AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 15 JUN 09
Case No: 0900265S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS)
Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 16 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0213092OUT TO STATE AS FOLLOWS:' THE USE HEREBY PERMITTED SHALL BE CARRIED ON ONLY BY COLLMART GROWERS LTD AND QUALITY FRUIT AND VEG LTD
Location: COLLMART GROWERS LTD THE DROVE PONDERSBRIDGE
Applicant: COLLMART GROWERS LTD
Grid Ref: 525914 292082
Date of Registration: 10.03.2009
Parish: FARCET
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This application has been referred to Panel at the request of a local Member.
1.2 The proposal is to vary condition 16 of outline planning permission 0213092OUT for the erection of buildings for packing, grading, preparation and distribution of vegetables. A copy of the Panel report and decision notice for that application are attached. The condition states "The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Collmart Growers Ltd". This application is to vary the condition to also allow Quality Fruit and Veg Ltd (QFAVL) to use the land and buildings.
1.3 The site is in the countryside approximately 11km south-east of Peterborough and 20 km north of Huntingdon. The applicant’s existing operation includes a 1.47ha site which fronts onto The Drove with a building, yard and weighbridge used in association with grading, washing, bagging and distributing vegetables, particularly onions but also other root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes, parsnips and swede.
1.4 The outline permission is for the erection of buildings with a floor space of 10,000sqm on a site of 8.2ha to the north of the existing premises. It also entails associated hardstandings, the relocation of the existing site access to the north, the provision of a new junction with the B1095 and landscaping. The site adjoins agricultural land to the north-west and south-east but there are dwellings on the east side of The Drove.
1.5 The applicants advise that Collmart currently: * process approximately 100,000 tonnes of vegetables at the site each year;
* the vegetables are predominantly English root vegetables, of which 90% are from East Anglia and 10% are from Nottinghamshire; * onions are also imported to the site to fill a seasonal gap in local supplies for approximately 3 weeks each year from New Zealand and Spain; * limited storage capacity means that vegetables are sometimes taken from the farms for storage at sites in Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, prior to being taken to the site at Pondersbridge; * some of the applicant’s produce is sold directly to customers such as supermarkets and QFAVL from the stores as well as from Pondersbridge; * after processing at Pondersbridge, a proportion of the produce is taken to Collmart’s operation at Outwell, near Wisbech for preparation including slice/dice/bagging and distribution.
1.6 The applicants advise that Quality Fruit and Veg Ltd currently: * pre-pack fruit and vegetables, particularly for restaurants and small retail outlets; * are currently based at Hardwick Road, Peterborough; * buy/collect some of the applicant’s produce directly from their store Bedfordshire for processing at Peterborough; * use Collmart to supply over 75% of their produce, much of which originates from the Pondersbridge site; * use other suppliers to supply less than 25% of produce such as tomatoes and mushrooms, which the applicants do not deal with at present and which are largely imported from abroad.
1.7 The applicant has confirmed that QFAVL would occupy the ground floor of part of one of the two buildings (approximately 1570m2) and part of the yard (approximately 1260m2) the subject of the outline permission.
1.8 The site appears to be in a zone 2 (medium risk) flood area according to the Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or in zones 2/3 (medium/high risk) according to the Environment Agency information. No Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.
2.2 PPS7: “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (2004) sets out the Government's planning policies for rural areas, including country towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the fringes of larger urban areas.
2.3 PPG4: “Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms” (1992) contains advice on the role of the planning system in relation to industrial and commercial development.
2.4 PPG13: “Transport” (2001) provides guidance in relation to transport and particularly the integration of planning and transport.
2.5 PPS25: “Development and Flood Risk” (2006 ) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. Its aims are to
2 ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.
2.6 Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning permission
For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live
3.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents
• ENG1 : “Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance” – new development should be located to reduce carbon emissions.
• SS1 : “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All. SS1.(2)-5 seeks sustainable developments which are well connected in terms of good transport services.
3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.
• None relevant.
3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95
• En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.
• E13 : “Industry, Warehousing or high technology and office developments” – will not be permitted where it would cause serious traffic noise or pollution problems or other damage to the environment.
3
• CS9 :’’Flood Water Management’’ – normally refuse prejudicial schemes.
3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002).
• None relevant.
3.5 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning, then Planning then Planning+Policy then Informal policy statements where there is a link to Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007
• P8 – Development in the Countryside – Outside the existing built framework of the Smaller Settlements development will be restricted to: that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, or required for the purposes of outdoor recreation; the alteration, replacement or change of use of existing buildings in accordance with other policies; limited and specific forms of housing, business and tourism development, as provided for within the Local Development Framework; or land allocated for particular purposes.
• E2 – Location of Industrial and Warehouse Development – A proposal for a large industrial or warehouse development on unallocated land should be limited to: iii) situations where an existing firm requires additional space to expand; the conversion or redevelopment of suitable existing buildings in the countryside, as provided for elsewhere in the core strategy.
• P10 – Flood Risk – development should: not take place in areas at risk from flooding, unless suitable mitigation/flood protection measures are agreed; not increase the risk of flooding to properties elsewhere; make use of sustainable drainage systems where feasible; be informed by a flood risk assessment where appropriate.
3.6 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Submission Core Strategy Incorporating Proposed Changes 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning and then click on Planning Policy where there is a link to the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.
• CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.
3.7 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD includes the site in the Fen Character Area.
4 4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 0213092OUT Erection of buildings for packing, grading, preparation and distribution of vegetables. Construction of hardstanding and access. Granted 18 May 2004.
4.2 0400810FUL Retention of extension to existing building. Granted 21 July 2005.
4.3 0402667S73 Removal of condition 16 of permission 02/13092 "The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Collmart Growers Ltd". Refused 24 Sept 2004.
4.4 0402668S73 Removal of condition 17 of planning permission 02/013092 "No machinery shall be operated, no process carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site, including the existing building outside the following times: 07:00hrs to 22:00hrs daily." Refused 24 Sept 2004.
4.5 0402669S73 Removal of condition 14 of permission 02/013092 "Upon the commencement of use of the new buildings the operational use/activity of the present yard area in front of the existing building shall cease." Refused 24 Sept 2004.
4.6 0500590S73 Variation of condition 9 of permission 0213092 relating to the provision of bund and acoustic fencing. Removal of condition 14: Upon the commencement of use of the new buildings the operational use/activity of the present yard area in front of the existing building shall cease. Granted 23 May 2005.
4.7 0502499REM Approval of external appearance and design in respect of building for packing, grading, preparation and distribution of vegetables. Approved 13 Nov 2005.
4.8 0503043S73 Variation of condition 17 of permission 0213092OUT. Granted 3 April 2006.
4.9 0503728REM Approval of landscaping. Construction of hardstanding and access. Approved 2 Aug 2006.
4.10 The permission 0213092OUT remains ‘live’ as work on the access west of the drain and public highway began shortly before 17 May 2009. The last condition requiring pre-development-start information was discharged on 18 May 2009. The start was a few days before the discharge of the condition but this is not a material breach of condition.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Farcet Parish Council: No objection (COPY ATTACHED)
5.2 Adjoining Fenland District Council: No reply.
5.3 Cambs County Council Highways : No objection.
5.4 Project Engineer: No objection subject to condition securing details of a flood warning system and safe escape arrangements.
5
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Two representations have been received from a Member of Parliament on behalf of a local resident, raising concerns about an increase in traffic and the exacerbation of existing problems for residents and queries about noise barriers.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Introduction
7.1 The application is made under Section 73 of the 1990 Act. Under the provisions of this section the planning authority should consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. The options open are: - grant permission subject to a different condition/s (or even unconditionally); - refuse the application if the condition should not be varied.
7.2 The development has commenced. The issues are therefore whether it is appropriate to vary the occupancy condition, the impact on the amenity of nearby residents and flood risk.
Development in the countryside
7.3 The site lies in the open countryside wherein generally only development that is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or is required for the purposes of outdoor recreation, mineral extraction, waste management facilities, infrastructure provision or national defence will be permitted.
7.4 QFAVL do not fall within these categories and do not have an essential need to be in this location. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy policy En17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 or P8 of Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.
7.5 The outline planning permission was granted with the aim of improving the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings that had a long history of suffering from the noise, traffic and activity generated by the operation. In addition the case was argued for special consideration because of the importance to local agriculture and the benefits that would accrue from the company consolidating at this new site. The outline application was referred to Go East as a departure from the Development Plan but it was not called-in.
7.6 The occupancy condition was imposed because of the special circumstances applicable to Collmart Growers Ltd, which were: * the development related to the consolidation of an existing farm- based enterprise (as opposed to establishing a new non-essential enterprise in the countryside), * the proposal was of distinct benefit to the farming community and rural economy as a whole and reduced motor journeys and * the proposal offered the opportunity to address noise and amenity issues for adjoining residents associated with the existing operation.
6 7.7 Unlike Collmart, QFAVL is not directly involved with agriculture, is not based at Pondersbridge and permitting it to locate at the site would not improve the amenities of nearby residents. Although QFVAL take much of their produce from the applicants (they buy just under 25% from elsewhere, including products like tomatoes and mushrooms that the applicants do not supply) they do not propose to deal solely with Collmart or local farm produce. Therefore, if the application were to be approved, there would be nothing to prevent QFVAL from continuing to bring in goods to the site or increasing the percentage of such goods. A condition seeking to control this would be neither reasonable nor readily enforceable.
7.8 The proposal would currently cut motor journeys for the produce bought by QFVAL from Collmart but the isolated location means that the staff will be likely to have to travel further to work. As the public transport links to Pondersbridge are not good, the probability is that the staff will need to travel by private motor vehicle. Although there may be some scope for shared motor journeys with the Collmart staff, an alternative location for QFVAL, such as Peterborough, where they are currently based, or Yaxley where they have been granted planning permission for a new unit on the Eagle Business Park, would be more sustainable.
7.9 The proposal may also increase the length of QFVAL’s motor journeys for deliveries from the site, in view of the relatively isolated location of Pondersbridge.
7.10 The applicants contend that there would be advantages to both businesses if the application were approved in that two businesses would share the costs of the development, share the use of the weighbridge, avoid some deliveries between Collmart’s Pondersbridge operation and QFVAL and save fuel costs and the proposal would allow the applicants to enter markets associated with QFVAL which are not currently available to them.
7.11 However, these aspects would not overcome the concerns about the principle of non-essential development in this location in the countryside. The advantages to Collmart and QFAVL are considered to be outweighed by the harm that would be caused by permitting the development.
7.12 If Collmart no longer require the space in the building and yard, the appropriate solution would be to apply for a smaller development.
7.13 A refusal would be consistent with the previous refusal of application O402667S73 for the removal of condition 16. At that time the applicant gave no justification for the proposal and the application was refused because the development on this site would not have received planning permission but for the special circumstances applicable to Collmart.
7.14 The proposal is contrary to policy as it is a non-essential development in the countryside which would be likely to generate additional motor journeys and set a precedent for other similar proposals without an essential need to be in the countryside. The proposal is contrary to policies SS1.(2)-5 and ENG1 of the East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008), En17 of the
7 Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, P8 and E2 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Submission Core Strategy Incorporating Proposed Changes 2009 and contrary to the guidance of PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13.
Residential amenity
7.15 The variation of the condition is likely to increase activity at the site and on its approaches because a second business would be based there, resulting in two sets of staff and vehicle movements, albeit floor space would be no greater. However, as the approved outline development entails the relocation of the access from the existing site (near dwellings) to a position further from the houses, acoustic screening of the existing yard nearest the houses (and of the remainder of the site) and the noise limits on the site and hours of operation and delivery times can be controlled as before (conditions 17 and 18 of the outline, as varied by conditions 1 and 2 of permission 0503043S73) the current proposal would have no undue adverse effect on residential amenity.
Flood risk
7.16 The site is in an area of medium flood risk. The Council’s Project Engineer advises that no flood risk assessment is required and that if the application were approved, a condition could be imposed to address the safety of people at the site.
7.17 Having regard to applicable national and local policies and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should be refused in this instance.
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.
8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason:
8.1 The site lies in the open countryside wherein generally only development that is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or is required for the purposes of outdoor recreation, mineral extraction, waste management facilities, infrastructure provision or national defence will be permitted.
The current proposal is considered to be contrary to policy as it is a non-essential development in the countryside which would be likely to generate additional motor journeys and set a precedent for other similar proposals without an essential need to be in the countryside.
The advantages to Collmart Growers Ltd and to Quality Fruit and Veg Ltd of the development hereby proposed have been taken into account but are outweighed by the harm that would be caused by permitting the development and are not adequate justification for this development in the countryside.
8 The proposal is contrary to policies SS1.(2)-5 and ENG1 of the East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008), En17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, P8 and E2 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Submission Core Strategy Incorporating Proposed Changes 2009 and contrary to the guidance of PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13 which seek to minimise motor journeys.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File References: 0213092OUT, 0402667S73, 0900111FUL. East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Submission Core Strategy Incorporating Proposed Changes 2009 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines.
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Development Management Officer 01480 388407
9