Over the top or what?

 

I know I harp on about the issues that many people have with the Broads Authority but I came across the following in some planning documents for a July 2024 planning application.  It's good that the committee members ask questions, but this seemed over the top to me! 

Wayford Nursery, Wayford Road, Wayford Bridge
Site description: Replace 8 poly-tunnels with glasshouse & covered area.

In answer to a question as to whether solar panels would be a requirement, the PO confirmed that the building was constructed of glass and not suitable for solar panels.

A Member asked whether the existing fencing between the carpark and the polytunnels
would be removed or replaced. The PO confirmed that there would be a new green mesh
fence installed on the boundary of the site.

A Member expressed concern that the development would increase the number of visitors to
the site. The PO said that the floor area of the business was not increasing, and therefore, it
was not anticipated that there would be more visitors than the current number. He added
that the Highway Authority was consulted on this and it was not concerned and had made no objections. The PO highlighted a slide of the presentation that showed the access to the site, which afforded good visibility of the road in both directions.

A Member commented that the application stated there would be no hazardous substances
on site, and asked whether it could be assumed that there would not be any pesticide use on
the site. The PO said that he was unsure where pesticides fell within the Hazardous
Substances requirements, however, any permits for Hazardous Substances would be separate to the planning application.

In response to a question regarding any potential increase in water consumption and possible effect on the water tables in the area, the PO said that the site currently used irrigation in the existing polytunnels, and it was therefore expected that there would be no change in water use on site. He added that as part of the application, two rainwater harvesting tanks, with a total capacity of 190 cubic metres, would be installed, which meant that there would be greater efficiency in terms of water saving.

A Member asked whether there were any details in relation to the biodiversity enhancement
requirements. The PO said that it would not be possible to look at the biodiversity
enhancements until the buildings had been erected, however, this matter would be followed
up by officers once the building work had been completed.

A Member commented that bird boxes would normally be installed for biodiversity
enhancement, however, with the requirement to look at putting measures in place to reduce
bird strikes, this might not be possible. The PO said that the Authority’s Ecologists have
advised a condition should be added which would be looking for a scheme that was
appropriate to the site.

In response to concerns about light pollution and the impact on dark skies, the PO said that as part of the conditions of any planning permission, they would look at the type of lighting
required, the hours of use, and how they could control light spill. He added that until the light scheme was agreed, the applicant would not be able to install any lighting.