Item05 Pc131009.Doc

HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – AGENDA ITEM 6: LIST OF PLANS. DATE: 13 October 2009

PLAN: 05 CASE NUMBER: 09/03016/FULMAJ GRID REF: EAST 431018 NORTH 477845 APPLICATION NO. 6.13.27.N.FULMAJ DATE MADE VALID: 24.07.2009 TARGET DATE: 23.10.2009 CASE OFFICER: Mr M A Warden WARD: Wathvale

VIEW PLANS AT: http://tinyurl.com/n5ajxs

APPLICANT: Greyfriars UK Ltd

AGENT: Arrowsmith Associates

PROPOSAL: Erection of mushroom growing shed and staff building with associated infrastructure and landscaping and installation of new package treatment plant.

LOCATION: New Mill House Wath Ripon North Yorkshire HG4 5JE

REPORT

SITE AND PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION This application has been referred at the request of Councillor C Brown for determination by Planning Committee.

A previous almost identical application was submitted, advertised and representations and consultations were received before it was discovered that the application lacked an ecological assessment and consequently was invalid. This is a completely new planning application, which now includes an ecological assessment, and also includes slightly different and/or additional information to that submitted with the previous planning application.

All those who had made representations or who responded as consultees to the previous application were sent a letter advising that this application supersedes the previous planning application; that this application includes new information and different information from that submitted with the previous invalid application; that responses made to the previous invalid application will not be carried over and added to this application; and that they should write or email comments based on this planning application if they wish to make representations/consultation responses. SITE AND PROPOSAL The site comprises the field immediately to the east of Greyfriars Mushroom Farm, and includes utilisation of the existing vehicular access which, although not strictly part of the application site, adjoins the application site and is on land in the same ownership and control as that comprising the application site.

The application comprises:- i) the erection of a principle building 96m long, 72m wide, 5.6m to eaves and 8.1m to ridge, comprising a mushroom growing shed with integral cold store, packing store, offices and central service arcade, totalling 71,660 sq. m.; ii) a staff block measuring 21m x 10m x 8m to ridge providing male and female changing facilities and wcs on the ground floor, and canteen and kitchen on the first floor, a total floor area of 420 sq.m; iii) a plant room measuring 10m x 10m and 7.3m to apex of a curved ridge, 100 sq.m in area together with three outside chillers; iv) a 10m wide apron either side of the buildings, a large apron at the east end, and a service road around the building; v) installation of a new package treatment plant; vi) creation of two additional ponds; vii) removal of existing bund forming the eastern boundary of the existing site; viii) landscaping including a 2m mound at the east end of the building and tree planting around the proposed mushroom shed and service road and along the roadside hedge to the east end of the field. ix) removal of part of an existing overhead electricity line and installation of a new electricity transformer.

Accompanying the planning application forms and plans are:-

* Justification for the proposal * Planning assessment incorporating Design and Access Statement * Transport assessment * Ecological survey * Flood Risk Assessment * BREEAM exemption case * Validation Certificate: Sustainable Construction and Design * Letter previously sent from Arrowsmith Associates on 29.6.2009 * Landscape and visual character assessment

During the course of the application, by letters and/or emails the agent has submitted additional information some of which was in response to representations or to consultee responses. MAIN ISSUES 1. Existing land use 2. Landscape impact 3. Access and highway issues 4. Gas pipeline 5. Ecology 6. Flood risk 7. Sustainable construction and design 8. Employment

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 83/02964/FUL Proposed pig breeding unit: Refused 17.1.1980

84/01/883/OUT Erecting 340 sow intensive livestock unit and one dwelling: Defer 20.11.184

84/02710/XXX Section 53 determination for erection of pig breeding unit in accordance with Class 6 of Schedule 1 of the T & CPGDOs 1977 to 1981: Defer 20.11.1984

85/01598/OUT Erecting 340 sow intensive livestock unit and one dwelling: Refused 28.08.1985

86/02562/OUT Erecting mushroom growing farm and one dwelling: Permission 31.03.1987

87/02363/FUL Erecting two mushroom production units, farmhouse, general office and store, boiler room and pump house, septic tank: Permission 19.10.1987

87/02364/FUL Erecting four mushroom houses: Permission 19.10.1987

01/04190/FUL Erection of portal frame building for cold storage of mushrooms: Permission 22.11.2001

01/04707/FUL Retention of dual span aluminium framed polytunnel for dry storage of mushrooms: Approved 12.12.2001

03/03/528/FUL Siting of portacabin to provide bedroom accommodation for mushroom pickers: Permission 26.09.2003

06/03/437/FUL Erection of first floor side extension to office: Permission 05.09.2006

09/01064/PNA Erection of extension to agricultural building: PANR 01/04/2009

09/03183/PNAFUL Erection of mushroom growing shed: REFPN 03/08/2009

CONSULTATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS Yorkshire Water The area is not served by public sewerage system, the application should be referred to the Environment Agency and HBCs EHO for comment on private treatment facilities.

Richmondshire District Council Consulted as neighbouring planning authority - Reply awaited.

Rural Strategy Officer See assessment of main issues.

NYCC Highway Authority Because, from the information supplied with the application, the applicants have accepted upgrading the C124 classified road between the site and the B6267, the Highway Authority recommend conditions - See Assessment of Main Issues.

Environmental Health Reply awaited.

Economic Development Officer See Assessment of Main Issues.

Environment Agency No objections in principle but development will only be acceptable with a condition requiring submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme for the site.

British Gas TransCo No objections to these proposals, however there may be apparatus in the area that may be at risk during construction works. See Assessment of Main Issues.

Parish Council WATH PARISH MEETING

Health and Safety Executive No longer provides Land Use Planning advice other than through the PADHI+ system - Standard Informative

National Grid UK Transmission On-site risk assessment is required as the level of risk is high. See Assessment of Main Issues.

Landscape Officer See Assessment of Main Issues.

Local Plans Policy See Assessment of Main Issues.

English Heritage See Assessment of Main Issues. Hambleton District Council Consulted as neighbouring planning authority. Reply awaited.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY PPS1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS07 Planning Policy Statement 7, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS09 Planning Policy Statement 9, Biodiversity & Geological Conservation PPG15 Planning Policy Guidance 15, Planning and the Historic Environment RSYH1 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH1, Overall Approach and Key Spatial Priorities RSYH2 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH2, Climate Change and Resource Use RSYH3 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH3, Working Together RSYH4Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH4, Regional Cities and Sub- Regional Cities and Towns RSYH5 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSHY5, Principal Towns RSYH6 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH6, Local Service Centres and Rural and Coastal Areas RSYH7 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSYH7, Location of Development RSVTL1 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSVTL1, Vales and Tees Links sub area policy RSEV07 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSENV7, Agricultural Land RSEV09 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSENV9, Historic Environment RSEV10 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSENV10, Landscape RSE1 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSE1, Creating a Successful and Competitive Regional Economy RSE7 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSSE7, Rural Economy RST1 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy RSST1, Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift CSSG3 Core Strategy Policy SG3 Settlement Growth: Conservation of the countryside, including Green Belt CSSG4 Core Strategy Policy SG4 Settlement Growth: Design and Impact CSJB1 Core Strategy Policy JB1: Supporting the Harrogate District economy CSTRA1 Core Strategy Policy TRA1: Accessibilty CSEQ1 Core Strategy Policy EQ1: Reducing risks to the environment CSEQ2 Core Strategy Policy EQ2: The natural and built environment and green belt LPC02 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C2, Landscape Character LPHD7A Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD7A, Parks & Gardens of Historic Interest LPHD20 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD20, Design of New Development and Redevelopment LPE06 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy E6, Redevelopment and extension of industrial and business development LPE08 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy E8, New Industrial and Business Development in the countryside LPNC04 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy NC4, Semi-Natural Habitats

APPLICATION PUBLICITY SITE NOTICE EXPIRY: 28.08.2009 PRESS NOTICE EXPIRY: 28.08.2009

REPRESENTATIONS WATH AND NORTON CONYERS PARISH COUNCIL - Because of the transport implications for the East Tanfield Ward, the Parish Council does not consider that, even after proposed improvement works, the C124 is capable of accommodating the significant HGV traffic that the proposed mushroom business would generate. This is a small single track road, not suitable for 44 tonne wagons.

Details on the proposed improvements are also missing from the application and there is no indication given that 12 passing places would be achievable ( - are consents from the relevant landowners in place etc).

It should also be noted that the Tanfield Parish Plan states that:

"Respondents [to the parish plan survey] were also concerned about the maintenance of roads in the parish. The condition of the B6267 as being of great concern. This is due to the volume and weight of the traffic travelling to and from the A1."

The Parish Council therefore requests that you refuse this application.

Tanfield Parish - objects to the application -

"1. Greyfriars is built on the last field next to the boundary between Harrogate District and Hambleton District. It is to be hoped by the Wath and Norton Conyers Parish Council that this objection to the plans will be regarded with importance, in spite of being almost out of the Harrogate area.

2. The size of the proposed development is of great concern. A vast development of this scale has no place in the countryside. It will be out of place.

3. The applicant told the Wath and Norton Conyers Parish Council on 8th April 2009, that this planning application is for the largest development of its kind in the whole of Europe. The Parish Council feels this enormous extension should not be near the village of Wath (or any village) and as an industry-the amount of articulated lorries it already generates precludes it from being a 'farm'-it should be built on an industrial site. The new building will be over double the size of the whole of the existing buildings. It will be built on 8 acres of land; most of it Grade 1 arable.

4. Although the growing of mushrooms is considered to be agricultural where planning is concerned, the traffic generated already by this business has nothing 'agricultural' about it. The traffic at present is that of a large industry, using articulated lorries, some of them double trailer length.

5. The following quote taken from the Harrogate District Local Plan-policy E6- is relevant to this application. In cases where the development would involve the extension of an existing site for an established firm outside the built framework of a settlement, permission will normally be given SO LONG AS THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE AREA OR ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY'

The Parish Council knows that this proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. (Greyfriars already has an adverse effect on residential amenity). Before the last planning application (6.13.27 M FULMAJ 09/01895/FULMAJ was invalidated, the applicant wrote to local residents, "the only way I can see there being zero traffic from Greyfriars through Wath is by building the farm-all other options will increase traffic" and "If we don't build the farm, you need to know that I will be forced to enhance the range and volume of other lines we already handle here-to maximise efficiencies and distribution economies. This means more traffic through Wath" Remarks like these emphasise the problems that the community and area are facing.

6. The impact of a development of this size on the villages of Wath, Melmerby and the surrounding area is unacceptable to residents and drivers. The infrastructure surrounding the site does not, at present, support the site. It cannot support a future development of this magnitude. The site is on a C class road, which leads to other C class roads, which go through Wath and Melmerby and to Nunwick and Hutton Conyers and also to West Tanfield and past Thornborough. The roads are narrow and hazardous and all the grass verges are worn away and full of deep potholes; mainly caused and worsened by the large amount of lorries, which at present go to and from the Greyfriars site. North Yorkshire County Council, despite repeated requests for repairs to the roads, cannot carry out these repairs, due to lack of money. This situation will not improve. Two Parish Councillors were told at a meeting of Harrogate Borough Council, with Parish Councillors, in February 2008 that 'a death would have to occur' before anything could be done, to stop HGV's approaching Wath from Melmerby, near the village Church, where the road is too narrow for even two cars to pass. At some places, it is only 4m wide. Cars and of course, lorries, regularly mount the footpath.

7. At present, apparently 114 lorries per week (as stated in documents supporting the application) go to and from Greyfriars. These lorries travel day and night, 7 days a week. Each lorry goes through the villages of Melmerby and Wath. This figure will supposedly, reduce to 100 per week. The Parish Council does not accept these figures. There have been ongoing difficulties for years, between Greyfriars and the Wath and Norton Conyers Parish Council (on behalf of the residents), usually regarding the large amount of articulated lorries. On 25th February 2005, the Parish Council was told that, "with immediate effect, Charles Merson, our Operations Director, has issued instruction to all drivers to take their outbound articulated lorries to Standard House" (Hutton Conyers) "via the Thornborough route and on via the A1 and A61 "This did not happen, as promised and the Parish Council wrote on 8th April 2005 to point this out. The attached photograph was taken on the bad bend at Nunwick, on 6th August 2009 on the road from Wath to Hutton Conyers. The articulated lorry had come from Greyfriars.

With this record of fitting in with the locals, how will any recommendation by NYCC to upgrade the Thornborough road, with 12 passing places, be implemented? If Greyfriars do not send their existing traffic that way at present, why should they in the future? It would not be enforced. No company going to and from the site will want to increase its costs by traveling more miles.

8. There is no mention in the plans of the working hours; is this mushroom factory going to be in production 24 hours per day? This is an important point.

9. There have been problems with regard to the company and their activities at the Richardson Business Park at Hutton Conyers. There have been assurances made, which have been broken. There was a problem between the Council and Greyfriars, with workers living on the site and the enforcement officer was involved. When asked how many people were living on site, in June 2009, the applicant said 3. There were apparently 8 at the time. There have been accidents in the village, involving Greyfriars employees and complaints about the behaviour of workers who are housed in the village. The company mini bus has caused problems.

10. The Parish Council is concerned about the future of the village and the area and if this application is granted, the applicant, who is not local, could sell it immediately. This is a major concern.

11. The amount of workers employed is not relevant to a planning matter, but in view of the fact that the applicant gives it great credence, there must be a response to this. At present, the majority of employees at Greyfriars are from abroad. The company houses many of them, pays them and transports them. Some live on site. The applicant has an employment agency in Riga, Latvia.

12. Whilst there has been a drainage assessment, with this recent application, there is still concern about 'run off' from the huge roofs of the new building which will go into the Norton Beck. Already, there is regular flooding right across the road on the bad bend on Tanfield lane at the bridge. One cottage and its garden has been flooded 3 times, since the present mushroom farm has been developed to its present size. Each time the beck overflows, which it has never done before. The entire downstairs of the property has had to be cleared out.

13. There is concern about lighting pollution with an industry of this size. The Barker Industrial Estate at Melmerby is an example of where there is a huge error with the lighting.

14. The Parish Council feels that it is important to point out that when Greyfriars was in dispute with HBC, the Parish Council and the residents of Wath, Norton Conyers and Nunwick, in 2005, regarding their lorries and business activities at the Richardson Business Park at Hutton Conyers, Greyfriars produced a petition signed by their workers to match in numbers, the one produced by the people protesting against the development. These workers did not -in the majority-live locally and the signatures, it would appear, were used purely to match numbers 15. At a minuted meeting of the Parish Council, in April 2009, the applicant stated that £1,500,000 would go into the wage and salary economy of the area. On the previous planning application, the figure was reduced to £1,000,000 and in a press release handed out by Greyfriars, to people in the village entitled 'EVERYONE'S A WINNER AT WATH', after a Parish Council meeting, the figure is stated as being £800,000. The anomalies in these wide ranging figures give us cause for concern. Why have they been removed from the new application and are other important details in the application so variable?

16. The bridges -one of them very old and of historical interest-are small. Are they capable of taking such traffic? Has English Heritage been contacted? In early August, 2009 a large portion of the stone bridge was knocked into the stream by a large vehicle; the road was closed for 2 days, whilst it was repaired."

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 1. Petition

Signed by 39 people was received objecting strongly to the extension of Greyfriars Mushroom unit on the basis that the size of the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the infrastructure of the villages of Melmerby and Wath and the inadequate local roads.

2. Copy Letter

36 copies of an identical letter have been received: some copies were posted individually, many were delivered together. Some of the letters have no addressee's address, although all letters are signed. The letters strongly object to the application for the following reasons:- i. A development of this size is more suited to an appropriate designated site. The development would triple the size of the existing plant. The field is Grade I/II which is prime agricultural land. ii. Worried for the long term future of Wath. Once built, the site could potentially be developed for alternative business use. The applicant has advised that if market conditions changed, he would be forced to import other products. iii. Village roads are unsuitable and inadequate and will not cope with any future Greyfriars UK business development or of any potential purchaser of the site.

Although the Highway Authority have promised to upgrade the Thornborough road to direct lorries north of the village, there is no insurance that this in enforceable. With the major upgrade of the A1, the access to the motorway might not be available for approximately 3 years.

The applicant previously promised the PCC that no lorries would travel through the village, but to date this is not the case. iv. Although the site will be landscaped, this does not detract from the size and huge impact it will have on the local environment, ie light, noise pollution and the smell of ammonia which mushroom farms produce (a mushroom farm has been closed in Selby due to the unpleasant smell it created), and the largely unspoilt Wath.

3. Individual Representations

29 letters and emails have been received making representations including:-

1. Concern over the volume of traffic which is already unacceptable and causing horrendous noise pollution and disturbance at all hours of the day, including the early hours of the morning ruining the peace and tranquillity of the village (but comments that if the proposal to use the road going north to the B6267 takes place if used by traffic to the site it would be a positive solution to our concerns).

2. Questions the change in the design of the roof of the principal building.

3. The three roads leading to the site from Tanfield, Thornborough and Wath are not suitable for articulated wagons as two wagons cannot pass and in most place a wagon and a car cannot pass.

4. An existing small bridge will be at risk if the development takes place and would require closure for repairs if damaged by traffic.

5. There is no room for an industrial site in this area (and there is room at neighbouring industrial sites).

6. There is insufficient room for 12 passing places on the C87 because there are gutters, water mains and the road itself is not wide enough.

7. The development could lead to more heavy traffic passing through the villages of Wath and Melmerby. HGV's pass through Wath at all times of the day and night seven days a week causing detriment to the amenity and potential danger to residents.

8. Once production is increased, there is nothing to stop the reintroduction of importing mushrooms from other areas.

9. Water run off into the existing beck would result in excessive flooding.

10. The location is unsustainable and development would not comply with planning guidance and policies, which seek to protect the countryside and historic environment, it does not accord with policies on employment.

11. There are no current planning conditions to restrict importation of goods from other growers or from overseas.

12. The current applicants are not farmers and it is no longer linked to agriculture. 13. Advice is that the development is industrial and that planning policy states only small-scale development should be allowed in the countryside.

14. If the site is being used to store and sell imported food items this would not fall under the definition of agriculture.

15. Extensive flooding has already occurred and caused serious problems to nearby cottages. With the prospect of higher rainfall and raised water tables in the future the LPA should take flooding into account.

16. The Local Planning Authority should consider an EIA.

17. The development will involve the removal of mature trees and hedgerows the latter being protected.

18. The adjacent woodland is under separate ownership and the trees are a crop, which could be felled at any time leaving the site exposed.

19. The current development is harmful to the rural character of the area and further large-scale development would exacerbate the situation.

20. The development would have a harmful impact on the views, setting and character of Norton Conyers, the historic gardens and parkland, and also harm Thornborough hedges.

21. Lighting would be visually intrusive.

22. A condition should be attached controlling hours of operation.

23. The development fails to meet the key principles regarding rural and sustainable development.

24. The site is not sustainable or well related to Ripon, the nearest city, it is a Greenfield site, which is not allocated in the adopted LDF as an employment site, and there is no shortage of employment sites available in the district.

25. Rural and employment sites should employ local people.

26. The land is graded 1 and 2 by MAFF.

27. The development is contrary to Core Strategy Policies SG3, SG2, SG4, EQ1, EQ2, TRA1, TRA2 and TRA3.

28. The loss of mature oaks, native trees that support the largest number of insect species, is to be deprecated. The site is unsuitable because of the loss of visual amenity in a mainly unspoilt area and because of the detrimental effect on the environment and on residents from HGV's on unsuitable country roads. The development is contrary to Local Plan Policy E8. 29. Once built the site could potentially develop an alternative business use or be sold.

30. Re-routing HGV traffic will be difficult to enforce.

31. Concern that there will be greater impact than anticipated from the ecological flood risk assessment.

32. If approved there will be fears in the area of yet more future expansion of the site.

33. The development would involve the loss of grade 2 agricultural land.

34. The landscaping and parking proposals will not eliminate negative landscape impact.

35. The proposed low level lighting is a subjective statement.

36. The application is the result of changed economic circumstances which could easily change again resulting in an increase in traffic movement and increases could occur if the site was used for some other purpose.

37. The on site canteen may require almost daily visits from suppliers and frequent waste collections. Proposed earnings generation of approximately £1,000,000 per annum should be clarified.

38. The scale of employment is not appropriate to this rural area with no shops for miles around.

39. The reduction in food miles may have benefits on a global level but will be minimal at a local level compared to the problems that will be created.

40. The hydrology of the area has not been adequately considered and might be detrimental to the wider locality having implications for crops and trees.

41. The reed bed and pond facilities do not adequately guard against ground pollution. Air pollution and removal of spent waste has not been accounted for. The new pond may cause problems to crops and may pose a bird strike risk for air traffic.

42. Such a large scale development needs to be accompanied by a long term business plan because EU Grants that sustain the business may cease.

43. The development would have a significant and negative impact on Norton Conyers, a Grade 2 Listed Building and adjoining park and gardens and impact on tourism.

44. There is a contradiction in the statement that the proposal has been designed to achieve optimum energy efficiency and yet argues against the BREEAM assessment. 45. The additional employees will earn insufficient to put much money back into the local economy.

46. There are two SINC's in force in the locality.

47. The Transport Assessment fails to address the fundamental elements mentioned within Guidance on Transport Assessment including Key Issues. The Transport Assessment lacks base line transport data such as existing and proposed parking facilities within the vicinity of the site and the existing traffic flows along Tanfield Lane.

48. A qualitative description of the existing travel characteristics of the existing site has not been provided nor a description and functional classification of the highway network in the vicinity of the site.

49. The application does not confirm the routes to be used during operations at the site and their appropriateness.

50. A log of existing traffic movements has not been provided.

51. Information obtained from the TRICS database for similar sites of agricultural processing and production estimate more frequent traffic movements and therefore the figures in the Transport Assessment seem unrealistic.

52. There is a potential for traffic increase relating to the existing facility regardless of whether or not the development proceeds.

53. Unless restricted operating hours are a condition, it is unlikely that a reduction in traffic movement numbers will be realised.

54. The Transport Assessment does not include injury or accident data.

55. The LPA should give serious consideration to the submission of an EIA.

56. There are conflicts between the various documents submitted relating to flood risk and drainage and there is a lack of any detailed drainage proposals.

57. There is a potential for leachate from the growing process and fuel spills with other contaminants entering the drainage system. There is no detailed assessment of drainage or potential leachate run off contamination, which would affect Norton Beck and a number of important environments down stream.

58. The traffic assessment is not based on any empirical survey of current traffic flows.

59. The passing places required by the Highway Authority would have a cumulative landscape impact because of the off site works required.

60. There is concern with regard to traffic movements between the application site and the Company's facility at the former ammunition dump at Huton Conyers. 61. The applicant's comment that a large proportion of the £1,000,000 generated would be spent locally, however the sum is stated as "earnings generated", which is considered gross sales of mushrooms produced at the site but without major costs being taken into account, including profit, taxes and utility bills.

62. Future management of the woodland to the west of the site will result in new views being opened up of the premises.

63. There will be an impact on Norton Conyers Hall until the proposed screening has matured.

64. The potential operating hours could have a significant impact on local amenity in terms of noise, light pollution and traffic movements.

65. To allow the site to operate safely, the level of lighting will be substantial.

66. The development would destroy important elements of the historic landscape around Norton Conyers Hall and would be an intrusion into that landscape, which still retains much of its historic setting.

67 The lighting will impact on several moth species. The development will impact on badgers and otters found in the locality.

VOLUNTARY NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION None.

ASSESSMENT OF MAIN ISSUES 1. POLICY 1.1 Government Guidance in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out Government's objectives for rural areas:- i To raise the quality of life and the environment of rural areas through the promotion of sustainable economic growth and diversification; good quality, sustainable development which respects and, where possible, enhances the local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside; and continued protection of the open countryside to the benefit of all. ii To promote more sustainable patterns of development, focusing most development in or next to existing towns and villages; discouraging the development of Greenfield land or where it must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully. iii Promoting development of the regions by improving their economic performance by developing competitive, diverse and thriving enterprises that provide a range of jobs and under-pin a strong economy. iv To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agricultural sectors where farming achieves high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and manages valued landscapes and bio-diversity; and contributes both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; and provides high quality products that the public wants.

1.2 PPS7 states that sustainable development is the core principle under-pinning land use planning and decisions should be judged against key principles, [paragraph 1] including:-

Effective protection and enhancement of the environment [paragraph 1 (i)];

Maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment [paragraph 1 (i)];

Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions and those which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres [paragraph 1 (iii)];

New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in development plans should be strictly controlled [paragraph 1 (iv)].

All development in rural area should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location and sensitive to the character of the countryside and the local distinctiveness [paragraph 1 (vi)].

1.3 Clearly, the Government is seeking large and new rural enterprises to be close to existing service centres, with the scale and design in keeping and character of the locality; and that in rural areas away from service centres the character of the countryside should be protected.

1.4 The Government recognises that diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises and advises that the local planning authority should be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development objectives, and that are consistent in their scale with their rural location, but warns that a supportive approach to farm diversification should not result in excessive expansion and encroachment of building development into the countryside (paragraph 31).

1.5 Regional Spatial Strategy policies reiterate government advice advising that cities and towns should be the prime focus for employment in the region (Policy YH4). In identifying sites for development, local planning authorities are required to adopt a transport-orientated approach to ensure that the development makes best use of existing transport infrastructure and capacity; takes into account highway capacity constraints; complies with public transport accessibility criteria and maximises accessibility by walking and cycling (Policy YH7). Within the Vales and Tees links sub area Policy BTL1 requires diversification of the sub area economy to lessen dependency on the agricultural sector and reduce out commuting, protecting and enhancing the historic character of the sub area's countryside as well as protecting and enhancing the biodiversity and landscape character of the sub area (Policy BTL1). 1.6 Policy ENV7: Agricultural Land states that development of agricultural land if required should take place on poorer quality land wherever possible and appropriate.

1.7 Policy ENV9: Historic Environment seeks to safeguard and enhance the historic environment.

1.8 Policy E7: Rural Economy requires local planning authorities to help diversify and strengthen the rural economy by facilitating development that:- i promotes complimentary roles for principal towns (like Ripon) and local service centres; ii allows for essential development for agricultural development in the countryside; iii supports rural diversification schemes which bring economic, social and environmental benefit; iv supports and protects an attractive and high quality rural environment; v ensures appropriate scales and types of development and levels of traffic generation.

1.9 It is clear that Regional Spatial Strategy policies seek to promote rural business diversification close to principal towns such as Ripon and local service centres and, while encouraging rural diversification, requires new development to be in scale and keeping of its countryside setting, and requires the character of the countryside, particularly historic settings, to be protected.

1.10 The saved policies of Harrogate and District Local Plan Policy E6 supports redevelopment or expansion of existing industrial and business sites in the countryside provided it would not cause unacceptable planning problems.

1.11 The expansion of the existing firms should be normally encouraged and is considered to warrant special circumstances, but generally redevelopment or expansion proposals the policy justification states would be expected to take place within the confines of existing industrial and business sites in order to protect the countryside. The justification states that a new development will not be encouraged if there is significant adverse effect on the character of appearance of the area or on residential amenity, and where there are no other overriding planning objections such as traffic or environmental impact.

1.12 Policy HD20: Design of New Development and Redevelopment sets out design principles:- a. new buildings should make a positive contribution to the spatial quality of the area and their siting and design should respect the area's character and layout; b. new buildings should respect the local distinctiveness of existing buildings, settlements and their landscape setting; c. new buildings should respect scale, proportions and height of neighbouring properties; d. new building design should respect, but not necessarily mimic the character of their surroundings and, in important locations, should make a particularly strong contribution to the visual quality of the area;

1.13 Policy HD20 states that development which is contrary to these, and other design principles will not be permitted.

1.14 SUMMARY: Government advice, regional and local planning policies seek to direct new development to principal towns (such as Ripon) and local service centres. Guidance and policies encourage rural business diversification but only provided new buildings are of an appropriate design and scale, are in keeping with their locality, and are of a design which makes a positive contribution to the spatial quality of the area; and that development should respect and should not be harmful to the character of the area, and expansion of an existing business should be within the confines of the existing business site avoiding greenfield sites.

2. EXISTING LAND USE 2.1 The actual site is in a pasture field in agricultural use. At the west side is a long narrow bund or mound which screens the adjoining mushroom farm.

2.2 On the adjoining land, which is in the same ownership and control, outline planning permission was originally granted in 1987 for the erection of a mushroom growing farm and a dwelling. In 1987 planning permission was granted for a total of ten mushroom production houses. In 2001 planning permissions were granted for a portal framed building for cold storage of mushrooms and for the retention of a dual span polytunnel for dry storage of mushrooms.

2.3 In 2003 planning permission was given to site a portacabin to provide bedroom accommodation for mushroom pickers.

2.4 The adjoining site has been used for growing, packaging and distribution of mushrooms. With increasing demand for mushrooms, Wilgrow, the predecessor company and now Greyfriars, for well over fifteen years and probably twenty years to the case officer's knowledge, have imported mushrooms from a number of small mushroom growers over a wide area of North Yorkshire. Home grown and imported mushrooms have been graded and packaged on site, and distributed to customers.

2.5 By the mid 80's a combination of favourable exchange rates, cheap labour and foreign governments support enabled initially the Irish mushroom industry to expand into the UK market, followed later by Dutch and Polish growers. By the start of 2007, the UK market comprised approximately 34% Irish mushrooms, 30% Dutch, 10% Polish and 26% British.

2.6 While planning permission was granted for growing mushrooms on the adjoining site, no planning permission was granted to import mushrooms and package them for distribution. Given that mushrooms have been imported to the site in excess of ten years, the Local Planning Authority is now time barred from taking any action to restrict or control importing mushrooms for packaging. The existing site therefore enjoys a dual role to grow its own mushrooms and to import mushrooms from other growers, to package both home grown and imported mushrooms on site and to export all packaged mushrooms to customers.

2.7 Many of the concerns expressed in representations relating to this application have been made about the number and size of large HGV's going to and from the existing mushroom farm, and of the times of the day that these vehicles are travelling on the access roads. It would be reasonable to conclude that as mushrooms were sourced from other countries, economies of scale encouraged larger and larger HGV's to transport the imported mushrooms. Unless it could be established that there had been a significant step change in the business within the last ten years the Planning Authority would have to accept that there are no planning controls over the number or size of vehicles attending the existing mushroom farm.

2.8 However, there has been an addition to the operations of the existing mushroom farm. Different varieties of vegetables are imported to, and packed on the site. If it can be shown that packaging of imported vegetables is a significant element of the current business, and if it can also be shown that such imports of other varieties of vegetables has not taken place on site in excess of ten years, the Planning Authority may have some redress against both the use and traffic so generated. This is a matter that the Planning Authority will have to research independently.

3 LANDSCAPE IMPACT 3.1 The application site lies immediately to the east of the existing mushroom farm, which is partially screened by a 10' high earth bund along the east side of the access road.

3.2 There is a hedge along the north side of the existing mushroom farm and along the whole of the north side of the application site beside the road. The hedge has been allowed to grow and is approximately 10' high. The bund to the east, the hedge to the north and a woodland to the west effectively screen most of the existing mushroom farm except for the upper parts of the eastern poly tunnels, the upper parts of the central service building and the portal framed building, and any HGV's parked on the site from any views from Tanfield Lane, the road which passes along the northern boundary of the site between West Tanfield and Wath.

3.3 There is a wood to the west of the existing mushroom farm which is not within the applicant's ownership and control. The managing agents for this wood have advised that a felling licence is to be sought in the near future for selective felling Spruce, Sycamore and thinning or felling diseased and poor specimens of the remaining trees in order to regenerate the ash and oak woodland under a woodland grant scheme.

3.4 Screening of the existing site and proposed site by this woodland could be reduced if selective felling takes place. The reduction to screening cannot be assessed without knowledge of the extent of felling in the wood. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that the wood might be clear felled in the future in which case the mushroom farm and proposed development would be visible from Tanfield Lane to the west of the site.

3.5 Evidence has been submitted to indicate that the four individual oak trees that would have to be felled are on the line of former narrow croft field boundaries which formally sub-divided the existing field into a series of small narrow fields. The former boundaries have been ploughed out leaving just a few oak trees which, because of their age are of high ecological value because of the number and variety of species dependent upon them. Their ecological value is increased because of the close proximity of other trees and woodlands. Felling these oak trees to enable the development would be a serious loss to the ecology of the area.

3.6 Trees along the southern boundary of the site, predominantly willow, and some newly regenerating alder at the eastern end of the field are unlikely to be affected by the proposed development: their protection could be assured with a condition.

3.7 The site itself slopes down from Tanfield Lane to Norton Beck by approximately 1m to 11/2m. The surrounding land is gently undulating, rising up to the south of Norton Beck and rising up to the north east of the site, the site itself is sitting in a slight depression in the landscape.

3.8 The proposal is to remove the bund along the eastern side of the existing mushroom farm and spread the spoil to form a mound to the east of the proposed building raising the existing ground level by approximately 2m above the present field level.

3.9 The proposal is to erect a principal building 96m long and 72m wide under a single ridged roof aligned roughly parallel to Tanfield Lane. The principal building will be 5.6m high to eaves and 8.1m high to the ridge. There will be a staff block at the western end of the building; and a small "plant" room and 3 chillers at the eastern end of the building.

3.10 Harrogate and District Landscape Character Assessment describes this River Ure corridor area as one with a well wooded river bank along the Ure giving an enclosed and intimate feel to the area. The assessment states that the valley sides are shallow and undulating and contribute to the enclosed, sometimes intimate nature of the area. It states that the scale of the landscape is medium and views tend to be channelled along the course of river; that wildlife is abundant; and that although the area is easily accessible, there remains a feeling of remoteness in places.

3.11 A building of the size proposed would be exceptionally large by comparison with other buildings in the locality. The sheer size of this single span building would render it both noticeable in the landscape and excessively large and out of place in this area of small to medium fields enclosed by hedges interspersed with blocks of woodland. The sheer size of the proposal introduces a completely new significantly larger scale and massed building by comparison with farm buildings in the locality. The very size, scale and massing of this building would be out of character in this location. 3.12 Notwithstanding that there will be mounding to the east (provided it is protected by an appropriate condition) a tall hedge along Tanfield Lane, the building will be clearly seen above these features, and its very size will command attention.

3.13 A scheme of tree planting and landscaping around the north, east and south sides of the building and along the roadside has been submitted. The Council's Landscape Officer is concerned that the proposed planting scheme would only serve to draw attention to the new building and considered the style of planting would be out of character with the larger woodlands that are typical to the area. She considers the scheme would not benefit the landscape character of the area and would be contrary to Local Plan Policy C2.

3.14 The agent has advised that he would be happy to alter the tree planting and landscaping proposals to satisfy criticisms and has suggested that, if members were minded to grant planning permission, an appropriate condition requiring submission and approval of planting and landscaping could be incorporated in any decision. However only substantial woodland would be appropriate and the site is too restricted to allow substantial planting to north and south of the building.

3.15 Unfortunately, any significant landscaping proposal will take many years to become established and no landscaping scheme will successfully assimilate such a large building into this landscape except perhaps after many years. There will be an unreasonable period of time when the building would be exposed because trees in this area would take significantly longer to reach maturity, as evidenced by the restricted growth of the oak trees on site.

3.16 The impact the proposed building, because of its sheer size, scale and massing would be so out of character and keeping with the landscape surrounding the site that the development would have a serious and adverse harmful effect on the landscape and the lead in time for any planting would take an unreasonable period of time to become established.

3.17 A development of this nature with large servicing aprons on either side of the building in which mushroom growing medium will be loaded and unloaded; where vehicles will be continuously loading mushrooms from the packing house, where there is extensive external plant; and where there is a proposed two-storey staff block at the west end is inevitably going to require significant external lighting for security and for safety purposes to protect people from vehicles travelling around the site. Because of the size of the development, the number of vehicles attending the site, and the number of people working on the site the level of lighting is bound to be significant during working hours and there would almost certainly be a level of lighting outside of operational hours. The introduction of lighting into this otherwise unlit rural landscape will be visually intrusive between the hours of sunset and sunrise and will be seriously harmful to the unlit character of this rural area.

3.18 English Heritage are concerned that no evidence has been submitted to show that the development will not impact on Norton Conyers Hall, a Grade II listed building and associated Grade II registered park and garden. However, given the land form, the land rising between the application site and the hall and park, the impact on the listed hall is unlikely to be visually significant, but on the registered park and garden the impact would require detailed research to ensure that the development did not impact on the setting of the registered park. This additional information has not been requested but would be open to the agent to submit if members refused planning permission and an appeal against refusal is subsequently made.

3.19 Representations have been made that there is a detached medieval park relating to Norton Conyers Hall which abuts the site, the boundary of this medieval park lying within the application area because it includes the northern bank of the Norton Beck. However this area is not registered and in PPG15 (para. 6.40) the government advice is that it is unlikely to be feasible to prepare a definitive register at a national level of the country's wider historic landscape. The advice is that the whole of the landscape to varying degrees and in different ways is an archaeological and historic artefact, the product of complex historic processes and past land-use. Much of its value lying in its complexity, regional diversity and local distinctiveness, qualities which a national register cannot adequately reflect.

3.20 The proposed development lies outside the unregistered medieval park and outside the boundary of the former medieval township. The landscape historian who raised the subject also advised that English Heritage have said that medieval parks will not be registered. Evidence on the impact the development on this medieval park should be submitted at any subsequent appeal by the applicant.

4 ACCESS AND HIGHWAY ISSUES 4.1 The existing access off Tanfield Lane will be shared with the application site. No alterations are proposed between the present private internal site road and its junction with Tanfield Lane.

4.2 The suggestion is that HGV's accessing and leaving the site would travel along the C124 to join the B6267 Masham - Sinderby Road where, at Sinderby, there will be access onto the A1M. At present that access is closed while the works to upgrade the A1 to a motorway are taking place.

4.3 Although not forming part of the planning application, the agent has advised that access to the site would be via the C124 road to the north passing close to Thornborough. The agent has also advised that his clients are content to enter into an agreement for the provision of 12 passing places along the C124 although the applicants are not themselves proposing their provision: he suggests the mechanism would be for the Council to include an appropriate condition requiring their provision if the Council considered the passing places were necessary.

4.4 The Highway Authority have recommended that for the C124 to be appropriate for HGV's attending the site, at least 12 passing places along its length would need to be created. The applicants do not contest the need for 12 passing places, stating they are content to enter into an appropriate agreement with the authority for their provision. It is not clear whether the applicants are stating that they are prepared to fund the improvements to the C124 or whether they are expecting, because they are claiming there will be a reduction in HGV traffic, that passing places should be provided at public expense. 4.5 Passing places of an appropriate size for HGV's to pass would require very significant alterations involving extensive surfacing of what at the moment are grass verges, some of which have been eroded by informal passing places predominantly, but not exclusively, at existing field entrances. The formation of 12 appropriate passing places would seriously alter the character of this minor rural road and would be seriously harmful to the present character of this rural road.

4.6 The applicants are offering the C124 as an access and exit route in order to overcome concerns expressed by people living in Melmerby, Wath and West Tanfield about the number, size and times of HGV's passing through their villages in relation to Greyfriars.

4.7 The roads leading to the site are public highways, with a national speed restriction of 60 miles per hour, and a weight limit of 7.5 tons with an exception for access, consequently HGV's attending the site would not be subject to weight restrictions. Vehicles up to 44 tons are and would be quite within their rights to pass and re-pass along any of these roads coming to or leaving the site.

4.8 The agent has suggested the direction of access and exit from the site could be controlled by a Section 106 agreement. However, many of the vehicles that would be attending Greyfriars will be quite outside any control of the company and, therefore, will be quite entitled to approach or leave the site using whatever road they wish.

4.9 The agent has advised that produce will still be imported and that vehicles will attend delivering growing medium to the proposed development and will be exporting spent growing medium and packed produce from the site for distribution to customers. There can be no guarantee that such vehicles will be under the ownership or control of the business operating from the proposed, or from the existing site. While the applicant company may have some control over the routes taken by vehicles driven by its own company employees, the operating company will not have control over all, particularly heavy goods vehicles going to or leaving the site.

4.10 Because vehicles will be entitled to drive over all the roads leading to and from the site (for access), the Local Planning Authority could not impose a planning condition restricting traffic to use the C124 because enforcement of such a condition would not be possible.

4.11 A Transport Assessment accompanied the planning application which initially states that there are no planning conditions on the amount of mushrooms that can be grown, packaged or distributed. In relation to the existing site that is correct.

4.12 The assessment states that the intention is to replace mushrooms imported from Poland by mushrooms grown in the proposed building. The agent has advised that the proposal has been brought about because of changes in the currency exchange rates and to anticipated rising transport costs of mushrooms imported from Poland. 4.13 The exchange rates are somewhat mercurial and do not remain static for any period. Exchange rates may alter to make it commercially viable again to import mushrooms from other countries. The trading situation has not been static and there is no evidence to show economic circumstances will not change in the future.

4.14 There are no planning constraints that can be applied to the existing mushroom farm or to the capacity of its packaging of mushrooms and therefore, notwithstanding the reasons for the present application, the existing mushroom farm could continue at least its current throughput. Furthermore there is nothing to restrict any increase in output from the existing premises and nothing to restrict any associated increase in traffic generation if there were significant changes in economic or in practice.

4.15 Put very simply, the existing mushroom farm could continue to operate at least at its existing levels of throughput without any reduction in vehicular movements to and from the site. The planning application only shares a common access, the proposal is for a very large twelve roomed mushroom growing production unit which could operate completely separately and in addition to the existing mushroom farm. Consequently any estimated vehicle movements to the proposed building could be in addition to vehicular movements generated by the existing mushroom farm.

4.16 Based on past changes, reduction in traffic movements cannot be guaranteed for the future, neither could the number or type of vehicular movements to the existing or to the proposed sites be controlled by an enforceable planning condition.

4.17 The Transport Assessment does not provide any detailed survey results of the traffic generated by the existing mushroom farm. There are no details of existing traffic flows along Tanfield Lane or associated roads. The Transport Assessment has simply suggested that there will be a decrease in traffic because, instead of HGV's importing mushrooms from Poland, there will be fewer HGV's delivering growing medium to the proposed building. The Assessment conclusion is that there will be a net reduction of seven articulated lorry load movements per week, however, that conclusion is not accepted and cannot be guaranteed for the future.

4.18 The planning application states that there is parking provision on the existing site for 42 cars, 4 light goods vehicles, 4 motorcycles, 4 disability spaces, 10 cycle spaces and 1 bus. There will be no increase in parking provision if the development takes place.

4.19 No parking is being provided on the application site because the intention is that employees will travel to and from the site by mini bus. The claim is that this is sufficient for the company because all the staff for a shift arrive and leave the site together. However the Local Planning Authority could not properly control a total lack of parking provision for employees. Changed circumstances in the future may well generate a demand for staff to travel to and from the site in their own transport. There is no certainty that the proposed business will continue or will continue with only bus transport for employees. The Local Planning Authority could not impose a condition requiring that for the future employees should always be bussed too and from the site. 4.20 The Planning Authority could not require the existing premises and the proposed development to remain within the same ownership and control so that the shared parking would continue in the future.

4.21 The Transport Assessment gives no information in relation to traffic generated by the staff canteen. The agent advised the intention is that the canteen will simply be a facility for employees bringing their own packed lunches. Again no enforceable planning condition could be imposed requiring such a situation to pertain for the future.

4.22 Inadequate parking provision has been made for staff. As the application stands at present, there is space within the remaining field where it is likely there will be pressure for some of the area to be made available for parking in the future, which would add to the sprawl, to possible impact on planted trees, and to future harm to the landscape.

4.23 Regional and local planning policies as well as Government guidance all require a new development to be directed towards principal town and service centres. The application site is a long way from any principal town or local service centre in the countryside and as such the development would be sited in an unsustainable location. The justification for the proposed site is to utilise staff and facilities based at the existing mushroom farm.

4.24 There may be some efficiencies of scale and utilisation of surplus staff and facilities, however all raw materials, ancillary services, employees and product would need to be imported to or exported from this countryside location to service the proposed new development which is away from any principal town or local service centre.

4.25 There is no public transport serving the site and apart from proposing a company bus, which could not be guaranteed for the future, there is no other way of accessing this site except by private transport and consequently the site is in an unsustainable location.

5 PIPELINE 5.1 There is a high pressure gas pipeline at the very eastern end of the field. It is unlikely that the development will cause any harm to the pipeline. If planning permission is granted, the applicant is obliged to inform the utility giving detailed information about proposed works. This requirement is part of an agreement between the landowner and the relevant utility and does not therefore need to form part of the consideration in determining this application.

6 ECOLOGY 6.1 Policy NC4 seeks to protect nature conservation habitats. The Rural Strategy Officer has raised ecological objection to the loss of the mature oak trees on the site because the ecological importance of these trees could not be replaced within a human lifetime. He is also concerned at the potential impact of artificial lighting because the river, trees, hedgerows and field oaks are a stepping stone and corridor for wildlife and lighting could impact on the commuting routes, particularly for bats. He recommends that permission be refused unless the need for, and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm.

6.2 The 4 oak trees to be felled on the site are between 150 and 250 years old. The trees were originally in field boundaries. Their growth would appear to be significantly retarded most likely because the agricultural cultivation has reduced root growth outside the field hedge. Although their growth appears to have been restricted, they are of an exceedingly high ecological value, and although two are stag headed, the trees will continue to live for many years. While not veteran trees, they are of an importance considered worthy of protection. The loss of these trees to enable the development is a material consideration. So many trees of a similar age have been lost in the area the important landscape value of the existing trees has increased. Together with other related issues such as the harm to the landscape character of the proposed development and the impact on ecology, the loss of these 4 oak trees should be resisted.

7 FLOOD RISK 7.1 A flood risk assessment has been submitted as part of the planning application. The development is not within a flood plain and is within Flood Zone 1, where the likelihood of flooding is expected to be less that 0.1%. A water retention pond will be installed to take discharge from roofs and all hard surfaces. The agent has advised that it would be appropriate to condition details of the pond to ensure there is adequate storage capacity.

7.2 In fact the application is proposing two ponds although it is understood that only one will receive not only roof and hard surfaces run-off but will also received the outflow from the private treatment works in relation to foul water drainage.

7.3 Concerns have been expressed that the area and Norton Cottages close by have flooded in the past and that a development of this scale is likely to increase water run-off rates and exacerbate potential for flooding in the future. However the EA have raised no objection in principle to the development.

7.4 The submitted flood risk assessment recommends that minimum floor level is set at 35.60m AOD, which it advises would tie in with the levels of the adjacent building and topography around the main entrance, and also advises that floor level is set at 600mm above the level of the adjacent watercourse.

7.5 While there is no information on floor levels in relation to Ordnance Datum, existing and proposed levels have been submitted as part of the landscape proposals and these indicate that the floor level of the building would be almost the same as the existing field level and would be approximately 0.5m lower than ground level at the point the access road joins Tanfield Lane.

7.6 If planning permission were granted for the proposed development, provided a condition were to be imposed requiring details of the receiving pond for both foul and surface water to ensure adequate capacity and restricted rate of release, there should be no increased risk of flooding to neighbouring properties. 8 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN 8.1 Core Strategy Policy EQ1 and RRS ENV5 require such development to reach the BREEAM very good standard although buildings for storage and agricultural buildings are excluded development. Consequently the principal building for growing, packaging and chilling mushrooms does not require a BREEAM assessment.

8.2 However the two storey staff facilities would normally require an assessment. In this case, because the staff facilities are an integral part of the overall development sharing access, mechanical and electrical services it would be almost impossible to provide a separate assessment for the staff facilities. Consequently the agent requested that the staff facilities are treated as wholly agricultural and are exempted from HBC's Sustainable Construction and Design Policy.

8.3 Because the staff facilities are an integral part of the mushroom shed, it would be unreasonable to require a BREAAM assessment for the staff facilities.

9 ECONOMY 9.1 The applicant advised that the development needs to be on agricultural land to benefit from EU subsidies because Greyfriars is an agricultural business and is supported under the EU Common Agricultural Policy.

9.2 The applicant also advises that locating the building adjacent to the existing premises will benefit from sharing the company's existing offices, power supplies, stand-by generators and all the associated machinery and equipment, minimising travel and other costs.

9.3 The Council's Economic Development Officer advises that Greyfriars is a well established local agricultural produce business looking to expand through innovative ways of production, harvesting and storage by investing in a modern efficient plant which would allow it to adapt to a changing market. He advises that the development would reduce the amount of imported produce from Eastern Europe following a downturn in the UK mushroom industry. He welcomes the significant increase in job opportunities (60) and the provision of a sustainable travel means for the company's operation staff. He concluded that the application will have a positive effect on business development, employment creation, and will benefit the local rural economy.

9.4 There would appear to be a number of important variables in connection with mushroom growing, variables which have changed significantly in the past leading to a dramatic reduction in home grown production and a greater reliance on importation. The business would appear to be significantly influenced by EU subsidies, which experience has shown are liable to variation. The development would be affected by changes in energy costs for heating and transportation and by labour costs, all of which have been the subject significant changes in the past. Based on past experience, there is no certainty that the economics and economic benefits that are claimed will persist for the foreseeable future. 9.5 The claimed economic benefits are a material consideration which need to be considered in the light of planning guidance and policies and weighed against other material considerations, particularly impact on the landscape and traffic implications.

10 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 10.1 Design - During the times that the growing medium will be loaded into, or extracted from the individual growing rooms, the end doors giving access to the rooms will be open giving a discordant appearance to the building, which at times will be extenuated with internal lighting drawing attention to the building.

10.2 Design - The proposed roof of the staff block would have curved roof sheets, which would introduce a new and discordant shaped element, which would be harmful to the appearance of the development.

10.3 Design - The proposal is for dark green coloured sheets for both roof and sides of the building. Particularly in terms of reducing the visual impact of and improving their appearance in the countryside location, roof and side cladding sheets should be different colours and roof sheets should be darker than the cladding sheets. In this case I would be recommending that roof sheets are a dark slate blue colour (BS 18 B 29), the dark colour helping to link the large roof planes to the ground.

For such a large building, for the side cladding sheets, other dark neutral colours such as dark peat brown would be more appropriate to assimilate these large sides and ends of the building into the landscape at all seasons of the year.

A condition could be included requiring submission and approval of revised coloured roof and side cladding sheets for the proposed building.

10.4 Hours of operation - No information has been submitted as to the hours of operation. The applicant has advised the case officer that the intention would be for staff to work split shifts operating between 7.00am and 7.00pm every day of the week. Because the operations may change with time, particularly if there was a change in the operating company, a condition to control hours of operation should be included to reduce the impact on nearby properties.

10.5 Noise - There will be heating and refrigeration plant operating continuously on site, furthermore, vehicles visiting the site, particularly arriving at anti-social hours, will have refrigeration units continuously running. Conditions would need to be incorporated controlling the outbreak of noise from the site if planning permission were to be granted.

10.6 Environmental Impact Assessment - Representations have been made suggesting the need for an environmental impact assessment. Because this is agricultural development on agricultural land the proposal is not considered to be within the scope requiring an EIA. Furthermore, the development is not considered to have an impact wider than the locality and again an EIA is not considered necessary. 10.7 Consideration has been given to other issues, including those raised by those making representations in connection with the planning application. However, none are considered sufficient to outweigh the recommendation to refuse planning permission.

11 CONCLUSION 11.1 Planning policies seek to target new development away from isolated locations to be close to principal towns and service centres. The proposal is primarily a "stand alone" proposal for the growing and packaging of mushrooms, only sharing office facilities and perhaps some equipment and labour. However the sheer scale of the development would make the proposal the principal driver of the overall business at Tanfield Lane.

11.2 The application, sited on a narrow small rural road linking the villages of Wath and West Tanfield is well away from any principal town or local service centre in the countryside and clearly therefore fails to satisfy the principal policy objective in terms of siting. Apart from the existing mushroom farm, the site is otherwise an isolated and unsustainable location. Consequently the development fails to satisfy a key planning objective in consideration of the siting of new businesses.

11.3 The roads leading to the site are quite unsuitable for the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. All the roads have a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes, with the exception that heavier vehicles may access existing sites. However the proposed development is not an existing site, it is a large scale new development which would generate significant levels of traffic of a type quite unsuitable for the rural roads.

11.4 While the Highway Authority has suggested that the C124 leading north from the site could be altered with the provision of twelve separate passing places, the very need for the creation of so many passing places clearly demonstrates that the existing road is quite unsuitable for the proposed traffic because it will require so many passing places, although it has to be conceded that some passing places would be of use especially for existing large agricultural traffic.

11.5 There appears to be a dichotomy because the Highway Authority do not object to a development which will generate significant heavy goods vehicle traffic on roads leading to the site even though the roads carry a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes.

11.6 No planning condition, unilateral undertaking, or Section 106 agreement could adequately restrict the number or direction of vehicles travelling to or from the site because a significant proportion of traffic would be outside the control of the applicant and therefore would be free to travel to and from the site using any of the three approach roads including those passing through small neighbouring villages such as West Tanfield, Wath, and Melmerby.

11.7 The traffic generated by the proposed development could be in addition to any traffic generated by the existing mushroom farm. There may be a reduction in heavy goods vehicles if the business is managed in a way that the applicant's have suggested, but there is no guarantee or planning controls which could restrict the business to the suggested management regime or restrict the number of vehicles attending either the existing or proposed site, be they heavy goods vehicles or private motor cars, in the future.

11.8 The development proposes no parking spaces for cars and any that attend the site in the future are likely to park outside the building wherever they can leading to a sprawl of parked vehicles around the site which may well impact on any planting scheme and would detract and be harmful to the surrounding landscape.

11.10 The proposed building, the extensive aprons and roadways around the building, the associated attendant HGV's and external lighting will be visually prominent, intrusive, and serious and adversely harmful to the character of the surrounding landscape.

11.11 The proposed tree planting will neither in assimilate the development into the landscape or screen the proposed development for a long time into the future and, until well established and mature, planting would provide little or minimal assimilation or screening.

11.12 The proposed development would adversely impact on the local ecology and wildlife.

11.13 In the absence of a historical landscape assessment, the impact of the proposed development on the setting especially of Norton Conyers Grade II registered park and garden and of the wider landscape historical setting cannot be assessed.

11.14 While the proposed development may bring financial benefits to the applicant's company and to the local economy, the unsustainable location of this site, the unsuitability of the road network to accommodate the traffic that would be generated, the visual impact of the uncharacteristically large building and the serious harm that would be caused to the landscape character, ecology and possible setting of a registered park and garden would outweigh any potential benefits and consequently the development would be contrary to Government guidance, regional and local planning policies.

CONCLUSION

11.1 Planning policies seek to target new development away from isolated locations to be close to principal towns and service centres. The proposal is primarily a “stand alone” proposal for the growing and packaging of mushrooms, only sharing office facilities and perhaps some equipment and labour. However the sheer scale of the development would make the proposal the principal driver of the overall business at Tanfield Lane. 11.2 The application, sited on a narrow small rural road linking the villages of Wath and West Tanfield is well away from any principal town or local service centre in the countryside and clearly therefore fails to satisfy the principal policy objective in terms of siting. Apart from the existing mushroom farm, the site is otherwise an isolated and unsustainable location. Consequently the development fails to satisfy a key planning objective in consideration of the siting of new businesses.

11.7 The traffic generated by the proposed development could be in addition to any traffic generated by the existing mushroom farm. There may be a reduction in heavy goods vehicles if the business is managed in a way that the applicant’s have suggested, but there is no guarantee or planning controls which could restrict the business to the suggested management regime or restrict the number of vehicles attending either the existing or proposed site, be they heavy goods vehicles or private motor cars, in the future.

11.9 The sheer size of this single span building is quite out of scale with average agricultural buildings in the locality and would be quite out of scale with the surrounding landscape of relatively small to medium arable fields enclosed by hedges. 11.10 The proposed building, the extensive aprons and roadways around the building, the associated attendant HGV’s and external lighting will be visually prominent, intrusive, and serious and adversely harmful to the character of the surrounding landscape.

11.12 The proposed development would adversely impact on the local ecology and wildlife.

11.14 While the proposed development may bring financial benefits to the applicant’s company and to the local economy, the unsustainable location of this site, the unsuitability of the road network to accommodate the traffic that would be generated, the visual impact of the uncharacteristically large building and the serious harm that would be caused to the landscape character, ecology and possible setting of a registered park and garden would outweigh any potential benefits and consequently the development would be contrary to Government guidance, regional and local planning policies.

CASE OFFICER: Mr M A Warden

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED. Reason(s) for refusal:-

1 The proposed development is in a unsustainable location away from any principal town or service centre in a remote countryside location on a Greenfield site outside the confines of an existing business site and consequently the development would be contrary to Government Guidance (hereafter referred to as GG) PPS1 and PPS7; The Yorkshire and Humber Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (hereafter referred to as RSS) Policies YH4, YH5 and VTL1; Harrogate District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (hereafter referred to as CS) Policies SG4 and TRA1; and Harrogate District Local Plan (hereafter referred to as LP) Saved Policy E6. 2 The roads leading to the site are quite unsuitable for the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development and is contrary to highway capacity constraints: the development is not transport orientated, is inaccessible by public transport and fails to maximise on accessibility by walking and cycling and consequently the development is contrary to GG PPS1 and PPS7; RSS Policies YH4, ENV7, and TR1; and CS Policy TRA1. In addition suggested mitigation measures to improve the road by the addition of at least 12 x 25m lay-bys would have a detrimental visual impact destroying the rural landscape character of the area contrary to planning policies. 3 The sheer scale, size and mass of the proposed buildings, their design, shape and colour and associated aprons, roadways, lighting, planting and lack of parking are not well designed, not in keeping and not in scale with its location; is not sensitive to the character of the countryside locality or to local distinctiveness; will not protect or enhance the environment and will be harmful to bio-diversity and consequently the development will be contrary to GG PPS7; RSS ENV7, ENV10 and VTL1, CG SG3, SG4 and EQ2 and LP HD20, C2 and NC4. 4 In the absence of a historical landscape assessment, the proposed development has failed to take account of the historical environment and the impact of the proposed development on the setting of Norton Conyers House, a Grade 2* Listed Building, and associated registered park and garden, Grade 2, and to the wider historical landscape, including the outlying medieval park and consequently the development would be contrary to GG PPG15; RSS Policies ENV9 and VTL1; and LP Policy HD7A.