AVRA Summary of Secretary of State’s Decision

 

      The actual decision letter was sent out on 11^th. April 2007. It is long and complex so here we have selected what we believe to be the important parts.

      The numbers on the left hand side are the paragraph numbers in the original.

 

    Fallback position

 

62. The Secretary of State has concluded that the scheme does not qualify for permitted development rights. Like the Inspector she considers that a permitted site under Part 5 would require return to agricultural use out of the particular season and thus harm would be limited to certain times of the year. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that a permanent caravan site is not justified on the grounds of what might be done as permitted development. However, she further considers for the reasons given above that the use of the site would not benefit from permitted development rights even without the hardstandings and the infrastructure. She therefore does not consider the fallback position to have any weight in her consideration of these appeals.

Request for the extension of the compliance period

63.     The Secretary of State notes that the appellant claims that extending the compliance period to the end of the 2007 season, "will guarantee the welfare and wellbeing of workers employed during that season, and will also provide the S&A Group with a reasonable period of time in which to plan for and implement alternative arrangements for the 2008 season." The Secretary of State considers that it is the responsibility of the employer to take appropriate steps to guarantee the welfare and wellbeing of workers employed. Also, as previously noted, the appellant accepted at the time of the inquiry that 93 days was a reasonable period for compliance. However, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has known for some time that it was possible that the decision would go against it, the Secretary of State considers that it would be appropriate for her to vary the time given for compliance with the enforcement notices, increasing the period for compliance by 151 days, to 274 days, in order to protect the appellant's workforce from any failure on the part of their employer to make adequate contingency arrangements.

    Overall Conclusions

67.    The Secretary of State considers that there is a need for temporary accommodation to house the temporary workforce within a reasonable distance of the strawberry growing sites. She considers that the key issues are what form this should take and where it should be. The amenity building, caravan site and associated development (Appeal B) harm the character and appearance of the countryside, the landscape quality of the area and are built on some 8.6 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land. It has not been demonstrated that the need for workers' accommodation has to be met by a single large development, such as that proposed, on this site.

68.    The Secretary of State therefore considers that Appeal B conflicts with development plan policies concerned with protecting the countryside and quality agricultural land from unnecessary development and with achieving sustainable patterns of development, and she is satisfied that there are no material considerations of such weight as to indicate that she should determine the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan.

69.  In the light of the Secretary of State's conclusions in relation to Appeal B, there is no need for the sewage treatment plant and pumping station that are the subject of Appeal A. Accordingly, the sewage treatment plant and pumping station conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations of such weight as to indicate that the Secretary of State should determine Appeal A other than in accordance with the development plan.

Formal Decision

70.  Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusion and dismisses Appeals A and B and refuses planning permission for the amenity building, caravan site and associated hardworks, as well as the sewage treatment plant.

71.    The Secretary of State also upholds enforcement notice 1, subject to the following corrections:

(a) the substitution or the plan annexed to this letter for the plan attached to the enforcement notice;

(a) the deletion from paragraph 2 of the words "edged red on the attached plan numbered 2 (OS reference number 48725625)" and the substitution of the words "edged black on the attached plan':' and

(b) the deletion of requirement (i) of paragraph 5 of the notice and the substitution of the words 'Totally remove the single storey building, hardstanding and all associated connections (including in each case all associated works and equipment) without causing additional harm to the agricultural quality of and without causing harm to any archaeological remains on, the land to which this notice relates.

(c) the substitution of 274 days for 93 days as the time for compliance at paragraph 6 of the enforcement notice

72.    The Secretary of State also upholds enforcement notice 2, subject to the following corrections:

(a) The deletion of requirement (i) of paragraph 5 of the notice and the substitution of the words "Totally remove the sewage treatment plant, the pumping station, the hardstanding and all associated connections (including in each case all associated works and equipment) without causing additional harm to the agricultural quality of, and without causing harm to any archaeological remains on, the land to which this notice relates,"

(b) The substitution of 274 days for 93 days as the time for compliance at paragraph 6 of the enforcement notice

Right to challenge the decision

73.    A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court.

Anna C Macintyre

Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf