Agenda item

Erection of farm office, workshop, storage building, seasonal workers accommodation, regrading of landscape bund and provision of additional hardstanding area

Erection of Farm Office, Workshop, Storage Building, Seasonal Workers Accommodation, Regrading of Landscape Bund and Provision of Additional Hardstanding Area

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Committee was advised of an additional condition to be included which would prevent the provision of further accommodation on-site for seasonal workers without planning permission.

Councillor R Bell addressed the Committee against the application. He noted that whilst the report stated that non-compliance with previous conditions was not a material consideration, he was concerned that there had been a number of breaches and that recent complaints were currently being investigated. This included an appeal in relation to the replacement grain dryer.

In terms of site operations residents were concerned about plastic recycling activity which he considered was being operated as a business. He also considered that residents would notice an increase in traffic as a direct result of these proposals.  He pointed out that there were no amenities in Hutton Magna which meant that workers would have to drive to access facilities.

Councillor Bell also asked why local people were not employed and stated that whilst occupancy of the accommodation was to be restricted by condition he had reservations about how this would be enforced. He had similar concerns with regard to enforcement of the condition relating to the use of the workshop. The application did not seek to replace existing amenities but to create a new residential block which would add to the problems of low water pressure in the area. 

The local Member then referred to a summary document he had prepared which referred to the considerable number of conditions proposed and the statutory responses. Conditions  were only useful if they performed a physical act and did not rely on the behaviour of the applicant. As far as he could see the only physical condition related to foul drainage and in his opinion the remaining conditions were inherently unenforceable other than by a heavy DCC officer monitoring presence. The residential development was contrary to Policy H6 of the Local Plan and the erection of a large hangar-like building on an already excessively developed site, amounted to an industrial estate in open country, and was contrary to Policy ENV1.  

Mr Brophy, Hutton Magna Parish Council concurred with Councillor Bell that this site was in effect an industrial estate and the application was against the principals of the NPPF. Residents did not want another large hangar next to their village.

He disagreed with the comments in the report in relation to water pressure. The report advised that leaks found in the supply from nearby Smallways had been repaired but Yorkshire Water had no record of this. Water pressure in the village was already low and residents had been informed by Yorkshire Water that the problem would persist until pipes were replaced.  Residents had been advised to fit their own water tanks for use at times of heavy demand. This was unacceptable and the additional accommodation would exacerbate the problems.  

Mr Laidler, objector referred to the recent changes to National Planning Policy which emphasised the importance of the natural environment on the wellbeing of communities, with planning proposals being about enhancing and improving where people lived. The NPPF removed previous constraints and allowed the views of local communities to be taken into account alongside Planning Policy.

Mr Nixon, objector reiterated the views of Mr Brophy and Mr Laidler. He produced a photograph which showed the impact the new building would have on his amenity as nearest neighbour, in terms of noise and light pollution.

He referred to a number of complaints about low water mains pressure and to 13 incidents, the most recent of which was 2 weeks earlier when the supply was cut off altogether. The site was over-industrialised and there had been no consultation with residents on the proposals. He was also concerned that conditions relating to the grain dryer could only be monitored during the harvest period.

Mr G Swarbrick, the applicant’s agent stated that the application should be judged on its own merits and that there were no unresolved issues of non-compliance with previous planning conditions.

All uses that currently took place on site were lawful and the current application would mean that the company was better placed to meet the long term needs of their business operations.

Existing offices comprised of portacabins and the new building would improve visual amenity. 15 local people were employed but they did need to bring in seasonal workers during harvesting. These workers were housed in temporary accommodation which was brought onto the site as needed, and this was costly.

Occupancy of the accommodation would be controlled by condition and the workshop would be used for fleet maintenance and storage of vehicles, machinery or equipment used by AWSM Farms only. This would also be the subject of a planning condition. Currently maintenance was carried out in the southern end of the yard and the building was not fit for purpose. The new workshop would be further away from residents.

The application accorded with planning policy and existing activities would not be increased on site. There would be no further impact on residents, and the economic benefits the proposals would bring about should be given significant weight.

Prior to determining the application Members sought clarification in relation to concerns expressed about low water pressure. The Officer explained that no objections had been received from Northumbrian Water and Yorkshire Water. Yorkshire Water had responsibility up to the meter at Smallways and had advised that water pressure was acceptable up to that point. Beyond this the connection to Lane Head was a private shared system, and as such was a private matter.

In determining the application Members acknowledged that previous non-compliance with planning conditions was not a material consideration and that the proposal would bring about further benefits to the local economy. Concerns about occupancy would be addressed by condition and an additional condition should be included to prevent any further accommodation being brought onto the site without planning permission.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and to the following additional condition:

‘Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no further accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers shall be provided without the prior written permission of the local planning authority upon an application submitted to it.

Reason - In order that the local planning authority may exercise further control in this locality in the interests of neighbour amenity and impact on local water supply capacity. To accord with policy GD1 of the Teesdale District Local Plan 2002(as Saved and Amended)’.