Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of polytunnels and landscaping to farm

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Members considered a report seeking approval for the erection of polytunnels at Sturton Grange Farm (Field 6) LS25, which was situated in the Green Belt

  Officers presented the report and stated that determination of the application by Panel had been requested by Councillor Dobson who had raised concerns about the erosion of the Green Belt and the likelihood of further caravans being sited on the farm to accommodate additional seasonal workers

  Members were advised that:

·  in terms of the principle of development, polytunnels were defined as an agricultural use which was appropriate development in the Green Belt

·  in terms of visual impact, that polytunnels whilst being relatively new within the landscape were becoming more common and that landscaping was being provided to limit the views of these in the immediate area.  As the site was not in a Special Landscape Area this type of screening was considered to be acceptable

·  in respect of residential amenity, some concerns had been raised about the number of seasonal workers being employed at the farm and the impact of noise and disturbance.  As part of the conditions attached to the approval for siting of seasonal workers’ caravans, a management and complaints condition had been included, with only 1 complaint having been registered through this, although some complaints had been made directly to the applicant, outside of this process.  A check of police records showed no reported incidents

·  that additional polytunnels did not automatically mean there would be a need for additional workers and caravans, rather it would result in a reduction of workers as increased amounts of raspberries would be grown which were less labour intensive

·  that the concerns of the Environment Agency regarding drainage had been addressed through revisions to the scheme and their objection to the proposals had been withdrawn

·  that landscaping proposals along the common boundary which had been agreed as part of an earlier application had been reviewed and that a 20m wide buffer in the form of a bund and extensive planting would now be provided

Members were informed of the level of representations which had been

received on the application

  Officers recommended the application be approved

  The Panel heard representations on behalf of a local resident who objected to the proposals

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  the seasonal vacancies which would be created and where these would be advertised

·  the proposed landscaping; whether the Nature Conservation Officer had been involved in the proposals and that details of the proposed trees and shrubs should have been included in the report

·  whether restrictions could be placed on the number of caravans on the site.  Members were informed that permitted development rights had been removed so any increases to the number of caravans on the site would require planning permission

·  concerns that polytunnels were noisy, particularly in bad weather and whether the application complied with the voluntary code of practice which existed in respect of polytunnels.  On this matter Members were informed that it complied in respect of the requirement for 30m separation

·  the distance between the start of the bund and the residential properties; that the impact on residents’ amenity would be from this point and that there should be a sufficient gap between the two points

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  To approve the application in principle and to defer and

delegate final approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and to enable further negotiations to take place on the siting of the proposed landscaped bund 10m away from the common boundary with residential properties that share a boundary with the application site.  In the event that agreement cannot be reached on this matter, that the application be reported back to Panel for determination

  (Under Council Procedure 16.5, Councillor Procter required it to be recorded that he voted against the matter)