WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION

APPLICANT

CONTACT ADDRESS

REFERENCE

DATE VALID

LOCATION

GRID REFERENCE

PROPOSAL

DATE OF APPLICATION

SALMANS LTD (C/O Broadlands Planning Ltd 15A High Street Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 1UT)

TW/11/03260 07/11/11

Home Farm Penshurst Road BIDBOROUGH BI 555933/143630

RETROSPECTIVE – Siting of up to 52 mobile homes for 52 weeks of the year for occupation by agricultural workers, along with associated engineering works and facilities (WC/shower blocks and a common room/gymnasium and canteen/laundry facilities). 26/10/11

MAJOR APPLICATION

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1.01 The application site is located along the northern side of Penshurst Road to the west of

Bidborough village outside the limits to built development. The site lies in countryside that is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt and Special Landscape Area. Part of the site also lies within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), with the boundary of the AONB running along part of the northern boundary of the site and down north – south through roughly the middle of the site. This designation is best explained with the aid of a slide at the planning committee presentation.

1.02 The site covers an area of approximately 1.2 hectares and is an established base for a

soft fruit agricultural enterprise, Salmans Ltd. At off-lying sites this grows raspberries and blackberries to be sold as fresh product.

1.03 The site is accessed from a long, curved access road that leads off Penshurst Road to the

south to the main cluster of buildings on the site, which comprises the application site in addition to other ancillary buildings associated with the farm business. Ground levels rise steeply from north to south and mature hedges run along the back edge of Penshurst Road whilst existing trees help screen the caravan park. There are a few residential dwellings near the site, these being to the south and east. The surrounding land is agricultural.

2.0 PROPOSAL/BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.01 The planning application submitted seeks retrospective planning permission for the siting

of up to 52 mobile homes for 52 weeks of the year, for occupation by agricultural workers, along with associated engineering works and facilities comprising WC/shower blocks, a common room/gymnasium and canteen/laundry.

2.02 The common room/gymnasium relates to a dormitory building that was originally granted

planning consent under planning reference TW/95/10998, which allowed four dormitory blocks for seasonal workers. This planning permission was subject to five planning conditions. Three of these related to the use of the dormitory blocks by seasonal workers only; requiring that no caravans should be placed within 50 metres of the dormitory blocks and that the dormitory blocks should be removed on or before the 31 March 2006.

2.03 The canteen/laundry involves the change of use of an existing building on the site. The

WC/showers are mobile units to serve the mobile homes proposed. 2.04 Planning application reference number TW/92/01393 sought a Lawful Development

Certificate for 24 caravans for seasonal workers occupied and stored in accordance with Permitted Development rights. This Certificate was granted on the 07/06/93. The current planning application – the proposed siting of the mobile homes includes the area of land on which these previous 24 caravans were sited but sees an extension to the size of this area of land as well as an increase in the number from 24 mobile homes up to 52 mobile homes. Furthermore it is now proposed that the mobile homes would remain on site all year round whereas the Permitted Development Order requires that caravans are removed as soon as “reasonably practicable”. Further detail on Permitted Development rights is provided further on in this report. The Certificate of Lawful Development granted under TW/92/01393 also included an area of land where the 24 mobile homes would be stored when not in use. This roughly corresponds with a parcel of land excluded from the proposed site.

2.05 In 1998 a further planning application was submitted under planning application reference

TW/98/02122. This sought the change of use of land for the storage of caravans outside that agreed as Permitted Development and essentially proposed an alternative ‘storage area’ to that previously allowed by the Certificate of Lawful Development issued under TW/92/01393. This was permitted subject to planning conditions relating, in summary to:

Occupation of the caravans (not be occupied between 1 November and 31 March);

The need for the applicant to issue a Certificate to the Local Planning Authority confirming that the caravans have been unoccupied for the required period;

Approval of a colour scheme for the caravans;

The maximum number of caravans not to exceed 24 on the site at any one time;

No caravans shall be stored on the land other than caravans required for the accommodation of seasonal workers at Home Farm – in the event that Home Farm ceases to require seasonal workers, all the caravans shall be removed from the application site within a period of six months of the need ceasing and;

Submission of a landscaping scheme to be submitted within two months of the approval being granted and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.

2.06 The ‘alternative storage area’ permitted by this consent appears to be a parcel of land in

the north east corner of the caravan park. This parcel of land is retained within the caravan site now proposed.

2.07 The application now submitted comprises the following:

Expansion of the caravan site previously indicated under TW/92/01393 to incorporate land to the east outside of the AONB but to exclude a small parcel of land towards the south east corner of the caravan park;

An increase in the number of caravans to be stationed at the caravan park from 24 up to a maximum of 52 and to station these mobile homes at the site all year round;

Four WC/Shower blocks, which are mobile units;

Common room / gymnasium to be provided in existing dormitory block;

Canteen / laundry facilities to be provided within an existing building on the site. 2.08 Associated engineering works, which the agent advises comprises ground remodelling to

create a small number of flat platforms for some of the caravans and the steps from the upper level to the caravans. Paths and paving have also been installed.

2.09 It is to be noted that the siting of the 52 caravans on the land for occupation by

agricultural workers is Permitted Development. Permitted Development rights are explained further on in this report. Planning permission is only required because of the ancillary facilities and the caravans are sought for 52 weeks of the year.

Background information to the application

The business

2.10 The proposed caravans are to accommodate seasonal agricultural workers employed by

Salmans Ltd. The farm rents all its land on farm business tenancies and has growing land at Salmans (30 hectares) and Nashes Farm (2.4 hectares) at Penshurst and at Yalding (12.5 hectares). None of the land at Home Farm is farmed. The applicant, Salmans Ltd owns the application site / Home Farm where the workers camp site, offices, pack house and associated facilities are located. The fruit from the land at Yalding is packed at a third party pack house nearby.

Staffing

2.11 The supporting information submitted with the planning application advises that the

business has expanded rapidly over the last 8 years in order to remain profitable and to be able to employ the skilled management and permanent staff that the agent advises is now essential. Currently Salmans Ltd employs 11 local full time staff working at Home Farm and living off site, with 192 workers living on site, of whom 14 are full time and 178 are seasonal and live in the caravans on the site. The agent advises that there are generally 230 staff on site during the picking season, and 20-60 staff out of the harvest season.

2.12 In terms of monthly numbers living at the caravan park, the agent advises that this partly

depends on the year and how much planting has been planned, but as a guide, in 2010 (based on rent from accredited accounts) there was as shown in the table below, average occupancy as detailed.

Month

Numbers living at the

caravan park

Nature of work carried out

January 11 Tunnel repairs to frame/wirework maintenance/plant moving/pruning/irrigation maintenance/machinery maintenance

February 25 Tunnel construction and cladding/planting/pruning

March 30 Tunnel construction and cladding/planting/pruning

April 22 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning

May 66 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning, picking

June 153 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning, picking

July 208 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning, picking

August 223 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning, picking

September 134 Plant training, weeding, spawn thinning, picking

October 110 Picking / dismantling tunnels

November 56 Picking/ dismantling tunnels/removing old plantations

December 3 Tunnel repairs to frame/wirework maintenance/plant moving/pruning/irrigation maintenance/machinery maintenance

Fruit farming season 2.13 The agent advises that work on crop husbandry and general maintenance is carried out

on fruit production sites and at Home Farm throughout the year. Before the harvest starts the plantations have to be pruned, wirework and crop support systems repaired and retensioned, polythene tunnels repaired and reclad. There is an annual replanting programme that begins in mid February before old plantations have to be grubbed and new beds prepared. There is also an extensive set of machinery to overhaul and service, as well as campsite maintenance and refurbishment.

2.14 Last year (2011) fruit picking commenced 11 May and finished 11 November but it is

noted that picking can depend on temperature and light levels. This year picking started 28 May and I am advised continues. During the harvest season fruit is picked 7 days a week as it has to be picked in a 24-48 hour cycle depending on temperature and variety, and because customers expect deliveries every day.

2.15 One petition signed by 46 local residents has been received in response to this

planning application. This petition requested a Planning Forum. The Planning Forum took place on the 15 December 2011, the minutes of which are attached at APPENDIX A.

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (The ‘Fall Back’ position)

2.16 The Town and Country Planning Act General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), sets out within Schedule 2 Part 5 Class A Permitted Development Rights in respect of caravan sites. This states at ‘A’ that permitted development is “The use of land, other than a building, as a caravan site in the circumstances referred to in paragraph A.2.”

2.17 At point A.1 it identifies that this is subject to the condition “that the use shall be discontinued when the circumstances specified in paragraph A.2 cease to exist, and all caravans on the site shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable”.

2.18 Point A.2 states “The circumstances mentioned in Class A are those specified in paragraphs 2 to 10 of Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act (cases where a caravan site licence is not required), but in relation to those mentioned in paragraph 10 do not include use for winter quarters”.

2.19 The 1960 Act referred to is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 (as amended). Part 1 of this deals with licensing of caravan sites, with section 2 dealing with exemptions from licensing requirements. Section 2 advises that: “No site licence shall be required for the use of land as a caravan site in any of the

circumstances specified in the First Schedule to this Act and that Schedule shall have effect accordingly”.

2.20 Paragraph 7 of the First Schedule of the Act states that:

“Subject to the provision of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be

required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land in the same occupation.”

2.21 The ‘fall back’ position set out above is an important material consideration in the determination of this planning application as it sets out the Permitted Development Rights in respect of the use of the land as a caravan park.

2.22 Permitted Development rights under Schedule 2 Part 5:

Are irrespective of landscape designation – the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Metropolitan Green Belt are subject to the same Permitted Development Rights as land outside these designations;

Do not limit the number of caravans allowed to be sited on land and;

Do not restrict the caravans to be occupied by workers farming the land on which they are sited – there is no restriction relating to off lying land as is the case here.

Do not preclude “off-lying land” forming part of the agricultural unit.

2.23 It is my opinion that providing that the caravans are removed from the site “as soon as reasonably practicable” as per point A.1 of Schedule 2 Part 5 Class A of the Town and Country Planning Act General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), the siting of the caravans at Home Farm would be classed as Permitted Development, providing that they are occupied by agricultural workers.

2.24 In assessing this application therefore it is my opinion that the elements of the proposal

that require planning permission comprise the associated developments of the WC/ Shower blocks; the Common room / gymnasium; the Canteen / laundry facilities the associated engineering works listed previously and the siting of the caravans for 52 weeks of the year.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 3.01 The site has an extensive, lengthy planning history. That relevant to the current proposal is as follows: 3.02 TW/11/03261 – EIA Screening Opinion: Retrospective – change of use of agricultural land for the siting of caravans and mobile homes (52 in number) for occupation by agricultural workers, along with associated engineering works and facilities (WC/shower blocks and a common room/gymnasium) (TW/11/03260 refers)– Environmental Impact Assessment not required 24/11/11. 3.03 TW/11/00125 – Retrospective: Change of use of land for the storage of caravans – Withdrawn 25/03/11. 3.04 TW/11/00122 – Variations of Conditions (1) – length of time the caravans can be

occupied in a year and condition 3 – maximum number of caravans on site at a time (TW/98/02122 refers) – Refused 22/03/12 on four grounds briefly summarised as:

Proposed period of occupation of the caravans would effectively result in their permanent use for residential occupation;

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt. No very special circumstances presented that would justify the variation in occupation of the caravans or the increased numbers of caravans;

Proposed increase in number of caravans from 24 to 40 would cause harm to the appearance of the landscape in this designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

Increase in traffic movements would adversely affect the character and setting of the area.

3.05 TW/05/02661 – Agricultural Article 3 submission for construction of portal framed farm building – PAR. Prior approval required 14/11/05. 3.06 TW/01/00658 – New access road and change of use of land and buildings for the storage repackaging/distribution of imported produce, as ancillary to and in support of existing packaging/distribution of home produce and construction of in-fill building – Permitted 09/01/02. 3.07 TW/98/02122 – Change of use of land for storage of caravans outside that permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 – Permitted 29/07/99. 3.08 TW/98/02053 – Change of use of land and buildings for the storage, repackaging and distribution of imported horticultural produce, as a B1 use, in support of the existing packing and distribution of home grown produce – Refused 03/08/99 on four grounds briefly summarised as:

Scale of activity relating to imported produce exceeds that which could be regarded as serving the farm unit;

Proposed access road represents inappropriate development harmful to the Metropolitan Green Belt;

Proposed access road, loss of vegetation and additional activity and HGV traffic would be detrimental to the character and quality of the landscape of the High Weald AONB;

Additional HGV traffic would be detrimental to the character and amenities of Bidborough village.

3.09 An appeal was lodged but this was dismissed by Inspectors decision letter dated 10/05/2000. 3.10 TW/97/01579 – Agricultural Article 3 submission for portal framed agricultural storage building – PAR. Prior approval required – 28/10/97. 3.11 TW/96/00731 – Agricultural Article 3 submission for the replacement of portacabin with modular building as a rest room for fruit pickers – PRANR. Prior approval not required – 13/06/96. 3.12 TW/95/10998 – Four dormitory blocks for seasonal fruit pickers – Permitted 01/05/96. 3.13 TW/92/01393 – Lawful Development Certificate application for caravans for seasonal workers – Permitted Development 07/06/93.

3.14 TW/92/08004 – Agricultural Article 3 submission – steel framed lean to barn – PRANR. Prior approval not required 15/05/92.

4.0 POLICIES 4.01 National Policies

- National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012. 4.02 South East Plan 2009 - Policy SP3 – Urban focus and urban renaissance. - Policy SP5 – Green Belts. - Policy CC1 – Sustainable development. - Policy CC4 – Sustainable design and construction. - Policy CC6 – Sustainable communities and character of the environment. - Policy RE1 – Contributing to the UK’s long term competitiveness. - Policy RE3 – Employment and land provision. - Policy H1 – Regional housing provision 2006 – 2026. - Policy H2 – Managing the delivery of the regional housing provision. - Policy H4 – Type and size of new housing. - Policy H5 – Housing design and density. - Policy T4 – Parking. - Policy NRM1 – Sustainable water resources and groundwater quality. - Policy NRM5 – Conservation and improvement of biodiversity. - Policy C3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 4.03 Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 - Core Policy 1: Delivery of development. - Core Policy 2: Green Belt. - Core Policy 3: Transport infrastructure. - Core Policy 4: Environment. - Core Policy 5: Sustainable design and construction. - Core Policy 6: Housing provision. - Core Policy 7: Employment provision. - Core Policy 14: Development in the villages and rural areas.

4.04 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 - Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt. - Policy LBD1 – Development outside the limits to built development. - Policy EN1 – Development control criteria. - Policy EN16 – Protection of groundwater and other watercourses. - Policy EN18 – Flood risk. - Policy EN25 – Development control criteria for all development proposals affecting the rural landscape. - Policy EN27 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy H9 – Key worker’s dwellings in association with rural employment. - Policy ED5 – Conversion of rural buildings to economic development use outside the limits to built development. - Policy TP4 – Access to the road net work. - Policy TP5 – Vehicle parking standards. 5.0 CONSULTATIONS Landscape and Biodiversity Officer 5.01 05/01/12 – Lengthy comments received but in summary, points to note are: The need to regularly survey the trees and remove dangerous trees or branches is a consequence of the presence of the caravans 5.02 (Officer note –if a Site Licence is required) -it might be considered unreasonable to refuse

further applications to improve the infrastructure of paths and hard standing to improve the site in terms of amenity and welfare.

5.03 Countryside and AONB Policy have to strike a balance between landscape protection and the needs of agriculture and the rural economy. 5.04 In the AONB Management Plan there is little direct support for such an enterprise other than a general desire to see a more sustainable and profitable agriculture which, for the High Weald, is largely based on grazing. The AONB Policy Manager recommended that advice of farm management and how its meets sustainable land management should be obtained. 5.05 12/12/11 – Lengthy comments received but in summary, it is noted that the application is supported by a “landscape and visual review” the purpose of which was to consider:

a) Whether the 52 static units (and associated facilities) are located in the best site in the local and wider landscape within the Home Farm landholding.

b) Whether or not there is a sufficiently good landscape screen at present or if it needs to be strengthened by more planting.

5.06 This is not then a landscape and visual impact assessment and does not consider the impact of the proposal on the AONB or Green Belt. The report is however prepared by a suitable landscape professional using recognised methodology and the findings are in general accepted. In particular it is accepted that in terms of location the caravans are, considering the land holding available, in the optimum location from a visual amenity perspective and that effective screening can be achieved through a suitable scheme of landscaping.

5.07 Consideration also needs to be given to noise and activity that may arise from 52 caravans and the employees in the height of the season including at weekends and night time where noise and lighting may be an issue. There is also the possible demand for more permanent infrastructure such as lighting, drainage and amenity facilities that currently seem a little inadequate. 5.08 The countryside is to be protected for its own sake. There is therefore the consideration of what impact the caravans have on the site itself. The permitted development, within a small parcel of steeply sloping land contained by hedgerows and trees, could be said to be a reasonable balance between built form and open space. This balance will be lost by the proposal which is effectively to fill all the available space with caravans leaving little or no room for any amenity space and results in the loss of an area of semi natural habitat. 5.09 The caravans are in some cases very close to boundary features and under canopies of mature trees bringing extra pressure to these features for light and amenity space that together with health and safety concerns may result in additional pressures to prune or fell. The site may need further hard standing drainage too. 5.10 There is concern that this is not in reality a temporary facility. It is clear that the site is laid

out permanently and indeed the application refers to 14 full time workers on site and the main body of work running from May to Nov with preparation, pruning and poly-tunnel erection/dismantling taking place beyond this.

5.11 Whilst the business began at Home Farm there now seems no direct connection between the site and the land that it manages. It would appear that the farms could (subject to availability) be managed from another location across a wide geographical area and that the business at Home Farm could take on the management of additional or completely different farms across a wide geographical area.

5.12 There is potentially an impact on biodiversity and protected species but as a retrospective application this would be very difficult to assess. In the north east corner where vegetation has been removed and a large tree felled within recent years (post 2006) the possibility of protected species was greatest and species may include, amphibians, reptiles, dormice and bats. At this stage a survey of the affected areas may prove pointless and so it may be more effective to consider a wider scheme of site survey and a scheme of mitigation/compensation by way of a condition that is then linked to a scheme of landscaping. 5.13 It is accepted that the impact on the wider landscape is very limited but I would suggest that it has not been fully assessed. The site can be effectively screened but this does not take account of the impact on the site itself and the possible long term impacts of permitting such a development where the site appears cramped and lacks amenity space. The proposal offers little to support the AONB Management Plan and as explored above has little direct relationship with the land that is managed and so it is hard to see how this scheme can possible be said to conserve and enhance the AONB landscape. 5.14 In conclusion, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer is unable to support this application. He advises that justification is required to overcome AONB and Greenbelt policy. There is significant concern about the long term effects on the landscape and the practicality and ability of conditions to control the site usage and appearance over time. The proposal does have a negative direct impact on the landscape in and adjacent to the AONB and may have other indirect impacts in terms of activity and traffic and disturbance. If the scheme is to be considered for approval, it should be treated as a permanent installation and should be designed and controlled accordingly.

As the case for the units is justified by their use for agriculture then this should be secured by a legal agreement requiring their removal in the event that that use ceases and to prevent any unauthorised

occupations. The legal agreement could be extended to include the landscape management of the site. Planning Policy 5.15 16/11/11 – Lengthy comments but in summary, policies in the Core Strategy seek to support agricultural enterprises as far as possible within the context of landscape constraints, Green Belt Policy etc. Main issues to consider are related to the agricultural requirements of the site; whether the period of occupation of the caravans would result in de-facto permanent occupation; whether the development is appropriate development in the Green Belt; impact of the increase in the number of caravans on the AONB and traffic considerations.

5.16 The structures are permanent structures – formed basis of refusal previously. However, weigh economic case; if we are confident that there is a business case, approach needs a legal agreement to restrict residential use and use of barns. All structures should be removed when no longer required. Tree Officer 5.17 15/11/11 – The site is set within an agricultural area where hedges and hedgerow trees are a feature. Drawing 645 DHA 3 gives details that show how the existing trees will be protected. This is reasonable given the past agricultural use of the field. No tree objection to the proposal. Proposed replanting seems reasonable. Housing Renewal Officer 5.18 15/11/11 – If caravans are to be occupied throughout the year a Site Licence must be applied for under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Conditions of the licence relate to matters including health and safety, fire safety, distances from amenities etc. Key points to note are that the mobile homes must be placed on hard standings at a minimum distance of 3 metres from any site boundary and 6 metres from other structures on the site. If planning permission is granted an informative is suggested to the effect that a Site Licence must be applied for under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (Officer note: Whilst an informative can be added it should be noted that the need or otherwise for a Site Licence is not something that can be controlled / sought through the planning process).

5.19 Section 7 of The caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 states that “a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land in the same occupation”.

5.20 The Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Mandatory Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation Scheme 2006 applies only to shared houses of three or more storeys where five or more (unrelated) people are sharing facilities. It is not necessary to obtain a Licence for other types of shared accommodation.

Client Services 5.21 15/12/11 – This proposal is not affected by the domestic collection arrangements.

However, any business should ensure that it has a secure area of sufficient size and that a licensed waste carrier is contracted to remove and dispose of all waste. Client Services is not aware of any issues but would assume that this is being dealt with under the farm taking up a commercial arrangement. Comment made in respect of Environment Agency using word “proposed” development – it is existing.

Environment and Streetscene 5.22 11/11/11 – As the amount of vehicular movements for the agricultural workers to be transported to the farms is minimal and the location of the caravans / mobile homes are not in an area of poor air quality there is no objection to the application. Kent Highway Services 5.23 15/12/11 – As summarised previously, it would be difficult to sustain an objection in highway terms. 5.24 09/12/11 – Clarification sought on the access arrangements, particularly for larger buses. The identified access is not ideal as the land falls away from the carriageway and visibility in both directions is limited. An option for an alternative access was not supported by an Inspector in 2000 but it appears permission was granted for a new access in 2002 (TW/01/00658). This has not been implemented. It is noted that there was an application previously to increase the number of caravans from 24 to 40, which whilst refused, this was not on highway grounds. Comments from Rural Advisor are also noted. Taking this into account and given the level of vehicle movements at the site, it may be difficult to sustain an objection to the additional caravans. There might be some merit in the argument that overall movements on the farm may be reduced by their presence.

Rural Planning Ltd (Richard Lloyd Hughes)

5.25 26/01/12 – The additional information sets out a cogent and detailed explanation as to why it would be impractical and non-viable to locate the caravans on the off-lying rented land.

5.26 10/01/12 – The additional information covers/reinforces issues advised upon previously. 5.27 21/11/11 – Comments given previously in respect of previous applications (TW/11/00122 and TW/11/00125). Scale of the caravan camp is justified in relation to the agricultural needs of this well established enterprise and there is scope for controlling the camp with various forms of planning conditions. Environment Agency 5.28 03/02/12 – No comments to make with regards to the additional information submitted. 5.29 19/01/12 – No comments to make on the additional information submitted. 5.30 22/11/11 – No objections subject to a condition relating to the submission of a surface water drainage scheme.

5.31 17/11/11 – Technically the proposal should have a Flood Risk Assessment as it is over 1 hectare in flood zone 1. However, due to the nature of the proposal a condition relating to the submission of a surface water drainage scheme is requested instead. Bidborough Parish Council 5.32 30/11/11 – No objection to the application, however, strongly request that if planning permission is granted that this is done so with planning conditions. The land should remain designated as agricultural land (i.e. no change of use) but with permission for 52 caravans; if the business requires changes, and such workers are no longer required, the land will revert to agricultural use; the caravans are only ever occupied by people directly working for the farm, to stop e.g. dependent relatives who are not employed on the farm; no caravans are in permanent occupation – there is an empty period in each calendar year for each caravan e.g. 9 months in any one year, so that none of the caravans, or the site, become designated as a permanent dwelling; that the occupying workers do not own, or have private use of, a motor vehicle. This is already a condition of employment on the farm, but there are instances of workers who do not abide by the rules and park inappropriately on the public highway. High Weald AONB Unit 5.33 09/12/11 – In summary, the development does not appear to affect the components of natural beauty identified by the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2004. Objective FH1 of the plan supports the agricultural productive use of fields .......as part of sustainable land management..... especially where it supports local markets. The development may help support the productive use of the land provided it is sustainably managed and contributes to local land management and provision of local markets. However, there is concern at the tenure and conditions of occupancy of the caravans, which should be transient or seasonal workers, and it is recognised that this may be difficult to control. The caravans should be supporting seasonal workers to support the productive land management and specialist advice on the length of needs of stays, end extent of growing season etc. should be obtained. The development would only support the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty where it meets objective FH1 of the management plan and further advice on farm management and how it meets sustainable land management should be obtained. Southern Water 5.34 02/02/12 – Comments in original response of 23/11/12 (received 24/11/11) remain unchanged and valid. 5.35 12/01/12 – Comments in original response of 23/11/12 (received 24/11/11) remain unchanged and valid. 5.36 24/11/11 – The applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a septic tank drainage. The owner of the premises will need to maintain the septic tank to ensure its long term effectiveness. 5.37 The Council’s Building Control Officers/technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

Private 5.38 One petition signed by 46 local residents has been received, requesting a Planning Forum. The Planning Forum took place on the 15 December 2011, the details of which are attached at APPENDIX A. 5.39 Eight representations have been received from six residential properties. One of these asks for their signature to be removed from the above mentioned petition as the person had changed their mind. Of the remaining seven representations, five object to the application on the following grounds:

- This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; proposal will ruin the Penshurst Valley; it is in full view of the Tunbridge Wells circular walk/High Weald Tour.

- Blot on the landscape. - Caravans would look onto property (The Lodge, Old Farmhouse, Penshurst Road). - Proposal will devastate environment of residential property; access road along from

property is where the goods vehicles come out of. - Development will put a factory in the front garden of neighbouring property. - There are already a substantial number of caravans on the site. - Increase in workers/thus traffic. - Loss of field, hedges, trees and wildlife. - Applicant has a history of ignoring the council. - If planning permission is given, local residents would like re-assurance that site will be

policed and made to comply with regulations. - Concern there would be an extension of non-compliant caravans and dwellings. - The workers at Home Farm should not be classified as seasonal agricultural workers.

There is activity at the farm the entire year. - Concern that farm is not a farm. - Concerns that exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify the development

contrary to Green Belt Policy. - There is very little agricultural requirement at the site – it is unclear why a single

location cannot be sited somewhere other that in the Green Belt / AONB. This view appears to be supported by the Planning Policy comments received.

- Proposal is for a residential caravan park. - Increase in associated facilities e.g. wash rooms, sewerage.

5.40 Two (local resident) representations of support have been received. This is raised on the following grounds:

- The farm brings benefits to the community. Salmans Ltd is the largest employer in this

area and provide a very high quality product. - In tough economic times the local community should be supporting our home grown

industry and farmers providing local produce for our consumption. - A considerable amount of income earned by the employees at the farm is channelled

back into the area through local shops. - Local businesses e.g. mechanical, plumbing are used to repair and maintain the

business. - Objections should be put into perspective. - The new development will not impact on the overall look of the farm which is very well

nestled into the existing valley. - There will not be any significant increase in traffic. - This is not an area generally populated by the public due to lack of pavements and

because fields are privately owned and farmed. - The countryside for many is a place to work.

5.41 Two further (non residential) letters of support has been received. One of these is from

Berry Gardens Ltd. This raises support on the following grounds:

- One of the key needs for a farm producing commercial volumes of berries is the ability to accommodate numbers of staff on farm. The reasons for this are that staff are mostly seasonal, albeit a long season now, tend to be young people such as students, and therefore are most efficiently and cost effectively accommodated on farm.

- Growers have to pay staff the rates prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Order, which

are higher than the national minimum wage and this is rigidly controlled by a system of audits by our marketing co-operative of which the applicant is a member, retailer technologists as well as checks by government bodies.

- If staff had to rent in the private sector, this would put Salmans Ltd as a grower at a substantial competitive disadvantage compared to other farms. The UK is virtually self sufficient in the crops the applicant grows and as the market becomes ever more competitive it is not believed that Salmans Ltd business would be able to continue without the ability to accommodate staff cost effectively on farm.

5.42 The second letter of support has been received from the National Farmers’ Union (NFU).

This raises support on the following grounds:

- Fruit growers across the country have historically found it difficult to secure adequate, reliable sources of labour for seasonal harvest work. Local people are not attracted to it and prefer to seek permanent employment. Migrant workers, particularly students participating in the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) are happy to take up seasonal harvest work. SAWS is a long established Government controlled scheme to provide harvest labour to growers.

- Most of the work is relatively unskilled and therefore paid at appropriately lower rates. This does not mean workers are being exploited. Those achieving supervisory and management positions receive higher pay. Worker grades, minimum rates of pay and other terms and conditions of employment are regulated by the Agricultural Wages Order, which is set annually by the Agricultural Wages Board and takes into account both the National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations. The pay negotiations also acknowledge the economics of fruit production. Supermarkets, the principal customers, operate in a highly competitive market and exert a relentless downward pressure on the prices they pay to growers. The grower’s input costs, such as energy and fuel, are rising. The result is reduced profit margins. Paying workers rates to enable them to enter the local rented property market is not feasible. The use of mobile homes for seasonal worker accommodation is the widespread solution to the problem. In the case of Salmans Ltd, the structure of the business involves relatively short-term leases on a number of production land parcels, making it impracticable to set up adequate standards of accommodation at all of them. The solution has been a central, permanent site that provides the best facilities for workers and the most flexibility to the employer.

- In conclusion, the increase in the number of caravans is necessary if Salmans Ltd is to continue to operate as a successful business supplying several major national retailers. Any alleged adverse impact should be weighed against the need to support a long established contributor to the local and national economy and, where necessary, be mitigated by landscaping and by appropriate planning conditions.

6.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

6.01 Letter from agent dated 26/10/11 received 26/10/11. 6.02 Planning application form received 26/10/11 and amended by front page received

07/11/11.

6.03 Planning, Design and Access Statement received 26/10/11. 6..04 Landscape and Visual Review dated October 2011 received 26/10/11. 6.05 Validation check list received 07/11/11. 6.06 Letter from agent dated 07/11/11 received 07/11/11. 6.07 Email from agent dated 31/12/11. 6.08 Email from agent dated 03/01/12 and attachments including three papers prepared by the

National Farmers Union on proposals to alter the SAWS (Seasonal agricultural Workers Scheme) scheme.

6.09 Email from agent dated 04/01/12. 6.10 Letter from agent dated 24/01/12 and supplemental report received 25/01/12. 6.11 Email from agent dated 12/01/12. 6.12 Email from agent dated 08/02/12. 6.13 Email from agent dated 07/02/12. 6.14 Letter from agent dated 02/05/23 received 03/05/12 and supporting documents

comprising:

- Article from agent on definition of agricultural holding / what is agriculture? - Agricultural Holdings Act 1986: the protected annual tenancy. - Copies of planning decisions from other Council’s (x3) and associated planning

application documents and appeal decision.

6.15 Email from agent dated 16/08/12.

6.17 Drawing number DHA1 (Application site plan). 6.18 Drawing number 645 DHA 3 (Detailed site plan) received 26/10/11. 6.19 Drawing number P611 sheet 1 (Site survey) received 26/10/11. 6.20 Drawing number GA01 (Recreational room plans and elevations) received 07/11/11. 6.21 Drawing number GA02 (Male toilet block (western) plans and elevations) received

07/11/11. 6.22 Drawing number GA03 (Female toilet block (western) plans and elevations) received

07/11/11. 6.23 Drawing number GA04 (Male toilet block (eastern) plans and elevations) received

07/11/11. 6.24 Drawing number GA05 (Female toilet block (eastern) plans and elevations) received

07/11/11. 6.25 6 sheets of site photographs received 07/11/11.

7.0 APPRAISAL 7.01 The main planning considerations in this case are:

Whether the principle of the development is acceptable. If it is deemed inappropriate development it is necessary to consider whether Very Special circumstances exist to justify the development in the Green Belt;

Impact of the development on the High Weald AONB and on the landscape generally;

Highway matters;

Impact on residential amenity;

On site renewable energy measures.

Principle of the development / Impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt

7.02 As identified in section 2 of this report an unrestricted number of caravans on the site can, subject to certain criteria, which do apply in this instance, be Permitted Development and therefore I consider there is no requirement to consider the impact of the siting in itself since Permitted Development rights enable the caravans to be sited at the site in any case. The key issue to consider in respect of the caravans themselves is their siting on the land for 52 weeks of the year. In assessing impact on the Green Belt it is this year round siting of the caravans, along with the associated ancillary development described previously that falls for consideration.

7.03 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF), advises on the matter of supporting a prosperous rural economy. Paragraph 28 advises that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy local and neighbourhood plans should amongst other things:

Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

7.04 The NPPF also advises upon development in the Green Belt. Chapter 9 identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 7.05 Paragraph 87 advises that inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 89 identifies that the construction of new buildings are inappropriate unless these are one of six exceptions listed. Of relevance to this application, these exceptions include the construction of buildings for agriculture and forestry. 7.06 Paragraph 90 advises amongst other things that the re-use of buildings is not inappropriate provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.

7.07 In this instance the development that has taken place is mostly inappropriate development, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst I am not intending to appraise the impact of the siting of the mobile homes, which are deemed to be Permitted Development, I do note that because the mobile homes are not one of the specified exceptions listed in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, and neither are the proposed WC/shower blocks and common room / gymnasium, they are inappropriate development harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst they are proposed to serve agriculture this does not itself mean they are agricultural development and thus do not benefit from the exception. 7.08 The canteen/laundry facilities can be considered appropriate development because they

relate to the conversion (change of use) of an existing building which I consider to be of permanent and substantial construction.

7.09 The proposed engineering works also affect the visual amenities of the Green Belt,

harmful to its openness. 7.10 To summarise, the matters that are appropriate / inappropriate are: Appropriate Development

- Canteen/laundry facilities Inappropriate Development

- Common room / gymnasium - WC/shower blocks - Proposed engineering works

7.11 With regards to the siting of the mobile homes for 52 weeks of the year, Permitted Development rights require the use to cease when in effect the season and therefore occupation by seasonal workers comes to an end. It is important to note that there is no definition of what is meant by season and a farm, as is considered to be the case here, can have seasons that follow on from one another. For example at Home Farm there is the main picking/harvest season but there are also other seasons relating to other works to be carried out. It is my opinion that in reality there can be a demand for seasonal workers all year round. This means in my opinion, that Permitted Development rights could exist all year round, which I consider to be the case in this instance. 7.12 Paragraph 88 of the NPPF advises that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 7.13 In this instance I consider that clear and strong ‘very special circumstances’ do exist, which in my opinion outweigh harm to the Green Belt. This report has previously set out the Permitted Development Rights relating to the siting of caravans at the site. If planning permission is refused for this application a legitimate and very strong ‘fall back’ position is that the applicant could site mobile homes at the site in any case, subject to the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order previously identified. The applicant would still require planning consent for the associated developments proposed here, but as with this application, there is also a very strong agricultural argument for the development.

The agricultural advisor is in support of the proposal and letters of support have also been received from the National Farmers Union and Berry Gardens Ltd as well as from some local residents. Whilst those living in the mobile homes work on farms at Yalding and Penshurst i.e. some distance away, the agricultural advisor advises that the applicant has put forward a cogent and detailed explanation as to why it is impractical and non-viable to locate the caravans at this off-lying rented land.

7.14 Through consideration of this application I have negotiated with the applicant and agent that if planning permission is granted for the proposal that this be for a temporary period of five years only. The applicant and agent are satisfied with this. This further means that the harm to the Green Belt is limited in time only (albeit that caravans in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order could continue to be sited at Home Farm after this) and we can condition that a scheme of ‘making good’ the site after the expiry of the permission be approved by the local planning authority. This would also have the benefit of allowing both the local planning authority and applicant to review the needs of the farm after the five years has ended. Further conditions can be imposed to ensure the mobile homes do not become permanently occupied and again a temporary consent will help safeguard the mobile homes from being occupied on a permanent basis. Furthermore these can be conditioned to relate to seasonal workers only. 7.15 The mobile structures that are the WC/shower blocks can be easily removed from the site at the end of the permission and the change of use of the building for the canteen/laundry easily stopped too, likewise the common room/gymnasium. The paving installed can be removed and the site ‘made good’ to ensure that the openness of the Green Belt and the visual impact generally of the site on the landscape is improved. 7.16 Given the very strong agricultural case for the development and the ‘fall back’ position described I am of the view that ‘very special circumstances’ exist in this instance weighing the case in favour of planning permission being granted in this instance and hence the proposal does not conflict with Green Belt Policy.

Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on the landscape

generally

7.17 The NPPF at paragraph 115 identifies that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in, amongst others areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which along with Green Belts have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. 7.18 This National advice is reflected in Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy which advises amongst other things, that the Borough’s rural landscapes, including the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, will be conserved and enhanced. 7.19 The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer and the High Weald AONB unit have both commented on this application. Their comments are reported above. In summary there are significant concerns about the impact of the development on the AONB arising from essentially the year round siting of the mobile homes and associated developments at the site and significant concerns over the need for future further works at the site to improve standards and facilities to support those occupying the mobile homes. It is however acknowledged that the particular siting of the caravans is such that landscape impact is minimised as far as possible.

7.20 It is considered that the proposal does not conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special character of the landscape and as such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy and to advice given by the NPPF. 7.21 As with the Green Belt issue previously however, there is a need to consider whether other material considerations outweigh the policy conflict. ‘Very special circumstances’ have previously been discussed. Whilst ‘very special circumstances’ are unique to matters of Green Belt Policy, the factors identified as ‘very special circumstances’ are equally valid as ‘material considerations’. 7.22 The Permitted Development rights in this case are a very important and strong material

consideration since most of the harm to the AONB / landscape generally arises from the siting of the caravans is allowed in any case through Permitted Development rights. Any additional harm to the AONB and wider landscape is a consequence of the year round siting of the caravans and as a result of the ancillary facilities which can be easily removed / reversed in the longer term.

7.23 For the same reasons given previously, I am of the opinion that these material considerations outweigh the harm caused to the AONB and landscape generally especially as this would be a temporary five year permission only if planning permission is granted. I reiterate however, that beyond this five year period, mobile homes could remain at the site subject to the Permitted Development rights criteria. Upon expiry of this application, if planning permission is given, it will be the ancillary uses and structures and associated works that would be required to cease/be removed from the land i.e. the use of the existing building as canteen/laundry to stop, the mobile wc/shower blocks to be removed from the site along with the common room/gymnasium and the dormitory block in which these are located and the paving to be removed and the land made good. 7.24 The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer in his comments has talked about the

need for a legal agreement to control occupancy of the mobile homes and to ensure removal of these and associated structures and works when no longer required. This would also include a landscape management plan for the site to cover matters of biodiversity. However, given the ‘fall back’ position it is not considered that a legal agreement would be appropriate in this instance.

Highway matters 7.25 Kent Highway Services advises it would be difficult to object to this application. There are clear Permitted Development Rights relating to the stationing of caravans for seasonal workers at the site, which I feel as stated previously, weighs heavily in favour of the development in this instance. The access to the site is not ideal as it does slope steeply away from Penshurst Road but this is nonetheless an historical access for the site, which could be used in any case in the event that Home Farm implemented its Permitted Development Rights previously described. Whilst the access is not ideal due to the slope, there is no reason in my opinion to consider that this is a dangerous access in terms of highway/pedestrian safety. I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms and that it accords with Policy TP4 of the Local Plan.

Impact on residential amenity 7.26 The development to which this application relates is sited a considerable distance from residential properties that are not part of Home Farm. The closest residential properties are sited in ‘Ridgelands’ to the east, a road that is in excess of 70 metres away from the area of land on which the mobile homes and associated development is sited, and over 20 metres away from the access drive leading off Penshurst Road. A few dwellings are sited to the south of the site too, further away still. As such I consider that the proposal has very little impact on the residential amenities of these properties, with any impact being a result of possible outlook from properties and associated activities and comings and goings from the site. Again much of this impact would arise in any case as a consequence of Permitted Development rights. The activities that would take place would be related to agriculture, which would remain the legal use of the land. Given these factors, I consider that the proposal accords with Local Plan Policy EN1. Renewable energy measures 7.27 Because the application is a major application there is a requirement to provide on site renewable energy measures to reduce predicted C02 emissions by 10% in line with the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Renewable Energy adopted April 2007. In this instance no on site renewable energy measures are provided at the site and none are proposed. Whilst this is contrary to the Council’s adopted SPD, in this instance I am of the opinion that given the nature of the proposal, being for agricultural mobile homes which would be for a temporary period only of five years, this is acceptable. Conclusion 7.28 It is acknowledged that the development is harmful to the landscape including the AONB

and Green Belt. However, there is no restriction on the number of caravans that can be sited on the land under Permitted Development rights, which in my view, is what causes the greatest harm to the landscape. In this instance there is significant weight to be given to other material planning considerations and ‘very special circumstances’ to justify granting planning permission. There is a very strong ‘fall back’ position in the form of Permitted Development rights as well as a strong agricultural justification. If planning permission is granted, this would be a temporary five year period for the following:

The siting of up to 52 mobile homes for 52 weeks of the year;

Four WC/Shower blocks, which are mobile units;

Common room / gymnasium to be provided in existing dormitory block;

Canteen / laundry facilities to be provided within an existing building on the site;

Associated engineering works, which the agent advises comprises ground remodelling to create a small number of flat platforms for some of the caravans and the steps from the upper level to the caravans. Paths and paving have also been installed.

7.29 Appropriately worded planning conditions are recommended to cover the use of the mobile homes, to give a temporary five year permission and to ensure the longer term protection of the site upon expiry of the planning permission.

8.0 SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

‘Very special circumstances’ exist. These are the agricultural justification for the development and the Permitted Development rights applicable that relate to the stationing of caravans on the site. Furthermore the consent would be for a temporary period only;

The development is reasonably necessary to support agriculture;

The development is not harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings;

Any potentially significant impacts can be satisfactory mitigated by conditions;

Other environmental impacts have been assessed and there are not any which are potentially significant which cannot be controlled by conditions;

Other issues raised by consultees have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) The development herby permitted is for a temporary period of five years only, expiring five

years from the date of the decision hereby issued. On or before this date, the development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be made good in accordance with a programme of works which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority at least six months prior to the expiry of this permission. Any mobile homes not sited/occupied in accordance with the Permitted Development rights of the land shall be removed from the site. The use of the building as a canteen/laundry shall cease. The dormitory block in which the common room/gymnasium is sited and the mobile units providing the WC/shower blocks shall be permanently removed from the site along with associated hard landscaping.

Reason: The site is located outside any area in which residential development would

normally be permitted unless essential to the local needs of agriculture in accordance with Policies LBD1 and H9 of the Local Plan and in the interests of protecting the character of the Metropolitan Green Belt and visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and countryside generally in accordance with Policies MGB1 and EN25 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(2) The occupation of the mobile homes shall be limited to a person or persons solely or

mainly working in the locality in agriculture (as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and to any resident dependents.

Reason: The site is outside any area in which residential development would normally be

permitted unless essential to the local needs of agriculture or forestry area in accordance with PoliciesLBD1 and H9 of the Local Plan.

(3) No external lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written consent of the

Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local

Plan.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates, walls, fences or other means of enclosure and no building as defined by Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 shall be erected within the application site area without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to protect the visual amenities of the

locality and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan. (5) Within two months of the date of the approval hereby granted, details of the storage and

collection arrangements for refuse at the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once approved, the development shall thereafter for the duration of the permission be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To facilitate the collection of refuse, preserve visual amenity and to reduce the

occurrence of pests in accordance with Policy EN1of the Local Plan. (6) Within four months of the approval hereby granted the mobile homes shall be painted a

uniform colour in accordance with details which shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the painting work being carried out. The mobile homes shall then be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter for the duration of the permission unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local

Plan. (7) Following the grant of this permission, with immediate effect, a record of occupancy of

each of the mobile homes shall be kept, which shall be available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority upon request at any time. The record shall detail dates of occupancy and vacancies for each of the mobile homes along with a record of the names of people occupying the mobile homes, dates of occupation and the type of work carried out by the occupant(s).

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to monitor the occupation of the mobile

homes to ensure that the establishment of a permanent residential use of the site, which would be contrary to Development Plan policies and detrimental to the character of the area, does not take place in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(8) Within four months of the date of the approval hereby granted a landscape management

plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of an implementation timetable. The landscape management plan shall then be carried out as approved unless previously agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the local area in accordance with

Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Local Plan.

(9) Within four months of the date of the approval hereby granted, a scheme for the

enhancement of biodiversity on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include an implementation timetable. The scheme shall take account of any protected species that have been identified on the site, and in addition shall have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity generally. The details shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved proposals including the implementation timetable thereafter for the duration of the permission unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect and enhance existing species and habitat on the site in the future in

accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and to advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework.

(10) A landscaping scheme for the site (which may include entirely new planting, retention of

existing planting or a combination of both and include both hard and soft landscaping) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within four months of the date of the approval hereby granted. The details shall include details of any works required to existing trees at the site and any further changes to land levels. The details shall also include an implementation timetable for carrying out the details fully. Any trees or other plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority give prior written consent to any variation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter for the duration of the permission unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect and enhance the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(11) The existing trees and shrubs shown on the approved plan, other than any shown to be

removed, shall not be lopped, topped, felled, uprooted or wilfully destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority, and any planting removed without such consent shall be replaced within 12 months with suitable stock, adequately staked and tied and shall thereafter be retained to the satisfaction of the Authority for a period of 5 years.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to

protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(12) Within four months of the approval hereby granted a surface water drainage scheme for

the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and as assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, including an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details including the timetable of implementation and the development shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk o flooding, to improve and protect water quality

and to ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system in accordance with Policies EN16 and EN18 of the Local Plan.

Informatives:

(1) If caravans are to be occupied throughout the year a Site Licence must be applied for

under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. (2) If further works to the site are required as a consequence of any Site Licence that might

be required, a further planning application will need to be submitted providing full details of these works (which could include for example further hard standings, lighting, drainage)

Reference: EG1/SM4 NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant

Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.