Plans for polytunnels were submitted by Hugh Lowe farms in 2008 involving a total 0f 1315 acres of farmland. They were deemed by Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council to be seriously inadequate to the extent that they issued a letter of direction running to six pages asking for additional information and clarification. When the revised plans were submitted they were still riddled with questionable claims. See the plans here

TWENTY YEARS OF TUNNELS ?

The applicant is clearly seeking to give the impression that they are merely regularising a situation that has existed on the farm for twenty years:

Tunnels have been used on the farm for the past twenty years....(para 2.1)

This is a retrospective application to continue a method of farming that been in operation for the past 2 decades(para 5.1)

In fact there were hardly any tunnels on the farm twenty years ago - any local resident will testify to that and HLF's own figures also contradict these claims. The graph below has been created with figures from their planning application and shows clearly that the area under tunnels has increased about 300% in ten years - from less than 60Ha in 1999 to almost 180 Ha in 2009. To claim that:

This application therefore seeks to regularise the situation that has existed on the farm for the past twenty years.....(para2.4)

is clearly untrue and misleading

NO FLOOD RISK ?

It simply defies common sense to suggest that rendering large areas of the landscape impervious to water by covering it with polythene will not increase the risk of localised flooding. However, because of a planning technicality the applicant is able to sidestep the real risk to increased flooding that plasticulture presents. Planning permission must be sought for polytunnels but is not needed for the polythene that is on the ground, therefore flood prevention measures are necessary for the tunnels, but not the beds beneath them. A flood risk assessment has been included in the application together with suggested flood mitigation measures. The calculations in the assessment have been questioned by CPRE Kent and form part of their objection to the application - their report is here.Paragraph 3.2 states:

"... the polytunnels will not be sheeted for the winter months when fields are generally at field capacity and precipitation surpasses potential evapotranspiration and infiltration to ground. In these conditions, the fields will operate hydrologically as if there were no “development”.

In fact large areas of tunnels are sheeted during the winter months of February and March in order to bring on the early crop for picking in May but what is more important is the sleight of hand in the suggestion that without covers 'the fields will operate hydrologically as if there were no development'. Fields containing uncovered successional tunnels still have plastic beds on the ground but by definition this plastic is not classed as development so does not form part of the application and can be ignored. This polythene definately causes increased run off and flood risk but is excluded from the application. It is legally correct but demonstrates that the applicant is not addressing all the flood risks inherent in their plasticulture system.

Paragraph 3.3 of the Flood Risk Assessment states:

The planning application for the polytunnels is retrospective i.e. the polytunnels have been in place at Barons Place Farm for several years. During this time, there has been no recorded history of localised flooding and sediment mobilisation due to the placement of polytunnels.

A few simple enquiries of residents in West Peckham, particularly along the south side of Mereworth Road would quickly have established that this statement is simply untrue. Ever since polytunnels first replaced the orchards above Forge Lane there have been problems with localised flooding and detritis from run off at Parson's Corner, this blocks the highway gully and there is always a large pile of silt shovelled up beside the drain. Residents along Mereworth have employed sandbags on occassions to prevent water running onto their properties.

Both of the above points are illustrated in this video:

WORKING THE SYSTEM

The planning application para 1.5 states:

"The application is made without prejudice to the fact that an area of 33 hectares of land contains tunnels that have existed for more than four years and are therefore lawful in the context of planning law"

This statement refers to 'the four year rule' which in planning policy grants a certificate of lawful use to any structure that has been in place for more than four years wihtout planning permission. In practice it means that if you build something without planning permission and the council doesn't notice and take enforcement action, after four years it is classed as a legal structure. It is in effect planning permission by default.

HLF are claiming that 33 hectares of their land have had polytunnels on them continuously for more than four years and do not therefore need planning permission. However, they provide no indication of where these 33 hectares are located, no evidence of structures being continuously in place for more than four years, neither have they provided or applied for a certificate of lawful use.

In the absence of detailed information from the applicant we have added up the total area of fields that HLF have identified in their application as having had polytunnels on them for more than four years and our total only comes to 25.5 Ha. One field(Doctors) that they specified in this respect has never had polytunnels on it according to their own records.

15.44 Ha of the acreage they are claiming the four year rule on has only had polytunnels erected continuously on it since 2006. Their original application was submitted in 2008, at that time these fields would not have qualified for a certificate of lawful use. The applicant is clearly taking advantage of the delays caused by the fact that their original application was inadequate to claim the four year rule on these fields. We believe that the clock should have stopped ticking when the original planning application was submitted as the delays which have allowd them to exploit this loophole are of their own making. It may be legal but is a cynical exploitation of a loophole.

That this situation has even arisen is testament to the negligence of Tonbridge & Malling Council who have failed to bring enforcefort proceedings against HLF in respect of the acreage that they claim lies outiside the scope of their planning application. And while all this is dragging on, the council is still failing to bring enforcement to fields of polytunnels belonging to other farmers. This dereliction of duty could well result in acres of polytunnels becoming permanent fixtures in the landscape completely outside any regulation that the planning process could bring to bear on them.

ON OUR OWN VOLITION...

Following a ruling in the High Court the Government's Chief Planning Officer wrote to all local authorities in July 2007 to say that in future all large scale polytunnel operations would require planning permission. In their application HLF farms make these two statements:

2.2 Following that decision(the 2007 letter) the applicant approached the LPA to determine the best way for this farm to deal with this planning issue and this has resulted in this application being submitted at the end of last year.

2.4 It is worth noting that prior to the submission of the application, the applicants had not received any complaints about the use of tunnels on their farm from the local community.

We have copies of correspondence between a local resident and Tonbridge and Malling Council that dates back to 2006 in which complaints are made about polytunnels in the fields near his home in Goose Green in Hadlow.

The same person also wrote on 28 September 2007 to the owners of the land that HLF rented at Goose Green to complain about the polytunnels but received no reply. Correspondence continued between the resident and the council and on 7 May 2008, Joanna Russel, team leader of the Planning Enforcement Team at the council wrote to the complainant:

"I have written to the owners of the land and requested a site inspection so that I can establish whether the polytunnels are development requiring planning permission. However I have received no response and now intend to exercise the council's right on entry to the land"

Then on 10 July 2008 she wrote again to say that:

"it has been agreed that a retrospective application for the retention of the polytunnels will be invited"

This correspondence suggests a version of events that differs from that offered by HLF in their application. At least one complaint was made and the council then asked HLF to submit a planning application.

ORIGINAL PLANS

THIS SECTION WAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL PLANS SUBMITTED IN DEC 2008

Plans have been submitted to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council by Hugh Lowe Farms of Mereworth for a massive polytunnel growing operation that involves a total of 1315 acres over 6 parishes including Mereworth, West Peckham, East Peckham, Wateringbury, Hadlow and Platt. They are applying to cover a third of their land at any one time which means that each year 430 acres will be under polythene of which 168 acres will contain permanent tunnels, .

The full application can be found on this LINK

The application is misleading, inaccurate and has not addressed flood risk and environmental issues as is usual in a proposal of this scale. The quotations in bold are from the HLF application.

'THE MAJORITY OF THE TUNNELS BEING TAKEN DOWN AND PUT UP ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS, AND WITH SOME OF THE TUNNELS BEING USED FOR SUCCESSIVE CROPS....'

Only just true, in fact only just over half of the tunnels are to be rotated, the rest will be permanent structures.

Rotational tunnels remain in place for between two and five years after which they are removed and the land is used for either wheat, barley or beans for another two or three years before the tunnels are re erected again for strawberries. The plastic covers are removed for most of the winter months. This form of traditional rotation means that the the land remains fertile and there is no build up of soil borne disease that attacks strawberries.

Successional tunnels remain in place permanently and are used for growing raspberries which have a longer life or for growing strawberries in grow bags. The use of grow bags is very attractive for berry growers because dismantling and re erecting polytunnels every few years is a costly process and the rotational crops are not as lucrative as strawberries. Every two or three years the growbags and old strawberry plants are discarded and new ones placed in the tunnels.

Over the last few years Hugh Lowe Farms have been increasing the acreage under plastic and also increasing the acreage of permanent successional tunnels. In the new application almost half of the tunnels in use will be permanent.

This is a massive area of PERMANENT tunnels totalling 168 acres out of a total covered area of 483 acres.

West Peckham permanent tunnels, March 2009

In future all of these permanent tunnels could house a growbag system which is a move away from traditional rotational growing to a highly industrialised and intensive form of agriculture. Rather than rotating the tunnels over the land, the growing medium is rotated through the tunnels. At a recent public meeting Marion Regan of Hugh Lowe Farms indicated that they were looking to move towards a system of table top growing in which the grow bags are raised to waist height rather than placed on the ground. This is effectively a hydroponic system which makes no use of the soil in the fields at all.

The trestles do not need planning permission although they are effectively a part of the overall polytunnel system in spite of the fact that they are unsightly all the year round and far more visually obtrusive than grow bags on the ground.

Tabletop growing at another farm

Polytunnels are now an inevitable and essential part any modern growing operation but these new industrialised methods of growing are being rushed into with little regard for the visual and environmental impact on the landscape and the quality of life for those who live locally or visit the countryside.

'THE HOOPS, WHEN NOT COVERED IN PLASTIC, HAVE LITTLE VISUAL IMPACT WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE AND PARTICULARLY WHEN SEEN AGAINST A BACKCLOTH OF HEDGEROWS/ SHELTERBELTS/ AREAS OF WOODLAND......'

'PARTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING ADJOIN AREAS DESIGNATED AS CONSERVATION AREAS ....
......ACCORDINGLY, A BUFFER HAS BEEN LEFT BETWEEN FIELDS IDENTIFIED FOR USE FOR ERECTING TUNNELS BETWEEN THE FARM AND ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREAS...'

'THE STEEL FRAMED STUCTURE IS LEFT IN THE FIELD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WITH THE PLASTIC COVERING LIMITED TO A FEW WEEKS/MONTHS EACH YEAR'

Not true, what the application actually asks for is to have tunnels covered for up to 35 weeks of the year, this means that they could have the instrusive plastic sheeting over them for a total of eight months. This is three quarters of the year - hardly a few weeks/months.