Retention of polytunnels in connection with raised-bed strawberry production.

Retention of polytunnels in connection with raised-bed strawberry production.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Public Rights of Way Manager had confirmed that the polytunnels were constructed in such a way as to avoid nearby footpaths and that the Conservation Manager – Landscape had withdrawn initial concerns.  The receipt of two additional letters of objection were reported and summarised.

In response to a question, the Chairman reported that Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, was too ill to attend the meeting but had expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the locality.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council, Mr. Gilbert spoke against the application and Mr. Hays spoke in support of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had not yet provided final comments on the proposal, including matters related to water abstraction, and therefore the recommendation remained the same as published in the report.

Councillor R.I. Matthews noted the significant level of objections that this proposal had generated, both from the Parish Council and from local residents.  He felt that the development would have a detrimental and lasting impact on the landscape, would have a deleterious impact on tourism and the local economy, might set an indefensible precedent and could have a drastic effect on the well-being of local residents.  Whilst acknowledging the need to support rural enterprises, he felt duty-bound to protect the wider landscape and commented that this proposal would have a serious impact on the visual amenities of the area.  Therefore, he proposed refusal on the grounds that the proposal would have a severe and detrimental impact on the local landscape and on the character and setting of Marden.

The Development Control Manager acknowledged that a judgement had to be made on the landscape impact but emphasised that each application had to be considered on its own merits and that no decision on this application would predetermine any other applications in the future.  It was noted that the arguments in relation to tourism could be difficult to sustain given the specific application before Members.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the number of representations received was not in itself a determining factor as each application had to be considered on the material planning considerations identified.  He commented that landscape impact, in view of Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, was a material planning consideration.

For the benefit of the public present, Councillor P.J. Edwards explained the targets that the Authority was required to meet by Government for the determination of planning applications.  Councillor Edwards noted that the comments of the Environment Agency would have a major bearing on the acceptability or otherwise of the application and he expressed concern that a proper response had not yet been received.  He commented that the impact of polytunnels on the landscape had been relatively well managed by the Council’s Code of Practice for the Use of Polytunnels [hereafter ‘Code of Practice’] but he expressed concern about the permanent retention of polytunnels in this location and in perpetuity. 

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson expressed concerns about the noise nuisance experienced by occupiers of nearby properties and the impact on nearby bridleways and footpaths.

Councillor R.M. Wilson commented that he shared concerns about the abstraction of water and the lack of comment from the Environment Agency.  He also questioned whether the applicant could revert to the use of temporary polytunnels under the Code of Practice if this application was refused.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the current Code of Practice would permit the return of temporary polytunnels in two year’s time.

In response to questions, the Sub-Committee was advised that: the recommended conditions would ensure the retention and maintenance of hedgerows; the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards had no objections to the proposal; and the visual impact of the proposal from public viewpoints, including footpaths and bridleways, were material considerations.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton felt that the emotive response to such proposals was in part based on residents’ fears about the proliferation of polytunnels and where they might turn up next.  Councillor Mrs. Pemberton expressed concerns about the permanent retention of polytunnels in this location.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews acknowledged that agriculture had changed dramatically in recent years, in part due to the success of soft fruit growing, but expressed concerns about water extraction and felt that the application should be deferred until this aspect was clarified.

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon commented that the intensification of polytunnel use was almost on an industrial scale and had a negative impact on rural character; she added that there might be better locations for such activity.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox drew attention to the comment of the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards that “this proposal is unlikely to cause an increase in nuisance (noise, dust, etc.) to residents of the locality”.  Councillor Wilcox noted that the retrospective nature of the application made it difficult to establish an accurate baseline from which such judgements could be made and he felt that the comments did not give the impression that an accurate assessment had been made.  He recognised the economic arguments but felt that this did not justify the significant visual impact of the proposal.

In response to the suggestion that consideration of the application should be deferred pending the comments of the Environment Agency, the Development Control Manager advised that the Sub-Committee was entitled to make a judgement based on landscape impact; he added that any objection from the Environment Agency could be incorporated into the refusal reasons and would be considered upon receipt of the awaited response.

RESOLVED:

That   (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason 2 set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services NB. Reason 1 has been added following receipt of the response from the Environment Agency) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1. The Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application is not considered to be sound and fails to provide sufficient information to ensure that the proposed trickle irrigation system will not have a significant impact on the water environment of the River Lugg, a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S2, S7, DR4, DR6, NC1, NC2 and NC3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

2. The proposal is considered unacceptable due to its visual impact on the landscape quality of the area and in particular the impact on the setting of the village of Marden.  Accordingly the development is contrary to Policies S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR4, DR13, E6, E10, E13, LA2 and LA3 of the Herefordshire Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and the main objectives of PPS7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas'.

(ii)  If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services.]