THE ISSUES

  
There are good environmental reasons for using polytunnels, the strawberry bed uses a fraction of the amount of water that other irrigation systems need. Being protected the crops need less pesticide and fungicide and the strawberry bed suppresses weeds, reducing the need for herbicides. The tunnels also protect the strawberries from bad weather - one severe summer storm can wipe out a whole crop. For the growers this is all good, it means less worry and higher levels of cropping predictability. However this system also has serious drawbacks.  
 

PLASTIC LITTER

  
  In addition to the polythene coverings over the tunnels, plastic covered beds are made in the ground into which the strawberries are planted. This mulch prevents weed growth and contains the moisture that is fed directly to the roots of the plants by an irrigation pipe.  
 
  The plastic strawberry beds become brittle with age  
  After two or three years the tunnels are taken down and the plastic mulch removed from the soil. Unfortunately this is not a clean process and the sheeting cracks and splits leaving the field littered with scraps of plastic. This blows about and gets trapped in the field margins, hedgerows and surrounding countryside, this is unsightly and a potential danger to wildlife and livestock on neighbouring land. Black plastic bags are filled with gravel and used to hold down protective fleece or polythene sheets, many of these also escape collection and are trodden into the ground  

Click on image for bigger picture

  
 

 

  
 

INFRASTRUCTURE

  
  Growing under plastic means that the strawberries are protected from the weather which also means that they need to be watered and fed artificially so the tunnels are always accompanied by a complex irrigation infrastsructure to service them.  

Click on image for bigger picture

  
  Unfortunately the unsightly reservoirs that have been built around West Peckham leave a lot to be desired in terms of landscaping and screening, they are regular in shape and the smaller one is particularly ugly with a makeshift fence, torn butyl liner and no landscaping. The aerial picture on the right shows their position relative to each other, the fields in between are destined for permanent tunnels which will effectively industrialise the whole area.  
 

 

  
 

EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE

  
  With such large areas of ground covered there are real concerns about the effect that polytunnels will have on wildlife. One group of neighbouring fields in West Peckham, from Strakes to Goose Green, currently covers a total of 109 acres.  
 
     

THE KENT WILDLIFE TRUST HAS OBJECTED to the application by Hugh Lowe Farms, they say:

Not only will the proposed tunnels deny wildlife essential habitat to support and nurture them, they represent a severe temporary and, in some cases, permanent disruption to the connections within this network, fragmenting a sub-regional living landscape and putting in jeopardy the survival of local wildlife populations. The widespread use of polytunnels by all farm businesses along the southern slopes of the Greensand Ridge could have a devastating cumulative impact on this living landscape.

National, regional and local planning policies (see footnote) presume against development that gives rise to such extensive disruption and, where harm is exceptionally justified, to compensate for that harm. On the basis of these policy presumptions, and in the absence of an exceptional justification and any compensation for the disruption, the Trust objects to the proposals contained in this application.

The Trust also has concerns about the inadequacies of the submitted Management Plan which fails to prescribe measures to deal with the following risks:

 The elimination of habitat for mammals, invertebrates and birds as a result of the use of chemical pesticides, a build-up of pollution and, possibly, soil sterilisation.
 The threat to water habitats as a result of more intensive storm-water run-off flows.
 The threat to native invertebrates as a result of the use of introduced species of natural predators.

The Management Plan offers only generic prescriptions for the mitigation of only some of these threats to wildlife interests. No comprehensive proposals are made to avoid habitat and species loss. The Plan offers no site-specific proposals that could be recorded by observation nor monitored for effectiveness. There is no clear statement of aims and objectives. No critical indices of success. No regime for monitoring and reporting impacts, or for adjusting prescriptions in the light of experience. No soil or rainwater management systems. No site-specific investment programme for habitat/species enhancement. There is not even any evidence demonstrating the efficacy of the past LEAF initiative.

Our confidence in the Plan has also been undermined by the recent installation of tunnels on the farm. These appear not, for example, to allow for the provision of any grass alleys, intended to “contribute to the green network and provide insect habitat in spring and summer” (page 4, Management Plan).

The Trust feels that the case has not been made to justify the grant of permission and that the presumption of national, regional and local planning policies should prevail. However, if the Borough Council does not accept the Trust’s argument, then we urge it to impose condition(s) that require the submission (for approval) and implementation of a site-specific management, monitoring and compensation regime dealing with inter alia the issues raised in this letter.

  
     
 

EFFECTS ON WATER FLOWS

  
  During periods of heavy rainfall open farmland absorbs water which soaks through the ground into aquifers, eventually to find it's way back to the surface at lower levels through springs which then flow on into streams and rivers. This process slows the progress of water through the landscape. However when the land is covered with impervious plastic, the water runs quickly off not only alterng the nature of wetland habitat but also posing a flood risk.  
 
  Natural pond below a field in West Peckham into which run off from the polytunnels will flow  
 

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS OBJECTED to the application by Hugh Lowe Farms, they say:

In the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA) we OBJECT to this policy and recommend refusal of planning permission on this basis for the following reason:

The application lies within Flood Zone 1 defined by the Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a low probability of flooding. However, the proposed scale of development may present risks of flooding on-site and/or off-site if surface water run-off is not effectively managed. Paragrapgh E9 of PPS25 requires applicants for planning permission to submit a FRA when development on this scale is proposed in such locations.

In the absence of a FRA, the flood risks resulting from the proposed development are unknown. The absence of a FRA is therefore sufficient reason in itself for a refusal of planning permission. This reflects the precautionary approach to development in flood risk areas set out in paragraphs 10 and E9 of PPS25.

We ask to be re-consulted with the results of the FRA. Our objection will be maintained until and adequate FRA has been submitted.

  
     
 

EFFECTS ON PEOPLE

  
  Polytunnels are visually intrusive, particularly when placed close to residential properties, they block the view, the plastic glare is instrusive when the sun shines, they are noisy in the wind and rain, particularly when sheets become loose and in high summer parties of pickers arrive in the early hours of the morning to begin work. This means buses arriving, tractors revving in the fields and the noise and shouts of workers - all this as early as 5.00 am - at a time of year when people like to sleep with their windows open. It's not much fun trying to get your children back to sleep at dawn in June ready to face another day at school.  
View from an upstairs window, West Peckham Tunnels within metres of a house, West Peckham
 
 

WEST PECKHAM PARISH COUNCIL HAS OBJECTED to the application by Hugh Lowe Farms, they say

The outcome of this Planning Application will define the nature of the village in the years to come. The application does not put forward a business case for Polytunnels or justify their use. There are no very special circumstances. The applicant’s economic arguments rely solely on the size of the business which is not an argument that should be taken into account when looking at the application. We are not convinced that the intrusive nature and downsides of farming with polytunnels have been adequately considered by the applicant and are therefore recommending that permission not be granted in its current form.

 
     
 

EFFECTS ON TRUST
  In order to address public concerns about the visual and environmental impact of polytunnels The National Farmers Union and the British Summer Fruits Association have jointly developed a code of practice for their members to 'enable growers to demonstrate that they are responding to the concerns of members of the public by abiding by the requirements of the code'
 

INDUSTRY CODES OF PRACTICE FLOUTED...

The full document is available HERE but It includes recommendations such as

'Polytunnels must not be sited within 30 metres of the boundary of the nearest residential dwelling'

'All reasonable steps must be taken to minimise noise when working close to neighbouring houses either in the early morning or in the late evening'

'Waste Plastic must be removed and recycled in an approriate manner'

'In AONB and other designated areas, specific measures are necessary to ensure that the visual impact is minimised'

All of the above have been disregarded leaving little confidence that the polytunnel operation will be sensitively managed in future.