To consider whether revisions are needed to the code of practice in the light of experience through the growing season of 2005.

The Committee considered whether revisions were needed to the Code of Practice for the use of Polytunnels in Herefordshire in light of experience through the growing season of 2005.

The Head of Planning Services reported that following consideration by this Committee in June 2004, the decision by Cabinet in October 2004 to approve the Code of Practice provided for it to be reviewed in two years time i.e. in 2006.  This decision further required that an update position in respect of the application of the Code be reported to Cabinet and the Environment Scrutiny Committee on an annual basis.  His report was therefore made at an interim stage with the intention of updating the Committee as to progress.  His report briefly outlined the history of the issue; the number of planning applications received for polytunnels; the number of notifications in accordance with the Code of Practice; enforcement issues and case law, including public local inquiries. The report also highlighted that as part of the new development plan system (the Local Development Framework), pre application consultation could be requested through the forthcoming Statement of Community Involvement, the principals of which the Code was in accordance with.  He commented that the outcome of the two public local inquiries (Brierley Court, Herefordshire and at Waverley Borough Council, Surrey) may help establish the planning basis for the control of polytunnels.

The Director commented upon the difficult issue of balancing the need for a successful agricultural economy with the environmental concerns expressed by campaigners against polytunnels.  In the absence of a definitive legal definition for when polytunnels came within planning control the Code of Practice was the best available means of control.

In response to a question concerning the volume of traffic generated by this type of agricultural operation, particularly in narrow country lanes, Councillor K.G. Grumbley suggested that Section 3 bullet point 2 of the Code be amended to read: “The grower will submit local and landscape impact statements accompanied by mitigation measures.  The local impact statement should specify, as a minimum, the proposed vehicular routing, volume and type of traffic.  Mitigation measures may include one-way routes, hardening of passing places or surface improvements.  Routing should be included on the location plan (Checklist item 9).  Landscape impact mitigation may include the use of less reflective or coloured polythene.”  Having heard legal advice concerning the criteria for making Traffic Regulation Orders the Committee debated the suggestion and noted the current intention to get growers to co-operate in implementing mitigation measures.  It was proposed that the issue merited further consideration by the Cabinet Member (Environment).

Questioned on the speed of securing compliance with the Code the Cabinet Member (Environment) stated that once instances of non-compliance were identified the appropriate enforcement action was undertaken, however, with further resources, Planning Services could be more proactive in both enforcement of and guidance in relation to the Code.

Issues concerning any adverse effect on the economy of the County, in particular tourism, and the use of new technology would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33