Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

7.13          This application was for agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.14          The Senior Planning Officer advised that, on the Planning Committee Site Visit, Members had been shown the position and extent of the access and turning circle which lay between Up Hatherley Way and former South Park Farm.  As set out in the Committee report, the principle of agricultural development in the countryside was well established but, in all cases, development had to be balanced correctly to limit any harm.  In this case, there was no identified ecological harm, nor any objections from County Highways; however, as set out in the Committee report and as Members would have seen, Chargrove Lane had considerable character and the new entrance would create significant change to the character of the countryside, concerns which were reflected in the number of objections that had been received. For that reason, and because the development would appear conspicuously detached from the existing development, there was conflict with Policies AGR1 and LAN2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  Officers had carried out a balancing exercise, taking into account the economic benefits of the development in terms of the existing rural economy and employment as well as site mitigation measures; however, it was not considered that those benefits would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the open countryside and landscape.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application as set out in the Committee report.

7.15          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that his family had farmed here for over 15 years and the field was used for both hay production and livestock grazing for 30-40 cattle.  The access was needed to ensue that livestock and machinery could be safely taken on and off the site.  Access had previously been through South Park Farm to the south; however, planning permission had been granted to convert the buildings there so that route was no longer an option.  That access had been problematic due to the size of vehicles/machinery and walkers obstructed the entrance by parking vehicles; it was also very close to residential properties.  Having a safe and secure access was essential for the care of animals and the field needed to be regularly attended for TB testing, cattle loading and hay production, none of which could be done safely on the road, particularly with a 13 tonne cattle truck.  Furthermore, when producing hay, it was necessary to be able to process and load directly onto the truck using machinery and vehicles within the field.  The applicant pointed out that the application had been amended to remove the much-needed cattle-handling fencing at the request of Officers due to concerns it would harm the rural landscape.  The amended scheme before Members was now solely for an agricultural access, hardstanding for vehicle turning and an agricultural gate.  He felt the proposal was sensitive to the landscape, a view which was supported by the Council’s Ecological Adviser, and a new native hedgerow was proposed to reduce impact. The applicant recognised there had been concern regarding the location of the access and he explained that it had been selected to ensure adequate visibility was provided – this was the only safe location for visibility reasons due to the narrow and tight nature of Chargrove Lane and if other locations were proposed these would have attracted objection from County Highways.  It was noted that County Highways had not objected to this proposal.  The applicant stressed how important the access was for his business as without it he would not be able to safely gain access to the field to look after his animals properly, or produce hay in the way they did.  There were no objections to the application on highway, ecology or Green Belt grounds and the principle of development was accepted by Officers.  The applicant was upset that Officers were essentially objecting on landscape grounds given this was an agricultural access in the working countryside which had been designed to ensure cattles, vehicles and equipment could safely enter, load, turn and exit the site without causing wider harm.  He confirmed he would be happy with landscape conditions to control planting.  With that in mind, he urged Members to support the application which would help a local farming business and ensure safe access was provided.  If there were concerns regarding the proposal, he asked that the application be deferred rather than refused so that he could work proactively with Officers to find a solution.

7.16          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for further negotiations to establish whether changes could be made to the proposal to reduce the visual harm to the undeveloped rural landscape   The proposer of the motion indicated that this was an agricultural field and the applicant ran an agricultural business – farming was one of the main businesses in Tewkesbury Borough and it was important to ensure farming communities were supported; however, the site was within the Green Belt and Members on the site visit had seen the length of the access and the turning space that would be needed to accommodate the large vehicles which would not be able to reverse in and out of the site.  The applicant had stated he would be willing to work with Officers and she felt that it was appropriate to try to find a better solution for all parties.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) felt it must be borne in mind that the site needed to facilitate articulated lorries and the proposal had been designed with that in mind; any renegotiation may require completely changing the access and he was unsure how far the negotiations could go given that County Highways had already assessed the application.  It may be that landscaping was the only factor which could be considered in the negotiations.  The proposer of the motion confirmed that she would be more comfortable with the proposal if there was landscape mitigation to reduce the visual impact.

7.17          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED for further negotiations to establish whether changes could be made to the proposal to reduce the visual harm to the undeveloped rural landscape.