Application (part retrospective) to erect, take down and re-erect polytunnels, rotated around fields as required by the crops under cultivation (soft fruit).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Wyatt, representing Hentland Parish Council, and Mr Thomas, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Cockburn, the applicant, and Mr Moss, policy advisor for the National Farmers’ Union, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The case officer was congratulated for his thorough report
• The application was finely balanced between the needs of a large business and the requirement to protect an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• There was support for the application from a number of workers and local people.
• There had been a history of polytunnels being installed contrary to policy and without planning permission on the site in the past.
• A number of the polytunnels on the site had become ‘lawful through the passage of time’ as they had not been rotated as agreed in the 2003 voluntary SPD.
• The application proposed 25 Ha of covered tunnels through a structured rotation plan.
• Concerns were raised that the Council may have to ‘police’ the enterprise.
• Uncovered hoops and stands would remain when circumstances did not permit timely dismantling, this would have an impact on the AONB
• A large majority of respondents to the Kings Caple Parish Plan felt that polytunnels were causing harm to the landscape.
• A significant number of objections had been received in writing to the Council in respect of the application.
• Concerns were raised regarding the increase in HGV movements on the local roads.
• The development was not of greater national interest than the purposes of the AONB.
• The detriment to the landscape could not be mitigated through conditions.
• The application should be refused in accordance with policies LA1 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and guideline 2 of the Polytunnels Supplementary Planning Document 2008

Members opened the debate by noting the importance of the site inspection which had taken place at the site the previous day. The opening speakers voiced their concerns in respect of the application and paid particularly attention to the effect that the application would have on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; on the impact it would have on the nearby church; as well as the detrimental effect on the local highways infrastructure.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that he had not received a petition in respect of the application. He noted that a petition had been received for an earlier application on the site.

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that Garden Field had not been considered by the Inspector as polytunnels were erected on the site after the Inspector’s report. He also confirmed that an enforcement notice had been served on the applicants in respect of Garden Field. In response to an additional question, the Principal Planning Officer identified the lawful 9.68 hectares of polytunnels on the site map.

Other members of the Committee were of the opinion that the application should be approved. It was noted that the site only covered 0.76% of the AONB and that any concerns regarding biodiversity could be addressed through appropriate conditions. The view of some members was that the impact was not significant enough to warrant refusal under policies LA1 and LA2 of the Unitary Development Plan and that the application should be supported as there was a need to promote farming in rural areas. It was also noted that a number of jobs could be lost if the application was refused.

In response to a number of questions from a member of the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the majority of the 140 workers resided in lawful accommodation at Pennoxstone Court; that landscaping would take up to 5 years to mature; and that there were concerns regarding the ability of the hedgerows to mitigate the visual impact of the site from elevated positions.

A number of members noted the complex nature of the application and the difficulty in balancing the issues of whether the economic benefits of the business were capable of outweighing the impact on the AONB.

The Committee also noted that tourism revenue resulted in over £400m for the County and felt that this should be considered whilst making a decision.

The Planning Department was urged to monitor the site closely as concerns were raised by members regarding previous enforcement issues on the site as well as the possibility of any existing polytunnels that may have been in situ for a period of time nearing lawful usage. 9.86 Ha of polytunnels on the site were already deemed immune from enforcement due to their lawfulness through the passage of time. The applicants were also urged to downsize the operation in a bid to resolve some of the issues with neighbouring residents.

In response to comments raised by Members the Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste noted that the application was finely balanced. He advised members to consider the application on its merits and consider both national and local planning policies. He noted that a number of factors had been raised which were not material planning considerations, these included; the background and ethnicity of the workforce; the costs incurred in submitting the application; and the part retrospective nature of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, the local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He noted that Members had debated the application thoroughly and chose to make no new statement.

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation failed and then a motion to approve the application with suitable conditions to be delegated to Officers was carried.

RESOLVED

THAT officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to approve the application subject to suitable conditions.