DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 FEBRUARY 2013

REPORT OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER a) DOV/12/0698 – Erection of a detached agricultural building for cold storage – Hoaden Court, Hoaden, Ash.

Reason for Report: At the request of Councilor Conolly ‘given the size of the cold store and the effect on residents’. b) Summary of Recommendation

Grant planning permission c) Planning Policy and Guidance

Core Strategy (CS)

• Core Strategy (CS) policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and rural settlement confines, unless it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.

• CS policy DM3 supports the principle of new commercial buildings in rural areas and advises that development should be within confines unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable site exists, in which event it should be located adjacent to the settlement unless there is a functional requirement for it to be located elsewhere.

• CS policy DM11 advises that development that which would increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment to quantify the amount and type of travel likely to be generated and include measures that will help to satisfy the demand. Development beyond the urban confines must be justified by other development plan policies.

• CS policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a design- led approach based upon the characteristics of the area, the nature of the development and design objectives

• CS Policy DM15 aims to protect the countryside through resisting development which would adversely affect its character or appearance, unless inter alias it is justified by the needs of agriculture.

South East Plan (SEP)

• South East Plan (SEP) policy CC1 states that the principal objective is to achieve and to maintain sustainable development.

• SEP Policy CC4 requires development to incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.

• SEP Policy CC6 states that decisions associated with the development and use of land should respect or enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design processes to create a high quality built environment

• SEP Policy BE6 seeks to ensure that proposals protect, conserve and where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve core principles that should undertake decision-taking.

Kent Design Guide (KDG)

• The KDG sets out design principles for new development. d) Relevant Planning History

No relevant planning history e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

Senior Ecologist – The impact of this proposal will be detrimental to the local landscape and will generate adverse visual impacts from public locations.

Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions requiring; sound proofing for all new items of fixed plant and details of external lighting.

KCC Highway Services – No objection subject to a condition restricted third party storage to 30%.

Southern Water – Advises that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers and the long term maintenance needs will be the responsibility of the applicant. Good management will avoid flooding it is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that a suitable SUDs scheme is implemented and maintained.

Rural Planning Limited – The provision of modern storage for some 7116 bins, as proposed, would appear both appropriate and necessary in relation to the requirements of the farm business and also beneficial to the locality in terms of reducing HGV movements.

Ash Parish Council – Positively supports the proposal.

Third Party Comments – Two letters of objection the comments are summarized as follows; • Would restrict the amount of light especially in the morning; • Would result in the loss of our view; • The change in land levels would make the situation worse; • The bund and the landscaping would also restrict the light and the view; • Surface water run off may flood our properties; • By 2015 it is expected to produce 15,000 bins, where would the extra 7,444 bins be stored? • It will result in an increase in traffic; • Inadequate electricity supply; • Noise disturbance; • Increase in employment would result in more traffic; • An Inspector has already advised that Overland Lane is not suitable for increased traffic flows; f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The site is located to the north of Ash bypass (A257) within the countryside beyond any village confines. The application site is Hoaden Court, a farm of approximately 111 hectares (275 acres). The applicant has tenanted the farm since 2004 and owned it since 2008. The applicant also owns Barton farm at , approximately 0.5mile away.

1.2 Both Hoaden Court and Barton Farm are farmed to produce fruit, potatoes and cereals with approximately half the land of both farms currently planted with fruit. In total, the applicant grows fruit on approximately 130 hectares (330 acres) (apples, pears, cherries, apricots and plums) at Hoaden Court and in the immediately surrounding area (within a 5 mile radius of the farmyard) and approximately a further 56 hectares (140 acres) (apples, pears, cherries and plums) in other nearby locations. This fruit area is largely owned by the company but some 20% of the area is rented in conjunction with a local grower that the fruit is grown in partnership with. The total fruit acreage on holdings away from Hoaden Court and the immediately surrounding area (i.e. the current 140 acres) has been reducing in recent years and will continue to reduce in the future as the company increasingly focuses its fruit operations around Hoaden Court on land that is owned and occupied by the applicant. As a result, the company now considers Hoaden Court to be its core fruit farm holding and anticipates continuing to invest further in new plantings in the coming years (whilst reducing its fruit operations on other holdings) so as to maintain the current fruit operation at between 161 hectares and 202 hectares (400 and 500 acres).

1.3 The existing facilities at Hoaden Court include a fruit packing operation and existing cold storage facilities, they are not suitable under current guidelines stipulated by the supermarkets. The applicant advises that this equipment is in general at the end of its useful life and although much of it is still in working order it is grossly inefficient (both in terms of maintenance and operating costs) compared to newer equipment and does not enable the company to meet the demands of its customers i.e. storing, packing and selling fruit over the entire UK fruit season which is critical if to build a sustainable top fruit business in the UK. Some of the equipment is running on gases that will be obsolete soon, energy consumption could be drastically reduced if new cold stores and equipment are fitted.

1.4 The proposed site is currently a plum orchard to the rear of the Hoaden Court farmstead. This is to the North East of the existing packhouse and North of the bulk of the Coldstores and Bin Store. The elevations demonstrate that the building will be cut into rising ground. Two residential cottages border the farmyard, 1 and 2 Oast Cottages to the West of the site.

1.5 The proposal is for the erection of a new steel portal framed building within the curtilage of the existing farmstead. The proposed new building will support 12 No. cold storage chambers, with half the chambers being chillers (up to three months storage) and the other half controlled atmosphere (six months plus storage). The building would have a footprint of 39m x 63m, with a ridge height of 11m. It would be sited some 50m from the rear elevation of Oast Cottages and a new vegetated earth bund would be sited between the cold store and these residential properties.

1.6 A canopy to the North of the building, will provide the applicant with covered weather proof storage for empty fruit bins in order to prolong their useful life and also ensure they are clean prior to fruit being picked into them each season. High quality fruit bins such as those that will be required to fill the proposed new cold stores cost approximately £50 to replace and if kept under cover last at least twice as long. The applicant has a stock of approximately 6,500 fruit bins, around half of which are currently stored outside over winter.

1.5 Plans will be on display.

2. Main Issues

2.1 The principal issues are:

• Principle of development; • Visual impact; • Residential Amenity; • Highways implications.

3. Assessment

Principle of development

3.1 The applicant states that the proposed cold store is required for the continued viable operation of the farm. It is not possible or economically viable for the farm to continue to rely on uncertain and costly storage facilities which require transporting the fruit long distances from the farm.

3.2 Policy DM1 of the CS advises that development beyond the confines will not be permitted unless justified by other development plan policies. CS policy DM15 seeks to prevent the loss of countryside and development which would adversely affect the character and appearance, however this policy does permit development if it can be demonstrated that there is an agricultural need.

3.3 The Council’s rural advisor, has been consulted on this planning application. He advises that the new cold store will enable the farm’s produce to be kept in good condition, to modern, farm assured standards, until sold later in the season, rather than being forced to sell at the time of harvesting, or to hire storage elsewhere. Having regard to the extent and the nature of the farm enterprise and the limitations of the existing farm buildings, it is confirmed that the proposed building appears necessary and appropriately designed and located, for these identified agricultural storage purposes.

3.4 There is no reason not to accept this expert advice and therefore it must be concluded that there is an agricultural need for this building and the proposal is therefore in accordance with policy DM15 and as such policy DM1. The principle of this development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

3.5 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF advises that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local plans should amongst other things support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings and promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

Visual impact

3.6 The proposed cold store is an extremely large building and considerably bigger than any other building within the farm holding. The applicant has supported this proposal with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

3.7 The cold store would be located to the east of the existing Oast and north of existing agricultural buildings, with the residential dwellings to the west; these will help to partly screen the cold store from immediate views. The cold store will be visible from the rear of no. 1 and 2 Oast Cottages.

3.8 A public footpath (EE81) runs along the eastern boundary of the farmstead, a hedge row and various farm buildings lie between the footpath and the cold store, however there are locations where the footpath crosses farm tracks where the cold store would be visible.

3.9 The LVIA considers views of the cold store within a 1km radius of the site. It has been identified that the building would be visible at nine identified points within this radius and advises that the visual impact will be low or negligible but advises that the most significant impact will be from views from the north, west along Hoaden Street and Sheerwater Road, west of Sheerwater. The LVIA advises that it will be possible to mitigate those impacts by landscape planting on the west side.

3.10 The Council’s Senior Ecologist has advised that the impact of this proposal will be detrimental to the local landscape character and will generate adverse visual impacts from public locations. It is advised that the LVIA puts too much weight on the screening benefits of landscaping and the deciduous windbreaks. It is also noted that the Oast has a ridge height of 23.06m ODN and the proposed cold store has a ridge height of 23.11m.

3.11 Policy DM15 requires proposals to be located so as to minimise any impact on the landscape. The applicant explains that the height of the proposal is dictated by the need to accommodate the appropriate machinery and vehicles. Taking account of the operational needs of the applicant, including vehicular access to the proposed building, the opportunity to locate the building elsewhere within the site would appear to be very limited. The visual prominence and extent to which the building would be screened would vary according to the viewpoint. For this reason, an alternative location within the vicinity of the farmyard would not necessarily be less intrusive within the wider landscape. Moreover, it is doubtful that the height of the proposal could be reduced.

3.12 Although the applicant farms an extensive area of land, for the most part it comprises open fields. These are generally remote from the farmstead, and would introduce built development into an otherwise open landscape. The proposed location would relate visually and functionally to the existing farmyard, and in terms of its impact on the surrounding countryside, would be notably less prominent by comparison with others. It is concluded that although the proposal would harm the appearance of the countryside, it would nevertheless comply with policy DM15 and the aims of the NPPF.

Residential amenity

3.13 No. 1 and 2 Oast Cottages would be located some 50m from the proposed cold store, they are the residential properties which would be most impacted.

3.14 It is advised that the separation distance of 50m would prevent the cold store from having an adverse impact on the amount of natural light received at these dwellings.

3.15 It is possible that the items of fixed plant (such as the refrigeration units) could cause a noise disturbance, Environmental health have therefore suggested that a condition be imposed requiring a noise assessment to be carried out and then for all items to be sound proofed. It is advised that the new plant could be adequately sound proofed and the impact on the neighbours adequately mitigated.

3.16 It is likely that the due to the scale of the building the view from the rear of the dwellings would be reduced from the current open aspect of the orchard. The loss of a view is not, though, a material planning consideration and the separation distance of 50m is considered to be sufficient to prevent this building from being dominant and creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

3.17 The erection of external lighting could have a detrimental impact not only on residential amenity but also in the character of the countryside. The submitted plans do not indicate any external lighting, therefore a simple safeguarding condition requiring details to be submitted for approval before the installation of any lighting should be imposed.

3.18 The applicant advises that the operational hours of the cold store would be from 6am to 8pm everyday of the week. This is considered to be acceptable due to the fact the farm is existing and is in full operation without any current restrictions on working hours.

Highway safety 3.19 As a result of the existing inadequate storage facilities, all the existing cold storage facilities at Hoaden Court are currently used for short- term storage i.e. as chillers to “feed” the packhouse rather than longer- term storage to extend the selling period of the fruit. In the current absence of long-term cold storage on the site the company has in recent years been forced to transport (by HGV lorry) more than half of its fruit crop to rented long-term cold storage facilities in Faversham (approximately 19 miles from Hoaden Court) and Preston (approximately 5 miles from Hoaden Court given HGV traffic is required to route via Wingham).

3.20 This fruit is then transported back to Hoaden Court as required to “feed” the packhouse operation. As supported by the analysis set out in the Transport Assessment, this situation is clearly disadvantageous to the applicant and to the wider area, compared to the majority of its competitors who have access to suitable on-site long-term cold storage, in particular because: 1) the company is reliant on the availability of suitable rentable long-term cold storage; 2) additional transport movements can be damaging to the quality of the fruit (bruising, delayed cold storage etc.); and 3) it is extremely inefficient, uneconomic, time consuming and non-environmentally friendly. In addition, and perhaps most importantly for the applicant, there is no guarantee that the long-term cold storage facilities that the company is currently renting will be available to third parties from next fruit season (i.e. starting September 2013) and there is a shortage of alternative cold-storage available for rent both locally and nationally. The applicant advises that this concern is supported by a recent report commissioned by AC Goatham & Son into the increasing shortage of long-term cold storage available to the UK top fruit industry and concluded that: “There is a deficit of around 40% of our national stock of cold storage; the impact will hit over the next 10 years; and redevelopment, replacement and renewal is not keeping pace with uneconomic facilities.”

3.21 The KCC highway engineer has been consulted and advises that the proposed cold store is unlikely to generate an increase in HGV movements over the existing situation even with 30% of the storage being used by third parties, as less fruit from the applicant’s orchards is required to be taken off site for storage and then returned for packing and distribution.

3.22 Third party usage greater than 30% could generate an increase in movements as more fruit from the applicant’s orchards would then have to be stored off-site and returned for packing and distribution. The highway engineer therefore suggests that a condition should be imposed to restrict third party usage of the cold store to a maximum of 30%, to prevent an increase in HGV’s on the narrow lanes serving the site. Conditions should also be imposed to ensure the provision of hard standing and maneuvering areas, retention of the existing parking and turning areas and provision of a construction management plan showing lorry routing and parking for construction vehicles and site personnel.

Other Matters

3.23 With specific reference to the NPPF, this document has established the most current thinking on the principles of sustainable development, the first point to note from which is that, at paragraphs 7 and 14, there is now a firm presumption in favour of sustainable development that performs economic, social and environmental roles. These principles are reinforced at paragraph 197, which states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

3.24 Further on the matter of decision-taking, the NPPF states, at paragraphs 186 and 187, that local planning authorities should approach the matter in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development, looking for solutions rather than problems, with decision-takers at every level seeking to approve applications for sustainable development where possible and working proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. For the purpose of the application the subject of this report, the NPPF states, at paragraph 14 that this means approving the development if it accords with the development plan without delay.

3.25 Within the 12 core planning principles are specific requirements for the planning system to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver, inter alia, business that the country needs by responding positively to wider opportunities for growth.

3.26 Members are reminded of an appeal (APP/X2220/A/11/2145517 Ripple Farm, Chapel Lane, Ripple (9 th June 2011)) for a grain store at Ripple. Planning permission was refused because of the visual impact that the grain store would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the countryside. The planning Inspector concluded that ‘It would detract from the appearance of the countryside. Nonetheless, given the undisputed need for the building, and the absence of a suitable alternative location, the proposal would comply with policy DM15. Taken as a whole, the benefits of the proposal would clearly outweigh the minimal harm to the conservation area and the harm to the appearance of the countryside’. It is clear from this decision that the Inspector gave greater weight to the benefits of the development rather than the visual harm.

Conclusion 3.27 It is acknowledged that the erection of this building would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Policy DM15 advises such impacts are acceptable if the development is justified by the needs of agriculture and it cannot be accommodated elsewhere. The policy also requires that measures are incorporated to reduce as far as practicable any harmful effects on countryside character. It is advised that the incorporation of additional landscaping is a measure which would help to reduce this advise impact. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this application complies with both policies DM1 and DM15.

3.28 It is clear that the erection of this cold store would have a positive impact on the farm business and would support the economic growth of this rural business. The Council’s rural advisor considers that there is a rural need for the store. In addition it is unlikely to have an impact on the highway network and any harm to residential amenity can be eradicated by the use of planning conditions.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1) time limit 2) in accordance with the approved plans; 3) material samples; 4) existing and proposed ground levels; 5) boundary treatment; 6) details of the bund and landscaping; 7) operational hours; 8) noise assessment and soundproofing; 9) details of external lighting; 10) details of hard surface for vehicle manoeuvring; 11) no more than 30% of fruit stored grown at other farms; and 12) details of drainage.

II Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Case Officer

Rachel Humber