers were due to return home but had been obliged to leave their accommodation early.  Councillor RI Matthews was of the view that it was not appropriate to provide such temporary accommodation in the countryside and that workers should be accommodated in the nearby settlements and transported into the site. Councillor GFM Dawe opposed the proposal because he considered the accommodation to be inadequate for the workers.  Councillor KG Grumbley felt that the proposal would give an element of certainty that had not previously existed together with the ability of the Council to take any appropriate action to ensure that the conditions were complied with.

 

Having considered the various aspects of the application, the Committee decided that it should be approved together with the suggested changes to the conditions and the Council being provided with monthly details about the occupancy of the pods. 

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

Subject to the completion of the Unilateral Undertaking as submitted by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the provision of a Woodland Management Plan, an undertaking not to develop any Raised Crop Protection Structure or Polytunnel on any other land in their ownership at Brierley other than that applied for and appropriate linkages between the use of land for polytunnels and the use of land for worker’s accommodation the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers.

 

1.      F21 (Temporary permission (mobile home/caravan) ) (10 years)

 

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to retain effective control over the site and to re-assess the need for on-site workers accommodation and to conform with Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

2.       The occupation of the pods shall be limited to persons employed in agriculture at Brierley Court Farm, Brierley and shall be limited to providing accommodation for up to 500 workers at any one time, and subject to a maximum number of 250 units of accommodation at any one time.

 

         Reason: Planning permission has only been granted for the farming requirements of Brierley Court Farm and to conform to Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

3.      In the event that the polytunnel development approved by application (DCNC2009/0167/F) ceases to be operational the use of land hereby approved shall cease.  Subsequent to this and within 12 months of the local planning authority indicating to the applicant that the adjacent polytunnel land has ceased to be operational all buildings and structures on the site shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition.

 

         Reason: The local planning authority would not have granted planning permission for this use unless it was required in relation to the adjoining polytunnel development.

 

4.      Prior to the commencement of development, the colour of the accommodation pods and service units shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and so maintained.

 

         Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5.      This planning permission relates solely to the land hatched blue on Drawing No 1856/29A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification, no other mobile homes, caravans or demountable portable buildings shall be placed on land within Brierley Court Farm as identified in blue on Drawing No 1856/29A. Those other mobile homes or demountable portable buildings currently located on land lying to the west of the application site (hatched blue) shall be permanently removed within 12 months of the date of this permission.

 

         Reason: In order that the local planning authority can consider the visual impact of the addition of any further temporary seasonal workers accommodation in the interests of visual amenity and to conform with Policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

6.      No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted to and has been approved in writing by the LPA a survey of the B4361 between its junctions with the companies service access and Southern Avenue, Leominster.  The survey shall include details of:

 

        a) the alignment of the road

 

        b) the risks to pedestrial safety associated with the alignment of the road

 

        c) the measures necessary to overcome the identified risks to pedestrian safety.

 

         No units of accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the completion of the measures set out in c) above of this condition.  To this effect the applicant will supply to the Council details of both the completion of the works necessary for pedestrian safety and the date on which the first unit of accommodation is occupied.

 

7.      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 dated July 2009.  Details of the methods to be introduced for attenuation storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby approved is first commenced.

 

         Reason: To prevent flood risk and ensure sustainable disposal of surface water run-off and to conform with Policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

8.      Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved a management plan for the operation of use (to include maintenance of buildings and common areas, litter collection and disposal, the control of amplified music, lighting, car parking arrangements) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The operation and use of the site shall thereafter be in accordance with the approved management plan. 

 

         Reason: In the interests of amenity of nearby residents and to ensure compliance with Policy E13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

9.     Amended Plans 14 August 2009

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

 

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans