PROPOSAL: Agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

13.20        This application was for agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 25 May 2023 for further negotiations to establish whether changes could be made to the proposal to reduce the visual harm to the undeveloped rural landscape.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

13.21        The Development Management Team Manager (South) indicated that Members had the benefit of a site visit last month and had been shown the position and extent of the access and turning circle.  As set out in the Committee report, the principle of agricultural and associated development was established; however such development had to be balanced to limit any harm to the countryside.  In this case there is no identified ecological harm, nor any objections from County Highways.  Notwithstanding this, the entrance to the site would create very significant change to the character of Chargrove Lane, in an area of valued landscape, and those concerns were reflected in the significant number of objections received.  For that reason, and because the development would appear conspicuous as it extended into the field and detached from existing development, there was conflict with Policies AGR1 and LAN2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The application was deferred by the Planning Committee in May 2023 to allow for further negotiations to establish whether changes could be made to the proposal to reduce the visual harm to the landscape.  In response, a detailed landscaping scheme had been provided which would be appropriate in terms of the type of planting proposed, which would provide some benefits; however, the access road would remain unchanged and identified harms to the character of the lane in particular would remain.  Officers had carried out a balancing exercise, taking into account the economic benefits to the rural economy, employment and site mitigation measures from additional planting but the visibility splay/bellmouth would remain unaltered at 60 metres and the clearing would allow views of the access and turning head into the field. Members were advised that the field could already be accessed by an existing field gate on the corner of Chargrove Lane and the South Park access track.  On balance it was considered that the benefits would not outweigh the identified harm to the countryside and landscape and the application was recommended for refusal as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  It was noted that a furtherletter of representation had been received the previous night which had been copied to Members and could be summarised as: the proposed landscaping would not mitigate the impact of the industrial scale opening onto Chargrove Lane; the 60 metre splay and access would create a huge area of hardstanding which could be used as a layby for parking and traffic; the owner may want to restrict parking in that area and introduce a chain and posts; the land was not owned but tenant farmed; cattle were brought in once a year; there was conflict in the applicant’s presentation and statement in respect of the number of cattle; the community had concerns relating to the actual purpose of the industrial scale access; cattle arrived in the adjacent orchard at Chargrove Lane recently in two large trucks which backed into the orchard area; it could encourage further development; and the lane was heavily used and highly appreciated by walkers, joggers and cyclists. 

13.22        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.   The applicant’s agent indicated that Members would recall this application from last month when the applicant had addressed them to explain the very real need for this agricultural access to support his livestock and arable business on this land which he had farmed for over 15 years.  As the applicant had explained, the location of the access was chosen for functional and safety reasons to ensure cattle trunks and large farm machinery could safely enter and egress the site.  The applicant’s agent clarified that access was no longer available through South Park Farm as planning permission had been granted for residential development and there was no other access that met the requirement for large cattle trucks entering the site.  The application had been deferred at the last meeting to seek additional landscape mitigation and, having instructed a landscape consultant, an updated landscaping scheme had been provided. In short, this now proposed additional tree/copse planting to the south, new Oak tree planting to the north and native hedgerow reinstatement along the field boundaries enhancing biodiversity and green infrastructure.  Confirmation had also been provided that the natural crushed stone to be used on the access area would be sourced from local quarries to reflect the muted tones and palette of the local landscape character and visuals had been provided to show the access and proposed landscaping once mature based on the updated landscaping scheme and access design.  The applicant’s agent felt it should be borne in mind that the proposal before Members had already been revised, with the much needed cattle handling pens having been removed at the Officer’s request.  He noted that the Tree Officer had commented on the latest landscape proposals and the response recognised that the existing section of hedgerow to be removed did not fulfil the criteria of an ‘important hedgerow’ and no objections had been raised to the new hedgerow planting on either side of the entrance.  The applicant’s agent noted that the Tree Officer had commented on the compact nature of the planting and, with that in mind, the landscape planting had been updated to revise the species and adjust the Oak planting to ensure space for successful tree establishment.  No fundamental objections had been raised by the Tree Officer to the planting scheme and if further modifications were required, the applicant was agreeable to the condition that had been recommended.  In summary, the applicant’s agent advised this was simply an application for an agricultural access into an agricultural field; the land was not within a local or national landscape designation and neither County Highways, the Council’s Ecologist nor the Tree Officer had raised fundamental objections to the scheme. Furthermore, Officers also correctly acknowledged this was not inappropriate development within the Green Belt.  With that and the amended landscape plan in mind the applicant’s agent urged Members to permit this application which would support a local farmer and his business during an extremely challenging economic climate.

13.23        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 refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member asked whether consideration had been given to making the access one way and the Chair sought clarification as to whether turn-ins had been considered as opposed to a turning circle.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) indicted that he was unable to answer in terms of whether alternatives had been investigated but he indicated that a track was still needed for lorries to enter and exit the site.  A layby would cause similar landscape issues as it would require removal of a section of hedgerow and would potentially cause problems if vehicles pulled off the road to park up.  A Member drew attention to the letter attached to the Additional Representations Sheet which suggested that the consultation expiry date was 26 June 2023 and she asked if that was correct and, if so, what impact that had in terms of the Committee making a decision.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the date related to the consultation with the Landscape Officer who had been given until 26 June 2023 to comment on the revised proposals.  The Landscape Officer was the only person who had been reconsulted on the changes; their comments had been received and they were satisfied with the mix of planting but it was a matter of judgement as to whether that negated the issues in terms of landscape harm.

13.24        A Member expressed the view that he could not support the motion to refuse the application and disagreed with the conclusion at Page No. 78 of the Committee report which suggested the development would cause unacceptable and unwarranted visual harm to the character of the rural landscape.  He could not see what impact the development would have given that it was on ground level and felt that Members needed to make a judgement on balance.  He indicated that no objections had been raised by County Highways and there was no evidence of ecological harm, in fact it may bring some benefits in that regard.  The harm that had been identified was the amenity value of the land but houses had been built on the surrounding agricultural land at some point and the Green Belt principles were not relevant here.  He raised concern that, should the application be refused, the Council may be liable to being awarded costs on appeal.  In response, the Development Management Manager clarified that the reasons set out in the report were not objections on Green Belt terms but related to the visual and landscape harm resulting from the proposal.  Officers had been concerned about that and had been seeking amendments including updating the landscape scheme; however, they continued to have residual concerns hence the recommendation before the Committee today.  Another Member expressed the opinion that the views across the field should be protected and she agreed with the motion to refuse the application on landscape grounds in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  She also felt that it was necessary to ensure habitats were protected.  A Member indicated that the report stated there was no evidence of ecological harm and the proposed development was isolated from existing agricultural development with the nearest buildings at South Park which was now entirely residential.  She did not agree with the agricultural justification set out at Page No. 77 of the Committee report and argued that the development complied with Policy AGR1 and EMP4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in relation to being needed by the applicant in order to continue with the family business.  In terms of the objection raised regarding this being cherished area for local communities, she pointed out that Google Maps showed a housing development, petrol station and a hand car wash only two fields from the application site and good landscaping would mitigate any visual harm.  She suggested that conditions could be included to prevent parking which would help to alleviate concerns about the need to erect chain and post fencing.  On balance, she believed the application should be permitted and she could not support the motion to refuse the application.  The proposer of the motion recognised this engineered solution did not contravene Green Belt policy; however, he believed it would be detrimental to the environmental quality of the site and would have a negative impact on the local amenity, as Members had seen on the site visit.  The proposal contravened a number of local and national planning policies and he planned to continue to hold the environment in high regard.

13.25        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.