West Peckham rejects tunnel plan

West Peckham Parish Council has submitted a 15-page response in opposition to Hugh Lowe Farms’ application for planning consent for polytunnels. It claims that all the residents of West Peckham are affected by polytunnels: “90% of residents live within 500 metres of a polytunnel, and less than 1% of the villagers obtain any economic benefit from their use.”

The council’s report calls for a full professional landscape assessment, a flood risk assessment (contamination of local lakes and watercourses), and an ecological survey. It claims that Hugh Lowe Farms has neither looked at diversification nor put forward a business case to support its plans. In addition it says “the applicant should be required to provide a full management plan including measures for ongoing and regular consultation with local people”, and, if granted, the planning consent should include a “rigorous waste management plan”.
“The outcome of this Planning Application will define the nature of the village in the years to come” says the report.
Claiming that polytunnels have already had a negative economic effect on the village, the report says: “In 1995 a number of West Peckham ‘families’ were employed working the land now farmed by the applicant and a significant number of villagers earned extra cash undertaking seasonal work. This is no longer the case as the majority of employees are now foreign workers.”
The council believes that what was once a completely local workforce has been replaced by one that is 93% sourced from abroad, and that “many of the economic benefits are received by communities in distant parts of Europe.” When Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) considers the application it should also take into account the burden that these seasonal workers place on the local infrastructure.
The parish council rejects the argument that polytunnels produce savings on “food miles”, arguing that “worker miles” also need to be taken into account.
Pointing out that TMBC has a legal duty to protect the public’s use and enjoyment of rights of way and bridle paths, the parish council says the application does not contain the necessary provisions to protect these amenities.
“The famous Greensands Way and The Wealdway cross the land in question, which is also criss-crossed by a number of other footpaths and bridleways all used by local residents and tourists. Enjoyment of these local amenities is severely reduced when a field through which they pass is covered in polytunnels and disfigured by discarded waste.”
“The application has made only a limited attempt to analyse the impact on a number of important buildings but has not considered the impact on the West Peckham Conservation Area or a number of listed buildings at all.
“There are 30 listed buildings in West Peckham. In almost half there is an impact on the property. Six are sited in adjoining fields. The applicant has made no attempt to assess the impact on these important local buildings in relation to their settings and views, either in or out.
“The fields to the north of the village are prominent features on the landscape of West Peckham Conservation Area and this has not been taken into account by the applicant. The applicant has left a buffer zone of less than 15 metres from the conservation area and considers that this is enough to reduce the impact of the tunnels on this important area – WPPC strongly disagree. A full professional study should be provided by the applicant to assess the impact of this proposal upon our important local Heritage.
“Farming with polytunnels often results in considerable plastic waste left in and blown around the field post cropping. Plastic sheeting and bags of frame components, despite industry guidelines to the contrary, are often left in fields post cropping which also spoils the enjoyment of these public rights of way. “

…

As it stands the application should be refused on the grounds of planning policies aimed at protecting the Green Belt, the Countryside, High Quality Landscapes, Tourism, Residential Amenity, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Footpaths and Hydrological Features from harmful impacts.
The applicants have not adequately demonstrated that these important considerations will not be harmed. Neither has a convincing case been made of the claimed benefits to the rural economy.
Nevertheless WPPC are keen to engage in discussion with the applicants to explore the extent and form of more limited proposals that might be acceptable, provided that they are suitably conditioned and controlled and the impacts have been fully assessed.