To: Ms N Spink - Planning, Environment and Transport - The Borough of Basingstoke & Deane Civic Offices, London Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire  RG21  4AH

10 December 2008

Dear Ms Spink

Reference: BDB/69802 - Vitacress Salads Ltd, St Mary Bourne

The Parish Council met on Tuesday, December 9^th 2008 and decided by a majority vote, 6 against, 2 in favour, to object to the above application.

1. Summary

Whilst the proposal by Vitacress raises all sorts of issues including environmental, transport, noise and employment issues we have concentrated on the planning policy aspect. Within the context of policy the grounds to the Council's objection are –

That the proposals run contrary to national and local planning guidelines,

2. Nature of proposed development

Only a small proportion of the produce packed is actually grown on the site.  Some of the crops packed at the plant are not grown in this country and, coupled with the introduction of salad dressings in the packing stage, the Council is of the opinion that the operation is not agricultural and constitutes industrial process.

3. National Planning Guidance PPG7

PPG 7 is the principal national policy guideline and the Council argues that the proposals do not accord with the objectives of this document.

PPG 7’s "guiding principal" is that development in the countryside "should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment". It has not been shown that the proposals maintain or enhance the environment; the proposed erection of 3 new intake bays and 9 new despatch bays are in the Council's view clearly out of sympathy with and of detriment to a rural locality.

In AONBs it is a requirement that "In all cases environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration though it will be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well being of the area". The Council rejects the case that there will be benefits to the local community.

PPG 7 states that "building in the open countryside, away from existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled. In areas statutorily designated for their landscape, wildlife or historic qualities, policies give greater priority to restraint". The site in question is neither located within an existing settlement nor in an area allocated for development. Additionally it is allocated within a statutorily designated area, an AONB. The presumption which should apply, therefore, is that development at the site should be strictly controlled with priority given to restraint.

The Council does not see any enhanced economic benefit to the community. The majority of the labour is non local; a significant number are from abroad and are hostel based.

Whilst Annex C17 of PPG 7 deals with farm based food processing and C18 with farm based food packing, both are encouraged but relate to entirely different operations to those undertaken by Vitacress. The dangers of over expansion are acknowledged in C17 by indicating that. "Local planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity that would be appropriate, and may have scope to use conditions to limit them where there is concern about the impact of future expansion." The scale and nature of the proposed development is clearly out of context with the concept of farm based food processing and packing.

4. Adopted Hampshire County Structure Plan

It is the Council's opinion that the proposals do not accord with the County Structure Plan and, in particular, do not comply with policies C2, EC1, EC3  and E7. We believe that policy C1 is relevant in its definition of 'countryside'. The County Structure Plan clearly provides that the form of development proposed at the site is unacceptable in open countryside. In particular, policy C2 provides that :

"permission will normally only be granted for development which is essential for agriculture, horticulture or forestry or other development for which a rural location is essential or development which is approved under other policies of the Plan".

In the Council's view the proposals amount to a significant industrial or commercial development and therefore policy E7 (development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) should apply to the development. In applying this policy to the site it is clear that the proposals fail on all three limbs of the prohibition on development - there is no proven national interest, there are clearly alternative sites available (the applicant is using one at Amesbury)  and the buildings, design and materials etc. are not in sympathy with the local environment.

5. Adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan

The proposals do not accord with the local plan and do not comply with policies EMP110, C20 and C21.

The adopted plan policy EMP110 restricts development of the nature proposed in open countryside. Exceptions are provided for types of development complying with policies C20 and C21 but the proposed development does not accord with these policies.

The applicant has not shown that the proposals are both essential for the efficient use of agriculture and that there is an essential need for a rural location. Policy C20 is therefore not satisfied. Many of the items to be packed are not produced in the locality - there is therefore no linkage with the "efficient" use of agriculture.

Policy C21 is not satisfied because it has not been shown that a rural location is essential.

6. Approach to transport issues

The increase in traffic at the site as a result of the ‘vehicle maintenance enterprise’ has already had a significant detrimental impact on local roads.  Local Plan Policy C21 raises issues which has not been satisfied - that of traffic generation detrimentally affecting rural roads. The rural road network is incompatible with such an enterprise coupled with ‘natural growth’ at the Vitacress site

7.  Summary Conclusion

It is the Council’s opinion that any expansion at the site particularly to the loading bays and vehicle workshops will lead to an unacceptable increase to the volume of traffic on the already over-used rural roads.  The Parish Council are of the opinion that vehicle movements from the site should be restricted to the hours of 6 am to 11 pm.  The application shows that there have been a number of incidents at the railway bridge by New Barn Farm and at the narrow stretch of road by Chapmansford Farm, the Parish Council would like to see road improvements and traffic controls along these stretches of road.  The Council would like to see the ‘vehicle repair enterprise’ restricted only to the Vitacress owned vehicles.

It is the Council's belief that there is no need for the proposed packaging buildings to be situated on the Vitacress site at Hurstbourne Priors. The packing of salad products (much of which is imported) constitutes a commercial/industrial process which is just as capable of being carried out in a non rural location.

For the above reasons the St Mary Bourne Parish Council urges the Development Control Committee of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council to refuse the application.

Yours sincerely

Lorraine Cousins

Clerk, St. Mary Bourne Parish Council