Proposed erection of polytunnels for strawberry table top production and the necessary infrastructure, including internal farm access tracks, a sustainable drainage scheme with attenuation ponds, seasonal worker accommodation and facilities, fruit chiller, cold store and loading bay with landscaping and environmental enhancement measures.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of polytunnels for strawberry table top production and the necessary infrastructure, including internal farm access tracks, a sustainable drainage scheme with attenuation ponds, seasonal worker accommodation and facilities, fruit chiller, cold store and loading bay with landscaping and environmental enhancement measures.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

She highlighted a correction that the proposed polytunnels would cover 35.06 hectares rather than 37.02 hectares as set out in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Blackmore of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Williams spoke in objection on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and local residents.  Mr G Leeds, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor JG Lester, spoke on the application.  He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had held a comprehensive consultation event.

·        Polytunnels were a necessary part of modern soft fruit production.  The application did have economic benefits.  However, these had to be weighed against the negative impacts on the local community.

·        There had been 17 letters of support.  However, there had been objections from the Parish Council, two neighbouring parish councils, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, a petition, and over 200 individual letters of objection.  This demonstrated the local community was opposed to the application.

·        There was concern about the impact on the highway network.  The proposal would create 23 full time jobs and work for over 300 temporary workers.  Even though the applicant proposed to provide buses to transport agricultural workers to amenities there would be a significant impact on a narrow lane currently used by a few households.

·        The size and width of the polytunnels was considerable and would have a significant impact.  They would be in place for some 9 1/2 months.  They would use 30 hectares of farmland.

·        The Landscape Officer, as set out at paragraphs 4.6 and 6.53 of the report, had concluded that the impact of the development would not be significant.  This was based on the view that polytunnels and caravans were temporary in nature and could be removed.  However, a judgment on whether something was temporary or not should be based on how long it would be in place, not on how easy it was to remove it.  There was no time limit on the proposed operation.  Insufficient weight had been given to the adverse impact the Polytunnels would have on the environment.

·        In addition insufficient weight had been given to the impact of the presence of 330 seasonal workers whose accommodation was in proximity to existing residents.  However sound the management arrangements the applicant put in place there would be an impact.

·        The Ocle Pychard Neighbourhood Development Plan could be afforded significant weight.   The proposal was contrary to policy OPG1 and could not be considered sustainable development given the need to transport some 300 people by bus to Hereford to shop.

·        It was also contrary to policy OPG11. The proposal would cover over 30 hectares with polytunnels.  This could not be considered to protect, conserve or enhance the natural environment.  It also did not meet the requirements of OPG 13

·        It did not comply with the requirement in Core Strategy Policy RA6 that developments should be commensurate with their location and setting and not have unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents. 

·        He acknowledged the need for polytunnels and seasonal workers to realise the economic benefits of soft fruit production.  However, the scale of the proposal, located in the heart of Ocle Pychard, would have an adverse effect on the whole local community and was unacceptable to it.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        There would be an economic benefit.  However, there would also be a negative impact on the landscape with the change from fields being used for dairy and arable farming to land covered by polytunnels.

·        A key consideration was the extent to which the application could be considered to comply with Policy RA6.

·        The investment the applicant had to make was considerable and the scale of the development was likely to be commensurate with that.

·        The provision of mature screening would be important. It would also be beneficial to wildlife and horse riders if a suitable hedgerow could be provided along the field side of the bridleway where it passed through the polytunnels.  It was requested that this be conditioned.

·        The scale of the development was too large and its impact was significant. A Member observed that permission had, however, been given for larger developments of this nature.

·        The weight of local objection was noted and the reasons for Ocle Pychard Group Parish Council’s objection as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report were highlighted.

·        The applicant had sought to reduce the visual impact.

·        The proposal in an agricultural area was consistent with policy.

·        There was no need to use grade 2 agricultural land for the growing method proposed.

·        Reservations were expressed about the quality of accommodation to be provided for the seasonal workers to live in for several months.

·        Concern was expressed about the possible impact on tourism.

·        In terms of the highway impact account needed to be taken of the use that workers would make of taxies.

·        Whilst there were references to the proposal being temporary, there was no time limit on the development 

·        The economic benefit was uncertain and the proposal clearly failed to provide social and economic benefits. A number of appeals, locally and nationally, against refusal of permission for developments of this nature had been dismissed by inspectors.  One inspector had commented that the planning system was there to protect the public rather than private interests.  It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to paragraphs 75 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework, CS policies SS6 RA3, RA6, LD1, E1 and E4, and OPG NDP policies 1, 7, 11 and 13.

In response to questions raised the PPO commented:

·        The feasibility of increasing the width of the public right of way and bridleway governed by condition 22 would need to be investigated if Members wished this to be pursued.

·        She was not aware that there had been any progress in developing other colours of plastic for use on the polytunnels and did not know of any instances of such use in the county.

·        Additional planting could be considered within the recommended condition in relation to a landscaping scheme.

·        The application had been reduced in scale from the original proposal.  Officers considered that it did meet the requirements of policy RA6.

·        Water quality monitoring would be undertaken by the applicant and considered by the council and the River Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

·        Condition 13 provided for the caravans and polytunnels to be removed in certain circumstances confirming their temporary status.

·        She clarified the basis on which a reservoir on the site, referred to at paragraph 3.2 of the report, had received planning approval. The Lead Development Manager commented that this matter did not form part of the application.

The Lead Development Manager commented that appeal decisions in the county had been quite supportive of the development of polytunnels and their economic benefits and this had been given weight in a number of previous cases in the county. He acknowledged the views expressed by several members that the adverse social and economic benefits outweighed the economic benefits of the application before them.  However, he cautioned, that there were no objections to the proposal from officers and the Landscape Officer had commented that she considered the impact on the landscape to be moderate adverse.  Policy grounds for refusal had been identified in the debate.  However, he noted that some policies within the OGP NDP could be quoted in support of the application and the matter had to be considered in the round.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He did not agree with the view that the impact of the proposal was minimal.  He considered that more weight should be given to this aspect of the proposal and this approach would be in line with the relevant policies.  The sheer scale of the proposal was not commensurate with the local setting as those policies indicated a proposal of this nature should be.

A motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to paragraphs 75 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework, CS policies SS6 RA3, RA6, LD1, E1 and E4, and OPG NDP policies 1, 7, 11 and 13.was lost on the Chairperson’s casting vote.

Councillor Baker proposed and Councillor Shaw seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried on the Chairperson’s casting vote there having been 4 votes in favour, 4 against and 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

2.         B01 Development in accordance with approved plans

 

            Pre-Commencement Conditions

 

3.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

4.         G14 Landscape management plan

 

5.         The recommendations for species and habitat enhancements set out in the ecologist’s report from Chris Seabridge and Associates dated July 2018 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme shall be carried out as approved.  A working method statement for any protected species present together with an enhancement plan integrated with the landscaping scheme should be submitted to the local planning authority in writing prior to any works commencing on site.  The plan shall be implemented as approved.

 

            An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

            Reasons: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and 2012 amendment).

 

            To comply Herefordshire Council’s Policies LD2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity, LD3 Green Infrastructure of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 – 2031 and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

6          Prior to the first occupation of any of the caravans hereby approved a 'Site Management Plan' which clearly sets out the arrangements for the use and occupation of the development hereby approved (to include amongst other issues; provision of recreation facilities, contact details and address of caravan site manager,  type and position of the accommodation units, the maintenance of buildings and common areas, litter collection and disposal, recreation and leisure provision including 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 PolicySD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031

 

7          No development approved by this permission shall be commenced/occupied until a the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 

              1.       Detailed drawings of proposed surface water attenuation features, wetlands and outfall structures;

2.       Demonstration that an appropriate Panel Engineer has been consulted in the design of proposed attenuation features with capacity greater than 10,000m3 set above the natural level of the surrounding land; and assessment of potential failure of above-ground attenuation features, including assessment of residual risks to downstream receptors, and proposed mitigation and management measures;

3.       Detailed drawing demonstrating the management of surface water runoff during events that may temporarily exceed the capacity of the drainage system, including conveyance systems;

4.       Detailed drawings of the foul water drainage strategy showing how foul water from the development will be disposed of and illustrating the location of key drainage features;

5.       If infiltration of foul water is proposed to be discharge to the ground, infiltration rates at the location(s) and proposed depth(s) of any proposed foul water drainage fields, undertaken in accordance with BS6297 and Building Regulations Part H;

6.       Demonstration that the risk of water backing up the surface water drainage system from any proposed outfall has been considered and, if necessary, how this risk will be managed without increasing flood risk to the site or to people, property and infrastructure elsewhere, noting that this also includes failure of flap valves;

 

            The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development here by approved and maintained throughout the life time of the development hereby approved.

 

            Reason: in order to secure satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided and to comply with Polices SD3 and SD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

8          E01 Site investigation - archaeology - It would be secured via ‘programme of work’.

 

9          I33 External lighting

 

10        H03 Visibility splays – Highways Farm Access

 

11        H05 Access gates

 

            Restrictive conditions

 

12.       In the event that the polytunnel development hereby approved in the opinion of the local planning authority ceases to be functionally used, the polytunnels and all associated infrastructure shall be removed from the site within 9 months of the local planning authority indicating to the applicant that the polytunnels have ceased to be operational the land restored to its former condition.

 

            Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to comply with policy LA1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011- 2031

 

13        In the event that the polytunnel development hereby approved in the opinion of the local planning authority ceases to be functionally used, the use of the land to house seasonal workers accommodation shall also cease.  Subsequent to this and within 12 months of the local planning authority indicating to the applicant that the polytunnels have ceased to be operational all units of accommodation including ancillary buildings or 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 support of the polytunnel development hereby approved  as it would have been contrary to policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011- 2031.

 

14        The occupation of the accommodation hereby permitted shall be limited solely to persons employed by Withers Farm Ltd to work on land at Ocle Pychard, and shall be limited to providing accommodation for no more than 330 workers at any one time, and subject to a maximum number of 72 static caravans stationed on the land at any one time. For the avoidance of doubt the development herby permitted shall not at any time be occupied as a sole or principal residency by any individual or group of individuals.

 

            Reason: Planning permission has only been granted having consideration for the needs of the proposed agricultural enterprise to operate at Lodge Farm and Highway Farm in Ocle Prychard, and to maintain control over the scale of accommodation provided in order to clarify the terms of this planning permission to conform with Policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031.

 

15        Notwithstanding the provisions 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 caravans or any other form of habitable accommodation shall at any time be placed on the land which is under the control and/or ownership of the applicant as defined by drawing no. PL – 01  Land Ownership Plan, other than the 72 identified on PL-15 (Lodge Farm Landscaping details – dated 31-10-18)

 

            Reason: In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission and to maintain control over the scale of accommodation provided in the interests of visual and residential amenity to conform with the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

16        The seasonal polytunnels hereby permitted shown on drawing PL – 04A Rev 2 (dated 16-5-2018) in fields A12, A11, A8, A3, A2 and A1 shall only be covered in polythene between 1st February and 15st November in any calendar year, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

            Reason: To ensure that the polytunnels hereby permitted are not covered in polythene outside the growing periods, thus ensuring that the visual impact is reduced in accordance with policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan, Guideline 6 of the adopted Polytunnel Supplementary Planning Document and having regard to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

17        Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, none of the seasonal polytunnel in fields A12, A11, A8, A3, A2, and A1 shall exceed more than 4.5. metres in height above existing ground level.  No year round polytunnel in fields A10, A7, A5, A4, A1 and A2 shall exceed 5.2metres in height above the existing ground level.

 

            Reason: To control the impact of the development within the landscape in accordance with policy LA2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

           

18.       A buffer zone shall be installed around T5 of 15m positioned in field A12  to ensure the development does not detrimentally affect the tree condition and shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

 

            Reason

            To comply with part 11 National Planning Policy Framework recommendations – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.

 

19        Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following documents and plan: Agricultural Development at Ocle Pychard Ecological Enhancement & Resource Protection Policy May 2018.

 

            Reason

            For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with Government guidance and National Planning Policy Framework.

 

20.       Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Fruit Traffic Management Plan dated December 2018 unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: In order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties so as to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy ad the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

21.       G02 – Retention of existing trees and hedgerows

           

22.       To ensure the public right of way and bridlepath is not obstructed and to conform with the requirements of Policy MT1 there shall be no polytunnel erected within 2 metres of the centre line of any public right of way and no polytunnel sited within 3 metres of the centre line of the bridleway.

 

            Reason: To ensure that that the enjoyment of the PROW and Bridelpath is not harmed and to conform with the requirement of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework

 

 

23.       Prior to the occupation of any of the seasonal workers caravans hereby permitted, detailed plans and an amenity strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which shall include, but not be limited to the following;

·        Internal arrangement of the amenity building,

·        Construction details required, which should also include noise attenuation measures ;

·        The hours of use which the employees will be able to access the facilities; and

·        Details of any external lighting required to amenity area.

 

            The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the approved plans and details.

 

            Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

            The buildings forms an integral part of the visual environment and this condition is imposed to ensure that the development conforms preserves and conforms to the requirements of Polices SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

           

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

 

2.         HN01 – Mud on Highway

 

3.         HN04 – Private Apparatus within Highway

 

4.         HN05 -  Works within the Highway

 

5.         HN10 – No drainage to discharge to Highway

 

6.         The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments received by the Lugg Drainage board and the requirements of the Bye Laws and S15 OF THE Land Drainage Act 1991 to leave a permanent 9 metre access strip along the Little Lugg, Kymin Section, Lateral No. 2 within the development site, for watercourse maintenance purposes. The written consent of the Board must be obtained for any structure or tree planting within 9m of any Board controlled watercourse measured from the top of the bank or on the landward side of any embankment. Clear unimpeded access for heavy plant is required to and throughout the maintenance area. Any works must not compromise the stability of the bank or create a gradient of more than 1:20 towards the watercourse

 

7.         HN02 Public rights of way affected

 

8.         N11C General Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

 

9.         N18 European Protected Species

 

10        The applicants are reminded that they are required to completed an application for Ordinary Watercourse Consent for any proposed structures within an ordinary watercourse or works within 8m of an ordinary watercourse

 

11        In relation to condition 23 above, the applicants are advised that should the Local Planning Authority form the opinion that the proposed alterations and chances are of such a scale and form that they alter the character and appearance of the building then a separate planning application could be required.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 11.35am – 11.50 am)