Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/09/0227         Date: 10 February 2009 Received: 11 February 2009

 

APPLICANT:	Dan Mackelden Limited
LOCATION:	LESTED FARM, PLOUGH WENTS ROAD, CHART SUTTON, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 3SA
PROPOSAL:	Extension to cold store building approved under MA/07/0456 to provide fruit packaging and distribution building as shown on drawing numbers 08.104.02A and 08.104.04 received on 11/2/09.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	11th June 2009   Peter Hockney

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

●  it is contrary to views expressed by the Parish Council

 

POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV4, ENV28, ENV32, ENV43
Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006: SS8, EN1, EP7, EP8
Government Policy: PPS7

 

HISTORY

 

MA/08/0946  Proposed stationing of five mobile homes and two portal-cabins and erection of a 2.5m high fence – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

MA/07/0456  Erection of an Agricultural cold store building – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

MA/06/0158   Erection of a single storey building to provide staff facilities for harvest workers – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

 

MA/04/1771   Erection of Agricultural building for the storage and packing of pumpkins and the storage of hay and straw – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

MA/02/1315   Creation of a new vehicular access for agricultural vehicles, provision of visibility splays, provision of passing bay and turning area – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

MA/02/0472   An application for the prior approval of the local planning authority to erect a general purpose grain store on former greenhouse site – PRIOR APPROVAL GIVEN

MA/99/1976   Application for determination as to the need for prior approval for the erection of general purpose/grain store on former greenhouse site - APD Approval of Details Unconditional

MA/99/0926   Agricultural prior notification of erection of general purpose/grain store - APD Planning Permission Needed

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Chart Sutton Parish Council wishes to see the application REFUSED on the following grounds:-

·         “The building is intrusive in the countryside and cannot be justified in terms of the farming carried out on Lested Farm.

·         The Council believes there is little evidence of fruit growing on the farm itself and certainly not enough to justify a much larger Cold Store area and therefore the proposed building would be used as a packaging centre for fruit coming in from elsewhere and being packed and re-distributed.

·         The incorporation of fruit packaging and distribution on the site would lead to a requirement for more caravans for accommodation for the extra workers.

·         The plan shows parking for several large lorries waiting to load and unload. The Council believes the site does not have a suitable access for a large number of very large Heavy Goods Vehicles as the Farm is near a junction and two bends in the road where there have been several accidents. The B2163, although a classified road, is not suitable for a greatly increased number of HGVs and there have also been two fatalities on the B2163 between Chart Sutton and Boughton Monchelsea.”

 

Kent Highway Services have considered the application and comment as follows:-

“It is considered that the access to the site is satisfactory and the visibility at the access is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal. In view of this I have no objections to the proposals in respect of highway matters.”

 

Rural Planning Ltd (agricultural advice) states that whilst a building is required for agricultural purposes for the applicant’s production the proposed building is in excess of what can be reasonably expected for the applicants own needs.

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter of objection has been received on the following grounds:-

·         Concern regarding additional noise from a larger cold store if additional cooling plant is installed.

·         The extension to the cold store would require additional farm workers creating additional noise, disruption and disturbance to residents of Lested Lane

 

SITE LOCATION

 

The proposal relates to Lested Farm on the north side of Plough Wents Road in Chart Sutton Parish. It comprises a complex of farm buildings with two detached residential properties close to Plough Wents Road, being Lested House and Lested Farm Oast. There are three agricultural storage buildings further north into the site. There are existing vehicular access points onto Plough Wents Road. To the north west of the site is Pleasant farm with its extensive complex of agricultural buildings.

 

It is an agricultural holding that extends to some 145 acres (59ha) which in recent years has incorporated an expanding and successful pumpkin/squash growing enterprise, which includes 100 acres (41ha) of pumpkins grown for major supermarkets for the Halloween season.

 

The applicants also own 50 acres (20ha) of orchards (Bramley and dessert apples and pears) at Boughton Monchelsea and Sutton Valence. The applicants also rent fairly extensive grassland local to Lested Farm and owns further grassland at Lenham and at Court Lodge, Ruckinge, which is the base for a cattle and sheep grazing enterprise and where coarse fish and pheasants are produced.

 

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

 

The application is for the erection of a detached building for use as a cold store for fruit and for packaging and distribution. It would be approximately 59.5 metres by 42 metres with an eaves height of approximately 7 metres and a ridge height of approximately 9.7 metres. There would be associated parking and turning areas for vehicles accessing the site.

 

The building would be located to the west of an existing building located at the northern extent of the sites buildings at Lested Farm and would be at least 100 metres north of Plough Wents Road.

 

The development would be a larger building than that approved under MA/07/0456, but would be partially located on the same footprint. The previously approved building would have been 36.5m x 30.5m x 5.5m to the eaves and 8.9m to the ridge.

 

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

 

The relevant policies of the Development Plan are ENV43 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) that allows for the erection of agricultural buildings and EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).

 

Currently at the site there is no modern useable cold storage facility on the premises and the applicants have been reliant either on selling fruit on the tree for others to pick and market, or picking fruit themselves and disposing of it immediately at harvest time. Some hired storage had been used elsewhere but fruit has not been kept in satisfactory condition. In common with other growers the applicants are now seeking the flexibility of being able to store their fruit through the winter and well into the next year, so as to maximise efficient marketing through wholesale/packing outlets.

 

To this end planning permission was granted under MA/07/0456 for the erection of a detached cold store. This would have provided a building with a floorspace of approximately 1113 m². It was accepted under this application that a cold store of this size was required for the needs of the farm enterprise and was accepted under ENV43 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) as necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

 

This application proposes a combined cold store and packaging and distribution building that would result in a building of approximately 2500m² in floor area. Clearly, there would be a requirement for the packaging and distribution of the applicants own grown produce. The applicant has stated that the produce currently grown that would need packing includes apples, pumpkins, squash, parsley and coriander with the intention that the product range would increase, particularly in relation to herbs. However, the size of the proposed building is in excess of what is required purely for produce grown by the applicant and would involve produce coming from other farms to be packaged and distributed at the site.

 

The applicant has produced the following information to justify the proposed building.

 

“A building of this size is needed for long-term storage of produce, packing and distribution. During our peak season June to November we need three separate packing lines undertaking very different packing procedures. Our three main lines all have to be kept under very different environments and therefore need their own designated space. Pumpkins take up the most room and they are harvested in early September held in storage and packed in October. We grow 80 acres which equates to around 400,000 pumpkins, these are on average the size of a football, so they take up a lot of space. These are packed in two week period and therefore space is always very tight.”

 

The applicant has anticipated that the produce being packed would be approximately 70% from their own land, 20% from neighbouring farms and 10% from overseas.

 

There is a genuine requirement for a building for the purposes of agriculture on this site, as demonstrated by the previous approval for a building with in excess of 1000m² of floorspace and the view of the Council’s agricultural advisor. However, the proposed building is in excess of what can be reasonably justified for the applicants own production and this is picked up by the Parish Council and the Council’s agricultural advisor.

 

Whilst not wholly needed for the applicant’s production, new development for packaging and distributing produce from Kent agriculture in rural areas is supported by policy EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006. This policy states that:-

 

No provision for business development will be made elsewhere in rural Kent except where:

 

(ii) it is required for the expansion of an established business and/or for the processing, storage, distribution or promotion and research concerning produce from Kent agriculture, horticulture or forestry;

 

Given that approximately 90% of the produce would be from Kent farms (70% from the applicants own holding) I consider that the principle of the proposed development would comply with this policy and is acceptable. The information that has been provided is a crude estimate from the applicant and I would expect to see a clear business plan before this is accepted and I would be looking for Delegated Powers to permit subject to the receipt of this information.

 

The determining factors of the application are the visual impact of the building, highway safety and the impact on residential amenity.

 

VISUAL IMPACT

 

The design of the building is typical of a modern agricultural building being low concrete panel walls with green profile cladding to the sides and roof which is considered acceptable.

 

Whilst the proposal would extend built development at the site further west at the site I do not consider there is a significantly better option. Any siting to the north of existing building would extend the built development into an open area north. A position to the east of the furthest north of the existing buildings may be preferable however this area is currently used as a yard and area for farm workers caravans. In addition this would be closer to residential properties to the east where disturbance might be caused from the cold store. An existing bund at the entrance helps screen views of the site from Plough Wents Road. Beyond the location of the proposed building existing buildings can be seen to the north at Pleasant Farm. No landscaping is proposed and it is considered a condition requiring these details could be attached to any grant of permission to help soften the development from the south, west and north.

 

On balance I consider the proposed siting to be acceptable and not cause demonstrable harm to the character or appearance of the area.

 

In terms of the Southern Anti-Coalescence Belt, the proposal would not significantly extend the built up extent of Chart Sutton or counter the aims of policy ENV32.

 

HIGHWAY CONSIDERATIONS

 

The Parish Council have raised objections on highway safety matters in terms of its increased use. However, the proposal would utilise an existing access onto Plough Wents Road and has been assessed by Kent Highway Services. They have undertaken an assessment of the existing access, including its visibility and have concluded that the access is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal.

 

Given the above assessment I do not consider that a reason for refusal on a highway safety ground could be justified.

 

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS

 

The proposed building would be approximately 50 metres from the nearest residential property, Lested House. This distance would be sufficient to prevent any significant impact on residential amenity in terms of loss of light or an overwhelming impact.

 

Other residential properties in Lested Lane would be a minimum of 145 metres (approx) from the proposed building. This distance and the fact that it would be shielded by an existing building on site would ensure that there would be no significant impact on residential amenity of the occupiers in terms of loss of light or an overwhelming impact.

 

I do not consider that the noise disruption from the proposed building would be significantly greater than from the previously approved cold store in terms of plant. If a statutory noise nuisance does occur in the future then this would be dealt with under Environmental Enforcement legislation.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed building would provide a necessary agricultural facility (in terms of the cold store) for the applicant as well as a facility to pack and distribute predominantly Kent grown produce. On the basis that a clear business plan is provided, this development complies with policies ENV43 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) and the principle is acceptable.

 

The position of the proposed building is acceptable in terms of its functional requirement and the impact on the wider area subject to additional landscaping and is partially on the same footprint as the previously approved cold store building.

 

The concern regarding highway safety is not sustainable as a reason for refusal following the assessment of the application, access and visibility by Kent Highway Services who consider them to be adequate.

 

Nearby residential occupiers are a significant distance from the proposed building and this combined with the recommended condition limiting hours of use would maintain adequate levels of amenity.

 

Overall, I consider that the application is acceptable and recommend that delegated powers be given to permit subject to the expiry of the re-consultation period of the information provided by the applicant.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

SUBJECT TO:-

 

The receipt of a satisfactory business plan demonstrating the requirement for a packing facility on site through a financial justification and the level of home grown and Kent grown produce to be packed/distributed.

 

I BE DELEGATED POWER GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

         

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.   No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping including a double staggered hedgerow adjacent to the southern and western side of the building hereby permitted, using indigenous species which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long term management. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines;

Reason: No such details have been submitted and in accordance with policies ENV6 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

3.   All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or 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 similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development in accordance with policies ENV6 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

4.   No development shall commence until written details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the approved materials;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policies ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

5.   The use shall not take place other than between the hours of:-

0800 and 1900 Monday to Saturday

and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays;

Reason: To safeguard the enjoyment of their properties by nearby residential occupiers in accordance with policies ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).

 

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated,  is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.