Report by the Polytunnel Review Working Group  (REPORT TO FOLLOW)

The Committee considered the findings of the Polytunnel Review Working Group, copies of the report having been circulated at the meeting.

The Chairman of the Review Group, Councillor T Hunt, reported that the Working Group had met in March and May 2006.  However it soon became apparent that the planning case at Waverley Borough Council had a strong bearing on the review of the Code of Practice for the use of Polytunnels in Herefordshire and therefore the work of the Group had been suspended pending the outcome of that case.  The Working Group met on 1st March and received advice from the Council’s Legal and Planning Services.  Attached to the report was a summary that set out the basis of that advice.  The Legal Practice Manager and the Head of Planning Services orally elaborated on that advice at the meeting.

The Chairman of the Review Group further reported that having considered that advice the Review Group concluded that case law relating to polytunnels had now crystallised.  It seemed clear that all new polytunnel developments within the County be treated as development requiring planning consent.  In relation to those polytunnels already in situ a number of judgements needed to be made and these were set out in the summary of advice. 

The Committee questioned whether there would be size thresholds, thereby taking small operators out of the requirement for making a planning application, and whether supplementary planning guidance would be given.  The Head of Planning Services reported that normal planning considerations would be applied when considering any case.

The Chairman permitted a number of questions or comments from the public in attendance.  The principal questions, together with the answers, are summarised as follows:

• What degree of protection was there within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – the totality of the court judgement applied to the whole County.
• Clarification was sought on the 4 year rule – from an enforcement point of view the clock started from the time the structure was started.  The clock would stop when an enforcement notice was served.  The Planning Service therefore would be working on establishing individual cases and considering the expediency, as indicated in the summary of advice, of initiating enforcement.  After 4 years the development may be immune from enforcement action.
• Would there be payment of compensation to public and tourist operators? – No.
• Will the public have their democratic say on planning applications – Yes via the normal planning procedure.

The Head of Planning Services emphasised that the public may not see a difference in the fields for some time as the preparation and serving of an enforcement case could take 2 – 4 months and the whole enforcement procedure could take up to 1 year.

The Cabinet Member (Environment) welcomed the legal clarification given by the Waverley case and stated that the position would be considered by Cabinet. 

RESOLVED:

THAT;

(a)the findings of the review of the Polytunnel Review Group, be approved for submission to the Cabinet

(b) all new polytunnel developments within the county (be they for soil grown crops or table top growing or otherwise howsoever) be treated as development requiring planning consent.  The usual application form will need to be completed in those circumstances;

(c)         that enforcement proceedings be continued and/or initiated in accordance with the priorities below:

1.      Enforcement proceedings to be continued in respect of those sites where notices have already been served and/or are in preparation

2.      Enforcement proceedings to be initiated during the growing season of 2007 in all cases where polytunnels are already known, or are suspected, to be outside the Code of Practice, there is a threat to acknowledged planning interests, and are approaching four years in situ

3.      Enforcement proceedings to be initiated after the end of growing season 2007 in all other cases where planning applications have not, by then, been submitted and there is a threat to acknowledged planning interests; and

(d)that the Executives response be reported to the Committee in due course.