POLYTUNNELS AND QUALITY OF LIFE By Simon Evans

I am writing in response to the article by Mike Setford of Mereworth Parish Council in last month’s Record. He says:

‘The council appreciated the fact that there was no requirement for such an application….’

There has been a requirement for planning permission for large scale polytunnel operations since a high court judgement in December 2006. This was further clarified by the government’s chief planner in a letter to all borough councils in July 2007.

‘The area covered in the application is the same as the area currently covered’

In 2002 there were just 50 hectares under tunnels, this year there will be 164 ha, the application asks for 174 hectares. This is a massive increase of 350% over seven years, a maximum which the application now seeks to consolidate. It may be the current area covered but it is a comparatively new development.

‘Polytunnels are not permanent structures…’

This is not true in this instance. The application asks for a total of 175 hectares of polytunnels at any one time, of these 68 hectares will be ‘successional’ tunnels which will never be removed. Thus almost 40% of the total area will be covered with permanent structures which can be used for table top growing systems, these are far more visually intrusive all year round than crops grown at ground level. This is a new development, 5 years ago there were only 9.42 hectares of permanent tunnels.

‘The farm makes every effort to minimise the visual impact’

It is usual for the applicant of any development of this size to undertake a formal Landscape Impact Assessment, this has not been done. Over the years no attempt has been made elsewhere on the farm to landscape or screen existing irrigation structures. In West Peckham there are two ugly and intrusive reservoirs which have not been ameliorated with landscaping or a planting scheme.

‘If polytunnels are not allowed, the strawberry growing business would not be viable’

What evidence does Mr Setford have to support this assertion which is a simplistic polarisation between ‘polytunnels’ or ‘no polytunels’ ? If this application is rejected it does not mean that polytunnels will not be allowed but it does mean that a further application will have to be submitted which properly addresses the concerns that many people and organisations have about the current practice.

‘The jobs of 40 local people would be jeopardised without this form of farming’

The rejection of this application is not a rejection of this form of farming, it is a proper use of the democratic planning system to ensure that any development of this scale in the countryside meets with accepted environmental standards and respects the quality of life of those who live and work here.
If this part of the farming industry were to disappear what would replace it? Perhaps other industrial housing (sic) and development might take place or a massive greenhouse development.
Local councillors have a responsibility to judge each application on it’s merits, not to choose between it and some hypothetical worst case scenario.
Furthermore, there will be no massive industrial or housing development in Mereworth or any of the surrounding parishes for that matter in the foreseeable future. Mr Setford should be fully aware of the process by which such development is planned for through the Development Land Allocations in the Borough’s Local Development Framework.

‘If permission is granted it will be possible to exercise far greater control in the future use of polytunnels.’

This statement is simply incorrect. If permission is granted for this application in it’s current form there will be no possibility of exercising any future control. Any controls need to be included as part of the current application and through the use of any conditions that the Borough council can impose should they be minded to grant permission.

Currently Hugh Lowe Farms flout their own industry codes of practice by placing tunnels too close to people’s homes and erecting them indiscriminately adjacent to conservation areas. There is a clear issue with plastic waste littering all the fields and surrounding countryside in which tunnels have been used and there are potential conflicts with existing national, regional and local planning policies.
It is usual for applications for any development on this scale to include a Flood Risk Assessment, a formal Landscape Impact Assessment and a Waste Management Plan, none of which have been provided.
 None of these very real issues are addressed in the current application but can effectively be dealt with through the planning system and the debate and discussions that are currently taking place.
It is unfortunate that in spite of drawing upon the expertise of the NFU and an independent planning consultant that this application didn’t take into account experience gained elsewhere in the country where similar large scale operations have been brought within the planning system.
Of course it is important that traditional land based industries which provide local employment should remain in the area and polytunnels play their part in that by contributing to the overall efficiency of soft fruit growing. Hugh Lowe Farms is currently a dynamic and profitable enterprise but this should not be at the expense of the quality of life of those who live locally or who visit to enjoy all that this area of beautiful countryside has to offer.
Neither should it be allowed to neglect the wider environmental and social issues that all other industries have to address through the democratic planning system.