s&a produce (uk) limited€¦ · s&a group – planning applications at and adjoining 2...

S&A Produce (UK) Limited

Planning Applications at and adjoining Brook Farm,

Marden, Herefordshire

Spatial Planning Statement

S&A Produce (UK) Limited

Planning Applications at and adjoining Brook

Farm, Marden, Herefordshire

Spatial Planning Statement

Four Planning Applications submitted to

Herefordshire Council

Our REF: APA/SANDA/14/1350

Author APA

Checked by BR

Status FINAL

Rev. no. -

Date September 2016

S&A Group – Planning Applications at and adjoining 1 Spatial Planning Statement Brook Farm, Marden, Herefordshire Aspbury Planning Limited September 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Spatial Planning Statement has been prepared in support of four separate, but

simultaneous and related, planning applications on land at and adjacent to Brook Farm,

Marden, Herefordshire, submitted by S&A Produce (UK) Limited. The applications are:

i) A Full Planning Application for: the phased Clearance and Redevelopment of an

existing Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation Site (Comprising

Caravans & Demountable Buildings [Granted Planning Permission under

Herefordshire Council reference DMCW/092985/F, dated 17 March 2010]) to

provide up to 69 (Large) Houses In Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis), together with

ancillary facilities for the Accommodation of Agricultural Workers, with a new

Vehicular Access, Private Internal Access Roads, Ancillary Car Parking, off Road

Footway, Amenity Open Space and Landscaping;

ii) An Outline Planning Application for: Residential Development (With all Matters

Reserved Except Means of Access) for up to 75 Family Housing Units (UCO Class

C3) (Comprising Open Market and Affordable Housing [including Starter Homes]),

together with supporting infrastructure and facilities, including on-plot Car Parking,

Public Open Space and Landscaping;

iii) A Full Planning Application for: the Demolition and Clearance of existing operational

buildings and the erection of a new Headquarters/Administrative Office Building

(UCO Class B1), including ancillary Staff Canteen facilities, dedicated Staff and

Visitor Car Parking and the creation of two separate Vehicular Accesses (to the

New Offices and to the operational Farmstead/Pack House);

iv) A Full Planning Application for: the Demolition and Clearance of the existing Public

House (‘The Volunteer Inn’) and the erection of a New Family Public House with

Rooms (UCO Class A3/A4), together with a Customer Car Park and new Vehicular

and Pedestrian Accesses.

1.2 This Statement has been prepared having regard to the contents of the other

documents submitted in support of the four Planning Applications, including the

covering letter.


1.3 The Statement addresses: the provisions of the development plan for the purposes of

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; national planning policy as set out in the

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF or, ‘The Framework’); and, any other

material planning considerations.

2.0 THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

2.1 The development plan in this case comprises the Herefordshire Local Plan Core

Strategy 2011 – 2031 (LPCS) adopted in October 2015.

2.2 The relevant provisions of the LPCS are:

Policy SS1 – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy SS2 – Delivering new homes

Policy SS3 – Ensuring sufficient housing land delivery Policy SS4 – Movement and transport Policy SS5 – Employment provision

Policy SS6 – Environmental quality and local distinctiveness Policy SS7 – Addressing Climate Change

Policy RA1 – Rural Housing Distribution Policy RA2 – Housing in Settlements outside Hereford and the market towns

Policy RA3 – Herefordshire’s countryside

Policy RA4 – Agricultural, forestry and rural enterprise dwellings

Policy RA6 – Rural economy Policy H1 – Affordable housing – thresholds and targets Policy H3 – Ensuring an appropriate range and mix of housing

Policy SC1 – Social and community facilities Policy OS1 – Requirements for open space, sports and recreation facilities Policy OS2 – Meeting open space, sports and recreation needs

Policy MT1 – Traffic management, highway safety and promoting active travel Policy E1 – Employment provision

Policy E4 – Tourism Policy LD1 – Landscape and Townscape Policy LD2 – Biodiversity and geodiversity Policy LD3 – Green infrastructure

Policy LD4 – Historic environment and heritage assets

Policy SD1 – Sustainable design and energy efficiency Policy SD3 – Sustainable water management and water resources

Policy SD4 – Wastewater treatment and river water quality


Table 1 below indicates which of the policies listed above is relevant of which Planning Application

TABLE 1: Local Plan Core Strategy Policies and their relevance to each Planning Application

Application PAi) PAii) PAiii) PAiv) Policy

SS1 Y Y Y Y SS2 Y Y SS3 Y SS4 Y Y Y Y SS5 Y Y SS6 Y Y Y Y

SS7 Y Y Y Y RA1 Y RA2 Y

RA3 Y Y

RA4 Y RA6 Y Y H1 Y

H3 Y SC1 Y Y OS1 Y

OS2 Y MT1 Y Y Y Y

E1 Y Y E4 Y

LD1 Y Y Y Y LD2 Y Y Y Y LD3 Y Y

LD4 Y Y Y Y SD1 Y Y Y Y SD3 Y Y Y Y SD4 Y Y Y Y

NB: The degree of relevance of each of the policies listed to the relevant applications will vary, as is made clear in the commentary below.

It is not proposed to rehearse the content of these policies at length as they are already

set out in the LPCS and will be familiar to the Local Planning Authority, its consultees

and other stakeholders in the process of considering and determining these planning

applications.


Only the key elements of the policies relevant to the Applications will be highlighted and

discussed below, therefore.

2.3 Policy SS1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

2.3.1 This development reflects and effectively restates the presumption in favour of

sustainable development set out at Paragraph 14 of the Framework, to which it refers. It

also highlights the three dimensions and roles for sustainable development set out

paragraph 7 in the Framework.

2.3.2 The Policy states that, when considering development proposals Herefordshire Council

will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable

development contained within national policy. It will always work proactively to find

solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible and to secure

development that improves the social, economic and environmental conditions in

Herefordshire. Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Core Strategy

as a whole (and, where relevant with policies in other Development Plan Documents and

Neighbourhood Development Plans) will be approved, unless material considerations

indicate otherwise.

2.3.3 It is considered that all four proposals the subject of the Planning Applications the

subject of this Statement can be regarded as sustainable development, both separately

and combined, and that they improve social, economic and environmental conditions in

the County and in Marden (as set out in this SPS). It is further contended that they

accord with all the relevant policies in the LPCS as cited in 2.2 above. Attention is also

drawn to the Vision and Objectives at paragraph 3.5 to 3.16 of the LPCS and to the Core

Strategy Objectives set out in Figure 3.1 of the Plan, particularly Nos.: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8a, 9, 10,

11 and 12. Again, it is submitted that the Application Proposals accord fully with these

strategic objectives. Particular attention is drawn to Objective 8a in the context of the

proposals in question.


Policy SS2 – Delivering new homes

2.4.1 This Policy states that a minimum of 16,500 new homes will be delivered over the period

2011 to 2031, including a minimum of 5,300 in rural settlements. There will be further

commentary on this threshold – which is clearly neither a ceiling, nor a target - below,

but in the meantime it is evident that Applications i) – the Agricultural Workers’

Accommodation, and ii) – the Family Housing Development, accord with this Policy. In

any event, the Applications contribute towards sustainable housing delivery.

2.4 Policy SS3 – Ensuring sufficient housing land delivery

2.5.1 This policy states that a sufficient supply of housing to meet the LPCS requirement set

out in Policy SS2 will be maintained. It is axiomatic that the granting of planning

permission to Application ii) – the Family Housing Development will contribute to

achieving this policy.

2.5.2 The monitoring of supply that this Policy requires will demonstrably require the

maintenance of a 5-year housing land supply in accordance with paragraph 47 of The

Framework. Herefordshire has suffered from a chronic under-supply of housing

recently, resulting in an inability to demonstrate the requisite 5-year minimum supply

under the terms of the previous development plan. It is for this reason that paragraph

3.41 of the supporting text to Policy SS3 accepts that for the calculation of the five-year

housing land supply, an additional buffer of 20% (5 years = 20% - effectively a 6-year

supply) is considered appropriate due to persistent under-delivery. It is quite possible,

therefore, that, at the time of the determination of Application ii) for the Family Housing

Development, the Authority will still not be able to demonstrate a supply of specific,

deliverable sites sufficient to provide six-years-worth of housing against the housing

requirement in Policy SS2. In that event paragraph 49 of the Framework is engaged and

the relevant policies of the Local Plan and of the Neighbourhood Plan (if adopted by

then) will be considered out-of-date.


2.5.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FHD proposal can also be regarded as a legitimate

‘windfall’ development. Paragraph 3.46 of the supporting text to Policy SS3 states:

3.46 In Herefordshire there is longstanding evidence that housing on ‘non-allocated’ sites has made a significant contribution to meeting housing needs and requirements. Such housing has not only come forward within urban parts of the County but also has been the major element of new housing in rural areas……..

2.5.4 It is clear, therefore, that windfalls have made and can continue to make a contribution

to housing supply in the County, although, as paragraph 3.47 of the supporting text in

the LPCS states, the preparation and updating of a SHLAA should mean that a higher

proportion of sites will be identified as part of the supply figures in future.

2.6 Policy SS4 – Movement and transportation

2.6.1 The Transport Statement, the Travel Plan and the Design and Access Statements

demonstrate that this Policy has been fully addressed in the Applications.

2.7 Policy SS5 - Employment provision

2.7.1 Application proposals i) for the Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation and iii) for the

new Headquarters/Administrative Offices are on fully compliant with the first sentence

of the second paragraph of this Policy, to the effect that: “The continuing development

of the more traditional employment sectors such as farming and food and drink

manufacturing will be supported”.

2.8 Policy SS6 – Environmental quality and local distinctiveness

2.8.1 The assessments submitted with the Applications, particularly the Design and Access

Statement, Ecological Assessment, Arboricultural Assessment, and Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment demonstrate full compliance with this Policy.


2.9 Policy SS7 – Addressing climate change

2.9.1 The assessments submitted with the Application, particularly the Design and Access

Statement, Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and Flood Risk Assessment

demonstrate full compliance with this Policy.

2.10 Policy RA1 – Rural housing distribution

2.10.1 This policy records that the minimum provision of 5,300 dwellings between 2011 and

2031 will be made in the County’s rural areas, contributing to the County’s housing

needs. It goes on to say: “The development of rural housing will contribute towards the

wider regeneration of the rural economy.”

2.10.2 The provision is distributed across seven Rural Housing Market Areas (RHMAs), with the

largest minimum provision (1,870 or 35%) being allocated to the Hereford RHMA within

which Marden is located. The indicative housing growth target in this RHMA is 18%, the

largest proportionate growth across all the RHMAs. Paragraph 4.8.15 of the Plan states

that 119 settlements (including [as listed in Figure 4.14] Marden) have been identified as

“the main focus of proportionate housing growth”. Within these settlements, carefully

considered development which is proportionate to the size of the community and its

needs will be permitted.

2.10.3 The proposed family housing development reflects the emphasis of provision in the

RHMAs on the Hereford RHMA. Marden is particularly well-suited to accepting growth,

given the good range of local facilities (which will be enhanced by Application iv) for the

new public house with rooms) and the presence of a large employer, that is, the

Applicant. The proposed housing development has been carefully considered and has

been the subject of extensive assessment which has established that it will not have a

detrimental impact on any spatial planning interest of acknowledged importance,

including environmental impacts.


Taken together with committed development, the proposed development would

exceed the indicative minimum growth level, but the terms in which that guide figure is

expressed in the LPCS clearly admits of such an excess. In any event, the recent grant of

planning permission for development at New House Farm, Marden has already resulted

in the indicative minimum growth level being exceeded and this was not seen to be an

obstacle to the grant of planning permission.

2.11 Policy RA2 – Housing in settlements outside Hereford and the market towns

2.11.1 This Policy states that sustainable housing growth will be supported in, or adjacent to,

those settlements identified in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15. As already noted, Marden is

included in Figure 4.1.4 within the Hereford HMA. The Policy states that the minimum

growth target will be used to “inform” the level of housing development to be delivered

in the settlements identified. Attention is drawn to the word ‘inform’ and it should be

noted that the Policy does not say that the minimum growth targets will be used to

regulate or limit housing development. Nor does it provide detail on how the RHMA

figure is to be apportioned to the various communities. Thus, the Policy states that

Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) – rather than a Site Allocations DPD - will allocate land for

new housing or otherwise demonstrate delivery to provide levels of housing to meet the

various targets. Once again the Policy does not (and cannot) say that they will be the

exclusive vehicle for the delivery of development, because it is accepted in local and

national policy and practice that development, especially sustainable development, may

also be brought forward through the development management system by approving

development proposals that accord with the development plan and The Framework.

Thus, housing provision in individual neighbourhood plans, including the Marden

Neighbourhood Development Plan, are pieces in a larger jigsaw and cannot be treated in

isolation.

2.11.2 The Policy sets out 4 criteria for housing proposals:

1. Their design and layout should reflect the size, role and function of each settlement and be located within or adjacent to the main built up area;


2. Their locations make best and full use of suitable brownfield sites wherever possible;

3. They result in the development of high quality, sustainable schemes which are appropriate to their context and make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and its landscape setting; and

4. They result in the delivery of schemes that generate the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular settlements, reflecting local demand.

Specific proposals for the delivery of local need housing will be particularly supported where they meet an identified need and their long-term retention as local needs housing is secured as such.

Apart from criterion 2, all these criteria are met by Application Proposal ii). The

Application Site is clearly not a brownfield site, but then neither is the recently

permitted New House Farm Site in Marden. The Applicant proposes to make provision

for policy- compliant levels of affordable housing, including starter homes, within the

family housing proposal.

2.11.3 The proposed FHD (Application ii)) accords with Policies RA1 and RA2 and constitutes

sustainable development for the following reasons:

The scale of development is proportionate to the size of Marden and the facilities it

possesses;

The design and layout of the Proposal reflects the size, role and function of Marden

and is located on the edge of the village, but within the wider physical confines of

the settlement as determined by natural and man-made landscape features,

including topography, vegetation and the disposition of existing built development.

The proposed development would be neither prominent nor intrusive nor result in

the loss of genuinely open countryside.

Particular attention has been paid to the form, layout, character and setting of the

Application Site and its location relative to the rest of the Village.

The proposed development amounts to a high quality sustainable scheme which is

appropriate in context and makes a positive contribution to the surrounding

environment and its landscape setting.

The size, type and tenure of development proposed reflects local need and demand

and is relevant to the local market.


2.12 Policy RA3 – Herefordshire countryside and RA4 – Agricultural, forestry and rural

enterprise dwellings.

2.12.1 It is accepted that the extent of the settlement of Marden for the purposes of the

application of this policy will be determined by the Marden Neighbourhood

Development Plan, once adopted, as that document will define a Settlement Boundary

for the Village. This issue will be discussed further in Section 3 below, but on the face of

it the FHD proposal (Application ii)) conflicts with Policy RA3 on the basis that it lies

outside the settlement boundary as defined in the MNDP. In striking the planning

balance the decision-maker needs to decide how much weight should be accorded to

the conflict with this policy, having regard to the other material considerations in this

case including:

o The need to boost significantly the supply of housing at the national and local level;

o The need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and widen the opportunities

for home ownership and provide more affordable homes (including Starter Homes)

at the national and local level;

o The close physical and functional relationship of the Application Site to the rest of

Marden and to the sites of the other simultaneous proposals;

o The development plan needs to be read as a whole and it is not correct to assess a

planning application against conflicting individual policies;

o The development plan does not have absolute authority and is not meant to be

followed slavishly by a local planning authority;

o The Council is at liberty to depart from the local plan if material considerations

indicate otherwise.

o The economic benefits of the proposal, including the benefits to the local economy

and, specifically, the contribution it will make to securing needed and beneficial

investment in the Applicant’s business and the impact that will, in turn, have on the

local economy. Thus, the proposed development, both in isolation and together

with the other three application proposals will contribute significantly to the

maintenance and enhancement of the vitality of Marden;


o The absence of demonstrable harm to interest of acknowledged spatial planning

importance, including to the environment, to the visual amenity of the area and to

infrastructure. As already noted above, because of the visually well-contained

setting of the Applications Sites and the disposition of existing development, none

of the four proposals will result in intrusion into and loss of genuinely open

countryside;

o The demonstrable compliance with all the other policies in the LPCS and in The

Framework;

o Enabling development, as constituted by the proposed FHD, is recognised as a

material consideration in law.

2.12.2 Clearly the proposed Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation meets an agricultural need

for workers to live permanently at or near their place of work at Brook Farm, albeit on a

significantly larger scale than anticipated by Policy RA3 and RA4. The sustained essential

functional need for the new accommodation is well established and was endorsed by the

grant of planning permission (Ref. DMW/092985/F, dated March 2010) for the existing

Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Site. The rationale and justification for the replacement

accommodation is set out at length in the Background to and Amplification of the

Planning Applications (B&APA) and flows from the Applicant’s Strategic Development

Plan. The business is demonstrably financially sustainable.

2.12.3 The Applicant is prepared to accede to the imposition of a suitably-worded occupancy

control, either through the medium of a Planning Condition, or a Planning Obligation, of

the proposed Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation.

2.13 Policy RA6 – Rural economy

2.13.1 All four Applications clearly accord explicitly with this Policy in that they will:

support and strengthen local food and drink production;

support and/or protect the vitality and viability of commercial facilities of an

appropriate type and scale in rural areas, such as village shops, petrol filling

stations, garden centres and public houses;


promote sustainable tourism proposals of an appropriate scale in accordance with

Policy E4 - Tourism;

support the retention and/ or diversification of existing agricultural businesses.

2.13.2 They will also accord with the criteria in the second part of the Policy because they:

o are of a scale which would be commensurate with their location and setting;

o do not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents by

virtue of design and mass, noise and dust, lighting and smell;

o do not generate traffic movements that cannot safely be accommodated within the

local road network; and

o do not undermine the achievement of water quality targets in accordance with

Policies SD3 and SD4.

2.14 Policy H1 – Affordable housing – thresholds and targets

2.14.1 The proposed family housing development (Application ii)) will accord with this Policy

since it is proposed to accommodate the 35% Affordable Housing target for this RHMA.

Moreover, subject to the publication of Regulations to give effect to the Housing and

Planning Act 2016, the Applicant will provide for the appropriate proportion of Starter

Homes within the 35% target. If the development delivers the projected maximum of

75 homes, 26 of these would be Affordable, of which 15 could be Starter Homes if the

Regulations do require the 20% proportion trailed at the time the Act was passed.

2.15 Policy H3 – Ensuring an appropriate range and mix of housing

2.15.1 The family housing development will be delivered by a commercial housebuilder and it

will be for that company to agree the ultimate housing mix with the local planning

authority through the Approval of Reserved Matters process and subject to the

parameters of any planning permission granted. However, the Applicant sees no reason

why an appropriate range and mix of housing cannot be delivered in this case, subject

always to market considerations.


The Illustrative Masterplan shows a range of family houses which are considered

appropriate to this location and the impact of the proposal has been assessed on this

basis. The description of ‘family housing’ was carefully considered by the Applicant and

thus the intention is to provide low rise terraced, semi-detached or detached houses all

with private gardens and on-plot parking.

2.16 Policy SC1 – Social and community facilities

2.16.1 Application iv) for the redeveloped family pub with rooms duly accords fully and directly

with this policy.

2.16.2 Dedicated social and community facilities for the Applicant’s employees, including

those occupying the proposed Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation, are provided

within the Brook Farm Site and they will not impose any additional pressure on local

social and community facilities (including the Village School) therefore. The Applicant’s

employees do, however, expend money in the local shops and the Economic Impact

Assessment estimates that this currently amounts to approximately £0.5 million per

annum, which is a significant economic support for these facilities.

2.16.3 Subject to meeting the relevant test set out in paragraph 204 of The Framework, the

Applicant is prepared to enter into a Planning Obligation to make appropriate and

reasonable contributions to meeting the additional demand for local social and

community facilities occasioned by the family housing development (Application ii)) in

accordance with adopted standards and criteria.

2.17 Policies OS1 – Requirements for open space, sports and recreation facilities and OS2 –

Meeting open space, sports and recreation needs

2.17.1 Dedicated open space, sports and recreation facilities for the Applicant’s employees,

including those occupying the proposed Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation, are

provided within the Brook Farm Site and they will not impose any additional pressure on

local open space, sports and recreation facilities (including the Village School) therefore.


2.17.2 Provision is proposed for appropriate levels of informal open space and for children’s

play facilities within the family housing development Application Site. It is expected that

these areas would be adopted and maintained by the appropriate local managing agency

in due course and thus will be available for wider public use as well. These areas would

also be accessible and available to patrons of the proposed family public house with

rooms.

2.17.3 Subject to meeting the relevant test set out in paragraph 204 of The Framework, the

Applicant is prepared to enter into a Planning Obligation to make appropriate and

reasonable contributions to meeting the additional demand for formal sport and

recreation facilities occasioned by the FHD in accordance with adopted standards and

criteria.

2.18 Policy MT1 – Traffic management, highway safety and promoting active travel

2.18.1 The Transport Assessment and Travel Plan demonstrate full compliance with this

Policy.

2.19 Policy E1 – Employment provision

2.19.1 The proposals encompassed by Applications i), ii) and iv) are fully and directly compliant

with this Policy in that they enhance employment provision and help diversify the

Herefordshire and local economy. Furthermore they meet the criteria set out in the

Policy as follows:

they are appropriate in terms of their connectivity, scale, design and size;

they make better use of previously developed land;

they are an appropriate extension to strengthen or diversify an existing business

operation;

they provide opportunities for new office development in an appropriate location.


2.20 Policy E4 – Tourism

2.20.1 The family pub with rooms proposal accords fully and directly with this Policy.

2.21 Policy LD1 – Landscape and Townscape

2.21.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the Design and Access Statement and

the Illustrative Masterplan together demonstrate that this Policy has been fully taken

into account and complied with. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

concludes (at Paragraph 8.8) that:

“The proposed developments can be subsumed into the landscape without significant detriment to local residential properties, visual receptors and the wider landscape character and will have no significant cumulative impacts”

Minimal mitigation is required as part of the proposals given their impact in landscape

and visual terms

2.22 Policy LD2 – Biodiversity and geodiversity

2.22.1 The Ecology Impact Assessment, the Tree Survey and the Bat Surveys together

demonstrate that this Policy has been fully taken into account and complied with.

2.23 Policy LD3 – Green Infrastructure

2.23.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the Design and Access Statements and


into account and complied with.

2.24 Policy LD4 – Historic environment and heritage assets

2.24.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the Design and Access Statements and



into account and complied with. The impact on the three listed buildings

within/adjacent to the Brook Farmstead complex has been adjudged to be marginal and

will certainly lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of these designated

heritage assets.

2.24.2 The Volunteer Inn is not a designated heritage asset, although it is of some age. The

Design and Access Statement for the pub redevelopment proposal addresses its

significance and concludes that, on a balance judgement, the loss of the existing

building would not occasion harm.

2.24.3 A separate proposal for the restoration and conversion and change of use of the listed

Brook Farmhouse is before the local planning authority at present and has been taken

into account in drawing up the other Application Proposals.

2.25 Policies SD1 – Sustainable design and energy efficiency, SD3 – Sustainable water

management and resources and SD4 – Wastewater treatment and river water quality.

2.25.1 The Design and Access Statements, the Illustrative Masterplan and the Flood Risk

Assessments together demonstrate that these Policies have been fully taken into

account and complied with.

2.26 In summary, it can be seen that the Application Proposals comply fully and directly with

all the provisions of the LPCS, except Policy RA3 with which there is de facto non-

compliance by virtue of the alignment of the settlement boundary in the emerging

Marden Neighbourhood Plan. Having regard to the other material considerations, such

conflict should not in itself justify the withholding of planning permission in this case.

3 THE EMERGING MARDEN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

3.4 The Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan (MNDP) is at an advanced stage of

preparation, having been submitted, examined and recently (on 8 September), the

subject of a local referendum.


It is probable that the MNDP will be adopted before the Applications the subject of this

Statement are determined. It is accepted, therefore that the Plan should be accorded

appropriate weight as part of the development plan.

3.5 The relevant provisions of the Plan are:

Policy M1 – Scale and Type of Housing Development in Marden Village

Policy M3 – Scale and Type of New Housing Development in the Countryside

Policy M4 – General Design Principles

Policy M5 – Ensuring an appropriate range of tenures, types and sizes of houses

Policy M6 – Protection/extension of Local Community Facilities

Policy M7 – New local employment opportunities

Policy M8 – Supporting enhancing and protecting existing local employment

Policy M11 – Landscape Character

Policy M12 – Flood Risk and Surface Water Run-off

Policy M13 – Public Rights of Way/Connectivity

The Proposals Map.

Many of these policies are similar to and have the same objectives in the LPCS and

where this is so the commentary in Section 2.0 above is relied upon.

3.6 Policy M1 - Scale and Type of Housing Development in Marden Village

3.3.1 This Policy should be read in conjunction with the Proposals Map. It is accepted that the

Application Sites for applications i), ii) and iii) all lie outside the Settlement Boundary as

currently defined on the draft Proposals Map and, as such, they conflict with the first

paragraph of the Policy.

3.3.2 However, the Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation is of restricted tenure, being

intended to accommodate agricultural workers only and primarily those employed by

the Applicant at Brook Farm, Marden.


It is also intended to replace temporary and now unsatisfactory accommodation in

caravans and demountables that already has the benefit of planning permissions. It

therefore accords with Policy M3 of the Plan.

3.3.3 So far as the family housing proposal is concerned, it meets all ten criteria set out in the

Policy and is in accordance with the CSLP, as demonstrated above.

3.3.4 The Application Site was in fact considered as a candidate for allocation for housing at

an early stage in the MNDP-making process. It was ultimately rejected by a popular vote

predicated, it would appear, on the following:

o Only one major housing site was to be allocated in the village. This implies an

explicit ‘rationing’ of housing supply in Marden through a rigid application of the

LPCS;

o An alternative site, at New House Farm, was preferred. Although this decision did

not categorically determine that the Application Site is unsuitable on its own

planning merits, in practice that is how it has been interpreted by the Parish Council

and local residents;

o Such objective assessment of the candidates’ sites as was undertaken appeared to

be based on inaccurate and unsubstantiated technical assessment that the

Applicant criticised at the time and which is now effectively rebutted by the

material submitted in support of the Applications;

o Any further consideration of the relative merits of alternative housing sites in

Marden, including the Applications Site, was effectively prejudiced and pre-empted

by granting of planning permission to a planning application relating to the New

House Farm before the Plan was examined. This was evidently necessary on the

basis of an absence of 5-year housing land supply, thereby engaging paragraph 49

of The Framework;

o The MNDP failed, in accordance with PPG-008 to provide indicative delivery

timetables and to allocate reserve sites to ensure delivery of housing.


o The adoption of a settlement boundary and the explicitly tight drafting of that

boundary around the existing built-up area and the proposed housing

allocations/commitments. A settlement boundary and, specifically, a tightly-drawn

boundary are not required by the LPCS context. Indeed, on the face of it, such an

approach is at odds with the overtly flexible and permissive approach taken by the

strategic policies in the LPCS (and in The Framework generally). The decision to

apply a boundary and the particular drafting of that boundary in the MNP is clearly

informed by a predisposition to severely limit further housing development in

Marden beyond the provision already made and limited infilling. It evidently takes no

account of objective landscape considerations, nor does it encompass any

flexibility. If, therefore, it is also applied rigidly and inflexibly in the determination of

planning applications, without regard to other material considerations, which

appears to be the intention, this constraint has the potential to prevent legitimate

sustainable development, such as the family housing Application Proposal, solely

on the basis that sites capable of delivering such development lie outside the

boundary.

3.3.5 Although the MNDP has now progressed and it is accepted that the above-cited

matters cannot be revisited in the plan-making process and do not go to the soundness

of the Plan itself, they are, nevertheless, material considerations to be weighed in the

planning balance in the determination of the Application in question.

3.7 Policy M3 - Scale and Type of New Housing Development in the Countryside

3.4.1 See commentary at 2.12 above.

3.5 Policy M4 – General Design Principles

3.5.1 As the supporting documentation, including the Design and Access Statements and the

Illustrative Masterplan demonstrate, the proposed developments the subject of the

Applications in question comply with, or are capable of complying with (through the

Approval of Reserved Matters process in the case of the Outline Application) this Policy.


3.6 Policy M5 - Ensuring an appropriate range of tenures, types and sizes of houses

3.6.1 Again the Application Proposals demonstrate that this Policy is complied with.

3.7 Policy M6 – Protection/extension of Local Community Facilities

3.7.1 See commentary at 2.16 above and the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. This

Policy is fully complied with.

3.8 Policies M7 – New local employment opportunities and M8 – Supporting, enhancing and

protecting existing local employment

3.8.1 The Application Proposals are consistent and compliant with these Policies for reasons

already cited in Section 2.0 above and in the supporting documentation for the

Applications, including the covering letter.

3.9 Policy M11 – Landscape Character

3.9.1 Compliance with this Policy is demonstrated by the Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment.

3.10 Policy M12 – Flood Risk and Surface Water Run-off

3.10.1 Compliance with this Policy is demonstrated by the Flood Risk Assessment.

3.11 Policy M13 – Public Rights of Way/Connectivity

3.11.1 The existing public footpath running across the Application Sites is protected on its

existing alignment. Safe access to this footpath is provided by the new footways on the

C1120 and Walkers Green and by a new permissive footpath running between the

proposed new public house and the family housing.


3.12 In summary, it can be seen that the Application Proposals comply fully and directly with

all the provisions of the MNP, except Policy M1 (as applied in conjunction with the draft

Proposals Map) with which there is de facto non-compliance by virtue of the alignment

of the settlement boundary. Having regard to the other material considerations, such

conflict should not in itself justify the withholding of planning permission in this case.

4.0 GOVERNMENT POLICY - NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.1 Relevant Government Policy as contained in the Framework is to be found at

paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 47, 49, 50, 55, 56,

57, 60, 61, 66, 69, 70, 75, 95, 99, 109, 128, 129, 131, 134, 135, 186, 187, 188, 196 and

197. Once again, it is not proposed to exhaustively rehearse these policies since they

are now well-known and well-understood and the principle of sustainable development

is encompassed by the in the Framework taken as a whole.

4.2 The Application Proposals are demonstrably consistent with Government policy set out

in The Framework as cited above.

4.3 In particular, the Application Proposals will contribute to all three roles of sustainable

development – an economic, a social and an environmental role. Thus:

they provide for and, taken together, will facilitate the development of high quality,

fit-for-purpose, agricultural workers’ accommodation and modern, efficient

headquarters/administrative offices and staff canteen/mess facilities in attractive,

energy-efficient buildings at Brook Farm. These developments will significantly

enhance the already major contribution that the Applicant’s business makes to the

local economy as recorded in the Economic Impact Assessment, contributing

thereby to a strong and competitive economy and a prosperous rural economy in

particular, consistent with paragraphs 18 to 21 inclusive and paragraph 28;


they provide needed housing, contributing to both quantitative and qualitative

supply in accordance with paragraphs 47 and 50 and provide an appropriate and

proportionate level of additional housing in Marden, sustaining the vitality of the

community;

they provide a significantly improved community and tourism facility in the form of

the new public house with rooms;

the four applications taken together will deliver a comprehensive mixed use

package of complementary developments, providing and securing local

investment, employment, homes and community facilities;

they will be of a high design and landscape quality, be energy efficient and

incorporate a sustainable urban drainage system, consistent with paragraphs 56,

57, 60 and 95;

they will encompass and promote sustainable modes of transport and reduce the

need to travel, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with paragraphs 32,

34 and 36;

they will conserve and enhance the natural environment consistent with paragraph

109.

4.3 The proposals also comply with the core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of

The Framework, notably the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh

and twelfth points.

4.4 Accordingly, and taken in context, having regard to the size and location of Marden and

the scale of the development proposed, the Application Proposals constitute

sustainable development and should attract the presumption in favour of such

development as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework (and the corresponding

Policy SS1 of the LPCS).


5.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 The key other material considerations in this case are:

o the essential physical, functional, social and economic interrelationship between

the discrete proposals. In particular, as well as being appropriate and acceptable on

its individual spatial planning merits, the family housing proposal will play an

important role as ‘enabling’ development, particularly for the agricultural worker

accommodation (as discussed in paragraph 2.12.1 above). The developments have

also been planned in an integrated manner – informed by a masterplan – so that

their layout and design is co-ordinated and they complement each other, thereby

creating a mixed use development and contributing to the comprehensive planning

of this part of Marden. This approach will impose an important element of order,

visual unity and consistency on an area which heretofore has evolved in an ad hoc

manner.

o The impacts of the developments have been carefully addressed and assessed –

again, both individually and cumulatively – in a suite of thorough and authoritative

technical documents, which demonstrate that they will not cause harm to spatial

planning interest of acknowledged importance including: the environment; visual,

rural and residential amenity; and, local infrastructure, including utilities, transport

and foul and surface water drainage. On the contrary, the proposed developments

will secure a number of benefits in these fields which go beyond simply mitigating

their impacts, including:

- Localised improvements to highway conditions, mainly along the C1120,

through: the rationalisation of accesses, incorporating appropriate kerb radii

and visibility splays at junctions; the provision of new segregated footways and

footpaths; and, off-site junction improvements;

- Rationalisation and improvement of surface water drainage through a

comprehensive on-site sustainable urban drainage system;

- Significant new planting with native tree and shrub species;

- Specific measures to enhance bio-diversity.


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed developments substantively comply with the provisions of the

development plan which therefore support a grant of permission for all four proposals.

6.2 There is limited conflict with one policy in the Local Plan Core Strategy and with one

policy in the MNDP in respect of the family housing proposal. This conflict arises solely

as a result of the definition and alignment of a Settlement Boundary around Marden in

the MNDP, which leaves the family housing application site outside the boundary.

6.3 On the evidence, the location of this Application Site outside the settlement boundary

causes no demonstrable harm to spatial planning interests of acknowledged

importance. In particular, the development would not be prominent or intrusive in the

landscape – on the contrary, it is extremely well-contained. It would not lead to a loss of

genuinely open countryside which should be protected for its own sake, or of a valued

landscape and it would not result in detriment to the natural environment – indeed, once

again, there would be an overall benefit to biodiversity. It would not result in an

extension to the built form of the Village that would be incongruous or incompatible and

discordant with that form, which has, in any event evolved in a rather haphazard fashion

and lacks any strong, distinctive and coherent character.

6.4 The FHD is an enabling development which will allow the redevelopment of the Seasonal

Agricultural Workers’ Accommodation Site to proceed and will, thereby, underpin the

future development of the Applicant’s business, with corresponding economic benefits

to the local area. This is a material consideration which should be afforded considerable

weight.

6.5 Moreover, policy in The Framework and the other material considerations, including

those set out in Section 5.0 above and in other parts of the Statement and elsewhere in

the Application documentation, tell strongly in favour of the development.


6.6 In light of the above, the significance of the conflict with the two related provisions of

the two parts the development plan (the LPCS and the MNDP) for the decision on the

FHD application depends entirely on the weight to be accorded to it in striking the

planning balance.

6.7 It would be wholly appropriate and safe to accord the MNDP little weight in this case.

Granting planning permission would not set any undesirable precedent, nor would it

undermine the MNDP because of the particular circumstances and nature of these

proposals and the demonstrable benefits arising therefrom.

6.8 Notwithstanding the policy in the MNDP which limits the settlement boundary, the FHD

is a sustainable development which is deliverable within the plan period. It is an enabling

development which will act as the catalyst for the development proposed in the SAWA

and is a material consideration to be taken account of in the planning balance. Given the

FHD's significance in this regard it too is a development which supports the ongoing

commercial and employment needs of the Applicant's business. The Applicant

considers that this aspect of the interrelationship between the planning applications

should be given considerable weight and, taken together with the above commentary, is

justification for a departure from the MNDP (as part of the development plan).

6.9 All four proposals constitute sustainable development and should therefore attract the

presumption in favour of such development set out in Policy SS1 of the Herefordshire

LPCS and paragraph 14 of The Framework. Moreover, the material considerations

outlined in this SPS outweigh those limited provisions of the development plan with

which they conflict and support a grant of planning permission for each of the proposed

developments.

6.10 Having regard to the foregoing commentary, planning permission should be granted for

all four applications, subject to appropriate, NPPF paragraph 206-compliant Planning

Conditions and to an NPPF paragraph 204-compliant Planning Obligation.