REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 12 APRIL
2002
|
|
TCP/03752/D
P/01007/01 Parish/Name: Calbourne Registration Date:
21/06/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer:
Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Construction of 20 hi-tech
hydroganic growing tunnel units, associated office and staff blocks; 2 cold
stores; balancing lake, filtration pump station; up-grading of access track,
formation of parking area (revised plans) Three Gates Farm, Porchfield Road,
Shalfleet, Newport, PO30 |
Application relates to area of land of approximately 3
hectares forming part of Three Gates Farm holding, totalling approximately 160
hectares. The majority of farm holding
lies on north side of the A3054 Yarmouth road east of Shalfleet.
Site is accessed over concrete road between the
Yarmouth road and farm buildings where road to application site continues as
unmade track. Boundaries of field are
defined by hedgerows and trees with areas of copse adjacent north eastern
boundary, in southern corner of site and on opposite side of track serving
application site.
Site is laid to grass with gradual fall in north
easterly direction with maximum fall of approximately 4 metres from one side of
site to the other.
Relevant History
None.
Original submission sought planning permission for
construction of twenty four high-tech hydroganic growing tunnel units,
associated office and staff blocks, two cold stores and one dry store,
balancing lake, filtration pump station, upgrading of access track and
formation of parking area. Balancing
lake was shown on submitted plans to be located on south western side of the
site, between growing tunnels and track providing access to site.
Concern was expressed that proposal did not take
account of trees within site and, in particular, access to the development and
formation of parking area would result in loss of area of trees at southern end
of site, adjacent south western boundary.
In addition, submitted plans did not reflect changes in level across the
site.
Following discussions and exchange of correspondence
between the Authority and the applicants agent, further plans were received
showing revised layout, reducing number of growing tunnels from twenty four to
twenty, omitting dry store and relocating filtration pump station and balancing
lake from south western to north eastern side of site. One important alteration involved relocation
of access to site further to north west along access track and alterations to
layout of parking area, avoiding area of trees and existing pond. In addition, submitted plans included
sections through site indicating that construction of growing tunnels would
involve a cut and fill operation, with the buildings dug in on south western
side of site and built up on north eastern side.
Application was accompanied by letter providing
information in support of proposal in which applicants agent provides details
of existing farm activities, details of the processes involved in the proposed
horticultural use and consideration of relevant policies of the Unitary
Development Plan. A copy of this letter
is attached to this report as an appendix.
He advises that the growing system employed by his clients is an
intensive growing technique which uses sterile growing units for the
cultivation of fruit and vegetables in a soil-less medium. The process operates
regardless of variations in climate and soil fertility and is a minimal user of
water, most of which is recycled. The
harvesting of crops is carried out throughout the year as the climate
controlled system means that there is no seasonality of the output. It is also understood that surface water
from the development is directed into the balancing lake and recycled and used
in the irrigation of the crops.
Application was also accompanied by report produced by
applicants providing more detailed information on the growing technique and
marketing strategy. This report
explains that the growing tunnels are manufactured from a polycarbonate double
layer skin typically erected on a 150mm reinforced concrete base with a central
drainage system to accommodate any crop water residue which is then recycled
through the system. The fabrication
will absorb 86% of natural light and each growing room would be equipped with a
sodium lighting system designed to move in order to simulate the suns cycle to
prevent plants growing elongated as they strive to reach the light. Information in the report indicates that the
lighting system would mainly be used in winter months when light sensors detect
a low lux factor in daylight hours.
Applicants have also confirmed that site office, staff
amenity block and pump filtration building would be clad to external elevations
with horizontal timber boarding stained black under a concrete tile roof. The cold stores would be clad to external
elevations and roof with profile metal sheeting coloured green and white respectively.
Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy
Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside
provides guidance on land use planning in rural areas. The Guidance Note advises that the guiding
principle in the countryside is that development should both benefit economic
activity and maintain or enhance the environment. It acknowledges that rural areas can accommodate many forms of
development without detriment, if the location and design of development is handled
sensitively.
The Government recognise that farming continues to
make a significant contribution to the economy of rural areas but that
increasingly, diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the
continuing viability of many farm businesses.
Therefore, Local Planning Authorities are advised that they should be
supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes
that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.
Annex C to the PPG provides advice on development
related to agriculture and to farm diversification, including glasshouse
development and horticultural operations.
Horticulture is included in the definition of agriculture and is dealt
with under a heading of Development Related to Agriculture rather than Farm
Diversification. The PPG acknowledges
that the UK faces intense competition from overseas growers and that it is
important that the horticultural industry is not held back by over restrictive
approaches to developments which could be sited without detriment to the surrounding
area. The Guidance Note also
acknowledges that glasshouses can have a significant environmental impact and
wherever practicable new ones should be sited adjacent or close to existing
ones.
Site is located outside of any settlements defined by
the development envelopes on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Areas of copse to north east and south west
of site are designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. Relevant policies of the plan are considered
to be as follows:
S1 - New development
will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S4 - The countryside
will be protected from inappropriate development.
S5 - Proposals for
development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies) will be
for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or
environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be
ameliorated.
S6 - All development
will be expected to be of a high standard of design.
G1 - Development
Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 - General
Locational Criteria for Development.
G5 - Development
Outside Defined Settlements.
D1 - Standards of
Design.
D14 - Light Spillage.
E8 - Employment in
the Countryside.
C1 - Protection of
Landscape Character.
C11 - Sites of Local
Importance for Nature Conservation.
C15 - Appropriate
Agricultural Diversification.
C18 - Agricultural
Support Activities.
C19 - Management of
Rural Water Resources.
C21 - Glasshouse
Development.
TR3 - Locating
Development to Minimise the Need to Travel.
TR7 - Highway
Considerations for New Development.
Representations
Calbourne Parish Council raise no objection. However, there were a number of conditions
that they would like to see met:
1. Site is close to a brook and all safety measures
should be monitored to minimise the risk of pollution.
2. Large and heavy vehicles visiting site
should be directed to use the lane from the Hebberdens end, connecting directly
with the site.
The Parish Council indicated that there was a conflicting
statement in the report accompanying the application as to whether the area to
be cultivated is in hectares or acres.
They also questioned what nutrients would be used in the cultivation of
produce and whether the produce would be sold on the Island or would be
exported solely to the mainland. In
general, they indicated that they are pleased to see an agricultural
diversification that keeps the land in production and provides local
employment.
Further letter received from Calbourne Parish Council
advising that they are generally in sympathy with attempts to diversify and
welcome additional employment that may result, but there are implications in
this case that need careful consideration.
The Parish Council actively supports organic growth and efforts to
prevent pollution from affecting countryside.
Could this protection be equally guaranteed with the addition of toilet
facilities for upwards of twenty staff?
Whilst favouring enterprises that negate need to transport produce huge
distances, willingness of local stores to take much of produce from site does
not appear to have been guaranteed.
Methods of delivery need to be addressed because of inadequacies of
existing road and need for parking and turning areas.
The Parish Council raised two particular concerns:
This is green field
site with buildings proposed upon it, albeit to produce foodstuffs. Does law permit this development and would a
brown field site be a more acceptable location?
What would happen if
enterprise should fail? Having changed
essential nature of land which might be open to more intrusive and damaging
development, setting precedent for similar schemes elsewhere.
Parish Council draw attention to letter from
consultant acting on behalf of adjoining property owner which raises valid
points and Parish Council hopes that Planning Authority will take into account
not only existing legislation and their concerns, but the future implications
resulting from the development proposed.
Highway Engineer initially commented that vehicular
access does not appear to be included within the application area, although
improvements are indicated along a short section leading to the public
bridleway, CB26. He made a number of
observations regarding the suitability of access to the site, visibility at
junction with main road and traffic generation and requested additional
information in this respect.
Following further consideration of this matter and
additional information provided by applicants agent in respect of proposal,
Highway Engineer submitted additional comments. He considered that the company will clearly need to make up
access track to the site from the farmyard for their own use. He advised that this is a private road well
away from the maintainable highway and did not consider it necessary to impose
a specific condition to cover it. He
commented that the existing concrete road from the A3054 to the farmyard is a
bridleway, already used by large farm vehicles and with a passing bay part way
along its length. Therefore, given the
small number of lorry movements expected in connection with the development, he
does not believe it is necessary or reasonable to ask for improvements to the
access road. However, visibility at the
junction with the main road in an easterly direction is very poor and
unsatisfactory even for the existing use.
He noted that the proposed use would attract twenty six additional
employees who are expected to arrive by car and considered it would be
reasonable to require a visibility improvement and recommended a condition in
this respect. As far as he could
ascertain, the land required for this purpose is all part of the highway
maintainable land. This work would
unfortunately involve the loss of several trees although it is believed the
highway safety benefits would be significant.
Visibility in a westerly direction is considerably better and with
exception of routine hedge-trimming, no further improvements are required.
Highway Rights of Way Officer comments that vehicular
access from A3054 to Three Gates Farm is part of public bridleway. Initially no details of volume of traffic
generated by development was provided although it was expected to be
considerable. Rights of Way Officer
indicated that she would wish to comment further when this information was available
but expects that segregated provision would be required to ensure the safety of
users of the bridleway. Following
receipt of additional information in respect of traffic generation, Rights of
Way Officer has indicated that she is satisfied with the traffic flow
information and measures to be implemented by applicant to ensure safety of
users of the bridleway, including displaying warning signs.
Having regard to location of site, adjacent two SINCs,
Council's Assistant Ecology Officer has visited the site to ascertain if there
are specific features of Nature Conservation interest which need to be taken
into account in determining the application.
She advises that both SINCs have red squirrels listed on their citations
and, in addition, Three Gates West has a population of dormice recorded. She advises that it is important that the
works to improve the access track leading to the site do not encroach on the
ground either side between October and middle of April when dormice may be
hibernating on the ground. She also
indicates that the hedgerow on eastern side of track is species rich and
qualifies as important under the Hedgerow Regulations. She noted that formation of access was
within an area of trees and scrub and should avoid the hedgerow. However, she did question if any trees were
to be lost. She recommended that soft
landscaping should comprise native species, particularly those which would
provide food for red squirrels. The
revised plans subsequently received show the revised layout in order to
minimise loss of trees.
Environment Agency raises no objection. However, they advise that under terms of
Water Resources Act 1991, an Abstraction Licence may be required from the
Environment Agency for the filling and maintaining of lakes for irrigation or
for any other purpose and that this is dependent on water resource availability
and may not be granted. They also
provide advice to the applicant.
One letter received from employee at Three Gates Farm
who also occupies dwelling adjacent site supporting proposal for reasons which
can be summarised as follows:
Proposal would create
employment and benefit Island economy which has changed over the years.
Project has
connections with Green Movement including Professor David Bellamy and would be
good way of promoting one of the most beautiful Islands in the UK.
Many farmers have had
to leave the Island due to financial difficulties and if farms do not diversify
and attempt to generate alternative sources of income further jobs will be
lost.
Ramblers Association welcomed diversification within
the agricultural framework of the Isle of Wight but comment that nature of this
diversification must be judged against the existing conditions within each area
of the countryside. They comment that
the area to north of Yarmouth Road is a particularly quiet and undeveloped part
of the Island and particular care needs to be exercised in considering
development in order to maintain the balance between needs and effect. In particular, they express the following
concerns:
Potential conflict
between lorries/cars attending site and users of bridleway. Track is narrow and adequate passing places
with refuges for rights of way users should be provided.
Any retailing from
site could increase traffic movements further.
Submission makes
reference to attempts to negotiate with Power companies to establish supplies
of renewable energy. Concern is
expressed at possibility of future establishment of a wind farm or power unit
to burn waste pellets which would be inappropriate in this location.
Any future security
fences would be out of keeping with surrounding.
Future expansion
resulting in loss of surrounding woodland should be avoided.
Submission lacks
information regarding potential loss of trees.
Line of right of way
should remain open during development.
Following notification of revised scheme, Ramblers'
Association commented that revised plans make no material changes that would
affect their comments and request that their earlier comments are taken into
account.
Letter received from Planning Consultant acting on
behalf of owner of property adjacent site, and duplicate letter received from
prospective purchaser, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised
as follows:
Proposal contrary to
Policy C15 of the Unitary Development Plan on grounds that insufficient
evidence has been submitted to explain how proposed diversification will
integrate with existing activities at farm and avoid potential conflict with
client's dwelling which adjoins site.
Proposed operations
more characteristic of industrial rather than an agricultural use and would
result in significant intensification of buildings and activities to detriment
of adjacent dwelling and surrounding countryside.
24-hour nature of
business with noise, fumes, light pollution and overlooking would have adverse
effect on neighbouring property contrary to Policies G9 and G10 of the Unitary
Development Plan. (Policy G9 was
omitted prior to adoption of plan).
Proposal contrary to
Policy TR7 of Unitary Development Plan and would create significant increase in
traffic. Junction with main road is an
accident black spot with very poor visibility.
Use of bridleway will
create conflict with walkers and horse riders.
Environmental impacts
of proposed access improvements have not been addressed in accordance with the
requirements of Policy TR8 and are likely to result in loss or damage to
existing mature trees and hedgerows.
Proposal contrary to
Policy C11 of Unitary Development Plan as it will have adverse effect on
adjoining SINC.
Reflective qualities
of proposed growing tunnels are akin to glasshouse development and should be
accompanied by visual impact assessment in accordance with Policy C21 of the
Unitary Development Plan, particularly having regard to proximity of objector's
property and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to north.
Light spillage -
proposal contrary to criteria of Policy D14 of Unitary Development Plan as
insufficient consideration has been given to impact on objector's
property. The growing tunnels will be
lit at night and, together with external lighting, will give rise to light
pollution of objector's property and surrounding countryside.
Following notification of revised scheme, further
letter was received from Planning Consultant who represented the original owner
of adjacent residential property advising that he is now acting for the new
owner of that property. He effectively
re-iterated the original opposition to the proposal, providing additional
information to support each ground for objection. He comments that proposal still represents a significant
intrusion into the countryside despite the reduction in the number of growing
tunnel units. He questions whether this
is an appropriate location for development of this nature which may have an
urbanising effect, located in a sensitive area and close to his clients
property. Although horticultural by
definition, he does not consider that proposal is reliant on a rural location. Reference is made to Unitary Development
Plan and that it is acknowledged in this document that commercial glasshouse
developments can have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
their size and appearance. He considers
that insufficient information has been made available to assess the noise
impact on his clients property. This
would include noise generated by employees vehicles and delivery vehicles. In this respect, he considers that
development would result in a significant increase in vehicle movements to and
from the site contrary to advice contained in PPG13 - Transport. Concern is expressed regarding the future
success of the horticultural operation and possible alternative uses, for
example a garden centre, and that establishment of horticultural business may
make it difficult to resist expansion into adjacent fields.
An additional letter has been received from the
consultants acting for the objector, who owns the adjoining property, and
following sight of the published Committee report has submitted further
comments. He questions whether Policy
G5 has been correctly interpreted and applied as, in his opinion, development
does not require a rural location. If
this is the case, subsequent tests relate to benefit to rural economy, design and
landscaping and a number of categories, including agriculture. It is contended that development does not
require a rural location as proposal has no relationship with indigenous ground
or soils and the growing tunnels have a concrete floor. Atmosphere is controlled, with artificial
light and therefore seasonality is not an issue. He expresses view that proposal does not require a rural location
and does not need to be located on any farm or this farm in particular.
It is questioned whether this is an exceptional case
for releasing a green field site for development bearing in mind Government's
policy requiring development of brown field sites in preference. It is also questioned whether proposal is
compatible with sustainability principles, particularly if rural location is
not required. Proposal will generate
additional employee and lorry vehicle movements unnecessarily into a rural
area. He comments that if a rural
location is not required, and development could be located within settlement
boundary, on brown field site or in a designated employment site, should the
following impact be accepted:
Visual impact in
particular 4 metre high growing tunnels which will be unusual in this area of
the countryside.
Impact from
artificial lighting - light pollution is of concern to Government.
Increase in noise
from machinery and vehicles.
Loss of trees to
create better access and to level site for building.
Increased use of
junction which would still be technically substandard.
Increase in vehicular
traffic on a public bridleway leading to conflict.
Large development
sandwiched between two SINCS identified for nature conservation interest.
He again expresses view that, although development may
be horticultural, it does not automatically mean it is an appropriate land use
in a rural area or needs to be located on a farm. No alternative sites have been examined and this question needs
to be asked and robust answers given.
He considers that report fails to address UDP Policy C21 which
encourages new horticultural development on existing horticultural holdings, as
advised by PPG7. Proposal is to
introduce glasshouse development into rural area not familiar with this type of
development and where no horticultural activity is currently present.
He does not consider that scheme is truly farm diversification
because, although income will be received by farmer which could well be
invested into existing agricultural operations, the applicant is not the farmer
of the land, it is a commercial enterprise unrelated to the farmer and the
relationship is no different to a farmer selling land for housing development.
A total of 26 additional letters, including one from
the Newtown Residents Association and one from solicitors for executors of
estate of owner of adjacent farm were received over the Easter Bank Holiday
weekend prior to the meeting of the Development Control Committee objecting to
proposal raising a number of the issues referred to above and expressing
additional concerns as follows:
Possible
contamination of nearby brook.
Planning permission
has no control or process for which planning permission is sought.
Proposal involves
unproven technology - should be treated as experimental.
A number of the writers of these letters express view
that application has not been adequately publicised and requested deferral to
enable the public to consider the proposal further. Several residents indicate that they only recently became aware
of application having been informed of proposal by the owner of the residential
property adjacent the site. One objector
has provided copy of letter which would appear to have been circulated by that
owner.
One objector suggests that application should have
been screened for the need for an Environmental Statement under the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1999. He also raises issue
relating to policy of the applicant to set aside one acre of land for each
growing tunnel they erect and expresses view that this would need to be managed
as a fully fledged nature reserve, not just abandoned as is often the
case. He considers that it would be
appropriate for such a commitment to be enshrined in the Three Gates Farm
Unigrove application and suggests that further clarification should be sought
in this respect.
Evaluation
Determining factors in considering application are
whether the proposal is acceptable in principle and whether development would
have adverse effect on character of area and amenities of nearby residential
properties. In assessing impact of the
development it is necessary to have regard to factors including traffic
generation, disturbance to neighbouring properties from plant and lighting,
loss of natural features and the effect of the proposal on the adjoining SINCs. Other material considerations include the
potential employment opportunities that are likely to be created by the
development and the benefits to the existing farm activities.
In accordance with Policy G5 of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan, outside the defined settlements, development may
exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to
the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is an appropriate scale and
falls within one or more of the categories of development detailed in the policy. These categories include development
connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary
activities. Policy also sets out
circumstances where such development will not be acceptable and relates
generally to the likely impact of the development. In this instance, the proposal involves horticultural operations
which is included in the definition of agricultural for planning purposes. In addition, in Annex C to Planning Policy
Guidance Note 7, advice on glasshouse construction and horticulture is dealt
with under a heading of Development Related to Agriculture and not within the
section relating to Farm Diversification.
Therefore, I am satisfied that, in this instance, the development proposal
is connected with agriculture and is appropriate for a rural location.
Growing tunnels would have substantial footprint with
area of approximately 10,130 square metres.
The tunnels would be constructed in four blocks, linked by access
corridors, arranged in an L-shape and would have height of approximately 4
metres. Tunnels would be dug into slope
on south west side of site by maximum of approximately 1.6 metres and built up
by maximum of 1.8 metres on north east side of site, resulting in maximum overall
height of approximately 5.4 metres above ground level. Cold stores, office and staff buildings
would project slightly above growing tunnels having height of approximately 5
metres.
Trees on boundaries of site and within adjacent
woodlands have height in excess of 10 metres providing high degree of screening
to site, particularly when viewed from a distance. Boundary of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty referred to by
objector is located approximately 360 metres to north of application site and,
having regard to screening provided by trees surrounding site, I consider that
development is unlikely to have significant impact on the designated area. Development is likely to have greatest
impact when viewed from adjacent bridleway to east or from track running along
south west boundary of site and leading to adjacent residential property,
unrelated to farm holding, located to north west of site. Excavations on south west side of site will
result in reduction in height of growing tunnels in relation to access track
along south west boundary of site.
Impact of the development when viewed from the adjacent access tracks
could be reduced further by additional landscaping, comprising appropriate
native species, in the area between the growing tunnels and these tracks.
Although of significant scale, the nature of the
buildings, their location within an area of natural landscape features and
their contribution to the local economy lead me to conclude that the proposal
is generally in accordance with UDP policies S4, S5 and G5.
Applicants and their agents have provided additional
information in respect of proposal, including figures for predicted number of
vehicles attending site. These were
initially calculated for the scheme involving twenty four growing tunnels and
will therefore be lower in view of the revision of the scheme to involve twenty
growing tunnels. Information provided
indicates that collections and deliveries would be carried out by 20-ft
container lorries, flat-bed lorries and 1-ton vans and that traffic flows would
vary from month to month with maximum number of vehicles attending site
totalling twenty six for month of September.
In addition, it is anticipated that development would create employment
for twenty people, one for each growing tunnel, to assist in the planting,
maintenance and harvesting of the crops along with one manager and one
administrative employee. I am advised
by the applicants that it is company policy to encourage staff to use public
transport where possible or car share as part of the overall environmental strategy.
I consider that issues relevant in determining the
acceptability of the proposal in terms of traffic generation relate to the
standard and width of the access, visibility at the junction with the main road
and the potential conflict between vehicles attending the site and users of the
bridleway. Access to site is for most
part provided over concrete road which serves the existing dairy farm and
already carries heavy vehicles attending the site in connection with the dairy
enterprise, including vehicles delivering animal feed and milk tankers. Access road has passing bay approximately
halfway along its length and also forms part of designated bridleway. Remainder of access road, between existing
concrete road and site, would be made up to the same standard. Highway Engineer considers that visibility
at junction of access road and main road could be improved in easterly
direction, involving removal of some trees adjacent the roadside on highway
maintainable land, resulting in significant highway safety benefits. Landscaping could be carried out to rear of
visibility splay to replace those trees to be removed.
Whilst concern has been expressed that vehicles may
cause conflict with other users of the bridleway, it should be noted that, as
previously mentioned, road is already used by large vehicles in connection with
the existing farm operations and applicants agent indicates that this has not
caused any conflict in the past.
Furthermore, he advises that his clients would display warning signs on access
road alerting users of the bridleway to its use by large farm and delivery
vehicles. In general, access road is
considered to be of adequate standard to serve the existing farm and proposed
horticultural business.
The growing process involved in the proposed
horticultural operations requires the provision of twelve hours of light per
day. Therefore, during times of year
when daylight hours are shorter, artificial light is required within the
growing tunnels. However, applicants
agent advises that use of lighting would be kept to minimum for cost
reasons. Furthermore, information
provided by the applicants indicates that
no artificial lighting is likely to be required during the months of
April to August inclusive and maximum use of lighting would amount to two hours
each morning and two hours each evening from November to February
inclusive. Applicants are investigating
the use of blinds in the growing rooms which would automatically deploy as
light levels drop in anticipation of the switching on of the artificial
lighting. In addition, applicants point
out that lighting would shine downwards onto the crop and any light spillage
would be from reflected light rather than direct light. In any event, having regard to limited
periods when lighting would be in operation and screening provided by
surrounding trees, I do not consider that lighting would have excessive or
adverse impact on rural character of the area or amenities of adjoining
residential property.
It is anticipated that the normal working hours at the
growing facility would be from 08:00 hours to 18:00 hours and vehicle movements
would coincide with the ferry times to the mainland. Furthermore, applicants agent indicates that it is intended that
produce should be exported from the Island using vehicles which would otherwise
return to the mainland empty and that this would provide an economic and
sustainable way of transporting the produce.
Subject to appropriate restrictions on delivery/collection times, I am
satisfied that any disturbance to occupants of property adjacent the site would
be minimised. Applicants agent suggests
that operation of plant at the site would generate minimal noise emissions and
no more than currently emanate from the existing farm arising from milking
operations associated with the dairy enterprise. Applicants have provided details of noise emission levels from
the plant to be operated at the site and the Environmental Health Officer has
been consulted in this respect.
Following a visit to the site during the hours of darkness in order to
measure background noise levels when they are likely to be at their lowest, he
has recommended conditions, should application be approved, which limit noise
levels emitted from the plant in order to protect the amenities of the
adjoining residential property.
Original scheme as detailed on plans which accompanied
the submission paid little regard for trees and natural features within the
site, particularly an area of trees adjacent the access road where formation of
access and parking area would have resulted in loss of trees and existing ponds
in this area. Scheme was subsequently
revised, and further plans submitted showing reduction in number of growing
tunnels, repositioning of access and altering overall layout of development in
order to minimise loss of trees. In
particular, submitted plans show retention of area of trees adjacent access
track. With exception of removal of
small section of hedgerow to form access, development would not necessitate
removal of any trees around boundaries of site and would involve loss of very
few trees within the field itself.
I do not consider that development would have direct
impact on ecologically sensitive areas adjacent site and, in particular,
retention of trees on boundaries of site should ensure that development does
not have adverse impact on habitat of red squirrels in the locality. Furthermore, subject to the necessary access
road improvements being carried out at an appropriate time of year, in
accordance with the advice of the Assistant Ecology Officer, I am satisfied
that development will not have adverse effect on dormouse population in this
locality. It is understood that the
growing process does not use any pesticides and all water is discharged to the
balancing pond and recycled through a sealed system and used in the irrigation
of the plants. Therefore, I am
satisfied that development is unlikely to have any indirect impact on the
adjacent SINCs.
Proposed development would have economic benefits both
in terms of providing support activities to the existing dairy enterprise on
the farm holding and in generating additional employment. In this instance, I am satisfied that any
adverse effect on the rural character of the area in general and amenities of
the adjoining residential property can be mitigated, for example by appropriate
landscape treatment.
In response to suggestions from third parties that
alternative sites should be considered for the proposed development, I would
advise Members that this is not the type of development where the Authority
would expect the applicant to demonstrate whether there are any suitable
alternative sites and the proposal should be considered on its own merits.
Nevertheless, applicant's agent has provided further information in support of
the proposal and in particular the site selected in this instance. I am advised by him that the basis of the
applicants' venture is that it is intended to provide opportunities for
existing farmers to establish joint ventures with the applicants to increase
profitability of their farms. In this
particular case Three Gates Farm was selected as the existing farmer is keen to
work in partnership with the applicants to set up the production centre and to
this extent, the basis of site selection is of an opportunistic principle with
the farmer providing the land and the applicant providing the 'operational and
manufacturing input and the marketing organisation'. As far as the selection of the site within the farm itself is
concerned, I am advised that this was undertaken on the basis of a careful and
rigorous evaluation of all the potential locations. The applicants' agent comments that the site which has been
selected offers the following advantages:
The site has good
existing access, being suitably located in relation to the existing farm
buildings and access thereto with the necessary infrastructure close at hand.
There are existing
farm cottages adjacent which should assist in providing good security for the
proposed development which necessitates a substantial investment in the
associated fixed plant and equipment.
The site is not
adjacent to the existing milking parlour and therefore will not affect the ease
of moving existing livestock within the farm.
The site is well
screened by trees and other peripheral vegetation and will have little impact
on the wider surroundings and particularly the landscape of the nearby AONB.
The site is close to
the existing farmyard and will be compatible with the existing farm practices
being carried on and will prevent the dispersal of the buildings, access etc
over a wider area.
The agent seeks to reassure Members that there are
very sound reasons why Three Gates Farm has been chosen as the site of the
first proposed venture of this type on the Island and advises that the specific
location has not been chosen on the basis of an ad hoc decision, but rather on
the basis of a sound evaluation of the respective merits of all the potential
sites within the farm leading to the conclusion that the one which has been chosen
is the optimum having regard to both operational and planning policy
objectives.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the future continuation
of the business cannot be guaranteed, it is recommended that any planning
permission granted is subject to a condition limiting the use of the building
to horicultural purposes only and therefore any alternative use would require
the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
As far as the policy issues are concerned, I am
satisfied that Policy G5 has been properly interpreted in this report. In my view, the use of the buildings
proposed are appropriate for an agricultural location and would not be
acceptably located within a settlement or an industrial estate. Indeed, if the environmental disadvantages
suggested by the consultant acting on behalf of the owner of the adjacent
property carry significant weight, this could be a reason to oppose development
of this nature within an existing settlement.
Accepting the need for a rural location, the sustainability issue does
not, in my opinion, carry significant weight.
In any event, as previously stated, applicants have indicated that it is
company policy to encourage staff to use public transport where possible or car
share as part of the overall environmental strategy.
Consultants acting on behalf of the adjacent property
owner have also made reference to Policy C21 of the Unitary Development Plan
relating to the provision of glasshouses.
In accordance with this policy, planning permission for horticultural
and commercial glasshouse development will only be approved where it is
outside, and does not adversely impact upon an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty or it is an extension to an existing glasshouse complex. In his instance, whilst proposal does not
involve an extension to an existing glasshouse complex, it is outside the
AONB. The relationship between the
proposed development and the AONB has been analysed in this report and I am
satisfied that proposal will not have significant impact on the designated area. Therefore, I do not believe that the
proposal is contrary to Policy C21.
With regard to suggestions that the proposal is
subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and should have
been screened to ascertain whether an Environmental Statement should have been
submitted, I would advise Members that Schedule 2 of the regulation does
include development involving agriculture and aquaculture. In particular, column 1 of Schedule 2 of the
Regulations includes projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural
areas for intensive agricultural purposes.
However, in the case of the current proposal, the area of land in
question is not uncultivated land or a semi-natural area. In this respect, applicants have confirmed
in writing that the field is part of a rotation applied to the farm unit as a
whole and that the rotation generally involves the production of crops
including maize, beans, double turnips, wheat and barley, as well as being used
for grazing for the herd on the farm. The
County Ecologist has indicated that the land is not unimproved or natural
grassland, because of its history of agricultural use. Consequently, the area of land is clearly
not uncultivated or semi-natural and I am satisfied that the proposal is not
Schedule 2 development and does not require the submission of an Environmental
Statement.
The application was received in June 2001 and was
publicised by the displaying of a site notice adjacent the entrance on the
A3054 and adjoining property owners notified in writing. A copy of the application was sent to the
Parish Council and details were provided in the Press List published in the
County Press on 6 July 2001. Following
negotiations with applicant's agent, revised plans were submitted in respect of
proposal and the third parties who made representations in respect of the
application, including the owner of the adjacent residential property, his
consultant and the Parish Council were notified of the receipt of these plans. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal
has been adequately publicised. Whilst
the application has been with the Authority for a relatively long period of
time, the majority of the letters of representation were received only days
before this matter was due to be considered at the Committee and would appear
to be the result of a letter circulated by the principal objector to households
in the Shalfleet, Newtown and Porchfield areas.
Reason for Recommendation
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all
material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that
proposal represents acceptable form of development within the countryside
without detriment to the character and environment of the locality. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposal
will not have excessive or adverse impact on amenities of nearby residential
property and that any impact can be further reduced by appropriate landscaping
and restrictions on operating hours of lighting and deliveries/collections at
the site.
Recommendation -
Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
|
2 |
Construction of the
buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all
materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the
same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter only such
approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the
development. Reason: To
safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
A visibility splay
of x = 4.5 metres and y = 120 metres dimension in an easterly direction along
the A3054 shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development
hereby approved and shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Before the
development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of
other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include provision for planting between the
growing tunnels and the north western, south western and south eastern
boundaries of the site together with replacement planting for the trees to be
removed to create the visibility splays required by condition 3 and shall
specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing
and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance
during the first 5 years from the date of planting. Reason: To
ensure that the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
All hard and soft
landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. The works shall be carried
out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance
with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with
Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
No existing hedges
or hedgerows shall be removed, unless shown on the approved drawings
as being removed. All hedges and hedgerows on and
immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the
duration of works on the site by the erection of a 1.2 m minimum height
chestnut paling fence to BS 1722 Part 4 securely mounted on 1.2 m minimum
above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground or other
agreed protection along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority. Any parts of
hedges or hedgerows removed without the consent of the Local Planning
Authority or which become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,
seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual
practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as
is reasonably practical and, in any case, by not later than the end of the
first available planting season, with plants of such sizes and species and in
such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and
to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Those trees not
directly affected by the proposed development shall be retained and shall not
be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the previous written
consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees removed without such consent or dying or becoming severely
damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such
size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1(Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No development
including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees/shrubs
and/or other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning
Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed
barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. Any fencing shall conform
to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS
1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height
timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty
hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed
protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained
tree). Such fencing or barrier shall
be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which
period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or
storage of material; (b) No placement or
storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or
storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of
bonfires. (e) No physical
damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to
natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in
ground levels. (h) No digging of
trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches
required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are
left undamaged. Reason: To
ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are
adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the
construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12
(Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Prior to work
commencing on site, details of the design and construction of the access
road, between the existing concrete road and the site and the car parking
areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway
access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No work in respect
of the improvements to the access road between the existing concrete roadway
and the application site shall take place during the period from the
beginning of October to middle of April unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of Nature Conservation and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature
Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
11 |
The lighting to be
provided within the growing tunnels shall not be operated between 20:00 hours
and 06:00 hours without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the character of the area and amenities of nearby residential
occupiers and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light
Spillage) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No deliveries shall
be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 08:00 - 18:00
nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential
property in particular and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of
Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
No retailing of
produce grown within the tunnels hereby approved shall be undertaken directly
from the site or the farm holding (Three Gates Farm) without the prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential
property in particular and to comply with Policies S4, D1 (Standards of
Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
Prior to any
development commencing on site, signs shall be displayed on the section of
the access road which is designated as a public bridleway alerting users to
its use by heavy/delivery vehicles in accordance with details to be submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such signs shall be retained during the course of construction
work and thereafter for as long as the site is used for horticulture
purposes. Reason: In the
interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of
Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan |
|
15 |
The rating level of
the noise emitted from the proposed Unigrove Limited development, and
particularly the Dale Volvo 126 kVA Generator, centrifugal water pump and
electric motor, cold store condensers, and environment fans, shown on the
attached drawing No UG-2001-CB-06, shall be lower than the
"night-time" existing background noise level determined to be LA90
5 minutes 34 dB by at least 3 dB (and shall have no distinguishable tonal
component within any Octave Band Level) between 23:00 and 07:00 hours daily,
and shall not exceed the existing "daytime" noise level determined
to be LA90 60 minutes 34 dB at any time (and shall have no distinguishable
tonal component within any Octave Bank Level) between 07:00 and 23:00 hours
daily. The noise levels shall be
determined at one metre from the nearest noise sensitive premises, being St
Huberts Lodge, Porchfield, Isle of Wight.
The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with
BS4142: 1997. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties
in particular and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5
(Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
16 |
This permission
shall authorise the use of the site, edged red on the plans attached to and
forming part of this decision notice, and the buildings hereby approved for
horticultural purposes and for no other purpose without the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure the continued use of the approved development for horticultural
purposes in accordance with Policy C21 (Glasshouse Development) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment
Services