Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that:

·         Condition 4 be removed.

·         Add an additional condition to comply with section 6.2 of the ecology appraisal.

Mr. R. Cole, objecting and representing other objectors to the application, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

·         The objectors do not agree with the report of the application and consider that refusal of the application should have been recommended.

·         A new building of this size and for this use in open countryside is unjustified when the Council’s policy and Government policy is that any approval should be for exceptional reasons and emphasises the use of existing buildings.

·         The size of the building is disproportionate to the output of only about two acres of young fruit trees.

·         It is reasonable to expect all the processing of the produce of a small orchard to be carried out elsewhere.

·         The job creation element of the application would be unaffected and the scope for further development might be increased.  The applicant has indicated that he may wish to use the building for other purposes such as brewing.  Objectors are concerned that the approval of the fruit shed is interpreted as encouraging his expectations of further approvals that will justify the substantial costs of this building.

·         The access track to this site is not in the applicant’s ownership. Therefore, compliance with the recommended Condition 4 would require the consent of other parties, a requirement flouted without planning permission by the stripping and resurfacing of a grassy track with a layer of scalpings undertaken recently.

·         The objectors asked that the Planning Committee decision be deferred until uncertainties regarding access matters can be fully considered. A letter has been sent to the Council regarding this matter.

·         However, if the Planning Committee is minded to approve the application, the objectors asked that two conditions be amended, as follows:

-       Condition 3 should end as ‘and no fruit beer or other product ingredients shall be imported to the site and no retailing should be undertaken at the site’. The reason for the condition to be amended to ensure that no retailing takes place as well as no industrial uses.

This would minimise ambiguity and reassure objectors that the Planning Authority has full control over any changes of use of the building.

-       That Condition 4 should require the hard surfacing of the access track to be fully carried out prior to starting the construction of the building.  The recent soft surfacing is unlikely to cope with construction traffic.

In response, the Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that officer advice is that Condition 4 be removed.  In terms of the proposed amendment to Condition 3, the condition has been drafted clearly outlining the exclusive uses of the building. Anything outside of the wording of this condition would require a subsequent application to be presented to Planning Committee.

The use of the building is controlled via Condition 3. Use of land for agricultural purposes is not development.  Therefore, could be used for agriculture.  However, the nature of the development building is serving produce that has been produced from the site and falls within that remit.

Mr. T. Newman, applicant, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

·         The applicant is one of Wales’ craft brewer consultants and is looking for ways to environmentally and sustainably produce beer, going forward.

·         The applicant has looked at the process of brewing with a view to reducing the environmental impact. This integrates with Monmouthshire’s natural resources and ability for agricultural and fruit growing to blend crushed fruit in with the brewing process which allows for a locally produced product with the secondary part of the process creating a fruit beer which could be developed sustainably within Monmouthshire.

·         The applicant has worked with the Planning Department to find a suitable base for an orchard having followed pre-planning advice. The applicant looked for an integrated design that allowed for the right height footprint to fit the required vessels to store the fruit crush.

·         A base was required also to have a guided and sustainable footprint in keeping with the surrounding area.  Pre-planning advice was sought before submitting the full planning application. The applicant chose a sympathetic, environmental and sustainable design that allowed for ground source heating solar power and off-grid operation.

·         The application integrates process, building design and sustainability. The applicant is looking to create a community-based environment involving community farms.  Recycling of waste produce to local farmers is anticipated as well as integrating some of the local community for the harvest season in September.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         A waste management plan condition could be applied to the application.

·         Concern was expressed that the size of the proposed building might be too large and not proportionate to business.  In response, it was noted that the building with the proposed height for the tanks is proportionate.  The size of the proposed building does not cause harm to the landscape in the wider rural setting.

·         Any work undertaken on the access track sits outside of the boundary of the application and therefore does not form part of this application.

·         The work undertaken has only recently been identified.  Planning officers would need to investigate whether it is development that requires planning consent. If so, it will go through the planning application process.

It was proposed by County Councillor J. Bond and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2021/00961 for the following further information:

·         Details of a Waste Management Plan.

·         Justification for the size of the building and hard standing.

·         Details relating to the potential for bringing fruit into the site from elsewhere.

Upon being put to the vote the following votes were recorded:

For deferral               -           13

Against deferral        -           3

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2021/00961 for the following further information:

·         Details of a Waste Management Plan.

·         Justification for the size of the building and hard standing.

·         Details relating to the potential for bringing fruit into the site from elsewhere.