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

The application was refused in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. During the presentation Members were given information regarding the legal background of the application including details of the judicial review; a description of the colour plan that they had been provided with which had details of the lawful polytunnels; a detailed description of each of the fields including photographs and plans as well as an update in respect of policy issues regarding the application. At the end of his presentation the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the application would result in a large scale development in the AONB and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Beckett, representing Kings Caple Parish Council; and Mr Williams, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Cockburn, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Head of Neighbouring Planning addressed the Committee in reference to the judicial review lodged by a local resident subsequent to the application being granted in May 2011. He advised that the reasons initially given for the judicial review were that the Council had failed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment and UDP Policy LA1, that the Council had taken into account irrelevant issues, and that there had been a failure to declare relevant interests. He added that a second judicial review was also lodged in respect of enforcement issues. After the judicial review’s had been lodged the Council were criticised in a separate case for not having provided clear reasons for approving an application and at this stage the same reason was sought to be added to the existing judicial review for Pennoxstone Court. The Council took advice which was that there was a strong chance that the court would uphold this reason. Consequently the Council consented to the permission being quashed and this took place on 3 September 2012 with the decision being on the grounds that the Council had failed to supply sufficient reasons for approving the application. In summing up the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Members were not bound by the previous decision, however they needed to be clear in how they reached their decision and to give clear reasons in the event that planning permission was granted.

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 application was contentious and required a balanced decision taking into account the needs of the business and the impact on the Lower Wye Valley AONB.

·         The application was approved, contrary to recommendation, by one vote at the October 2010 meeting.

·         The application had received representations both in support and in objection.

·         The impact on the AONB was not acceptable and the application should be refused.

·         There had been a number of complaints to the Council’s Enforcement Team regarding breaches of planning conditions at the site. These complaints related to the failure to remove the Spanish polytunnel frames from Front Meadow; the failure to comply with conditions regarding screening and gap filling; the delay in setting up, and the subsequent disbanding of, the community liaison group; and polytunnels being erected outside of the approved times.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the applicant’s proposal to erect the polytunnel frames whilst the existing polytunnels were still in situ.

·         The visual impact should not be based on the entire Wye Valley AONB but on the local AONB Landscape Management Zone, LMZ05 Kings Caple Lowlands.

·         If the application was scaled up to the United Kingdom, the area covered by polytunnels would equate to an area larger than Greater Manchester.

·         The application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy LA1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         The Economic Impact Statement did not provide a balanced view.

·         The application did not meet the three requirements, namely economic, social and environmental.

·         Members had received an email from the applicant making reference to acts of intimidation. Any acts of intimidation could not be condoned, although it should be noted that police action had been commenced regarding harassment and intimidation to a local resident by a partner of Pennoxstone Court.

·         The Core Strategy, although not yet adopted, sought to maintain and enhance the County.

·         The 2011 Steam report stated that income from tourism was approximately £467,000,000.

Councillor RB Hamilton, the neighbouring ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was contentious and had resulted in a number of objections from residents of the Pontrilas Ward.

·         The determination of the application should focus on the main planning policy issues as set out in the officer’s report, namely UDP Policy LA1 and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF regarding the impact of the application on the Wye Valley AONB.

·         Out of the 38 AONB’s in England and Wales, 2 were located in Herefordshire, with their care entrusted to local authorities, community groups and the individuals who live and work within them.

·         AONB’s represent 18% of the finest countryside in England and Wales.

·         The application fails to meet the requirements as set out in UDP Policy LA1.

·         The application could also have an adverse impact on tourism within the area.

·         Members witnessed the narrow roads on the site visit, these were not suitable for large HGV’s.

·         Polytunnels were an important part of modern farming but in this case their impact on the AONB was too significant.

Prior to the debate the Chairman wished it to be put on record that recent comments attributed to him in the Ross Gazette regarding polytunnels and the residents of Kings Caple were not correct.

The Committee opened the debate with a Member voicing his concerns in respect of the application.  He gave a background to his close working with growers in formulating a policy for polytunnels when he was previously the Cabinet Member for Environment. He advised the Committee that he had concerns regarding the scale of the proposal and the impact it could have on the AONB; concerns regarding the previous compliance in respect of planning conditions on the site as well as concerns regarding ineffectual planting of screening on the site.

Another Member stated that he was fully in support of the use of polytunnels in modern farming however he had concerns in respect of the intensity of the polytunnels in such a sensitive area in the heart of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. He voiced his concerns regarding the breakdown in communication between the applicant, the local residents and the parish council and advised all parties that means of communication would need to be reinstated for the good of the local community.

Members continued to discuss the application and noted that the lawful polytunnels on the site had become lawful as they had been in situ over a period of time without enforcement action being taken. They thanked the local residents and the parish council for their efforts in respect of the matter and reiterated the need for all parties to work together in the future for the benefit of all involved.

A number of Members stated that they appreciated the need for polytunnels in modern soft fruit farming but that this need had to be weighed up against the visual impact, in this case, in a sensitive location within the Wye Valley AONB they considered that protecting the landscape outweighed the need for the polytunnels.

Members made reference to a similar situation elsewhere in the County and advised that a successful liaison group had been set up there which had eliminated the majority of problems at the site over a period of time. Members considered that all parties involved should note the success of the liaison group and aim to set up a similar group at Pennoxstone Court.

Councillors Durkin and Hamilton were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and requested that the application be refused.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning addressed the Committee before the vote and advised that whilst there had been reference made to communication issues and personalities, it was important for Members to focus their attention in making their decision solely upon material planning considerations

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         Having regard to Policies LA1 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007, Guideline 2 of the Polytunnel Supplementary Planning Document 2008, and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF, the proposal is considered unacceptable.  The scale of the development is large in relation to the sensitive landscape of the Kings Caple spur and has a negative visual impact from surrounding elevated areas.  The dominance of the polytunnel coverage across this spur of land is a significant detraction from the natural beauty of the local landscape as part of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

With specific regard to Unitary Development Plan Policy LA1 it is concluded that the development is not small-scale, would adversely affect the intrinsic natural beauty of the landscape, is not necessary to facilitate the economic and social well-being of the designated area and the community and does not enhance the quality of the landscape or biodiversity.  It is not demonstrated that the proposal is in the greater national interest than the purpose of the AONB designation and the impact is not capable of adequate mitigation.  It is not demonstrated, therefore, that the proposal accords with the stated exceptions to the presumption against large-scale development within the AONB.

The acknowledged contribution of the business to the local economy is not considered to outweigh the identified harm to the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.