To consider progress in the control of polytunnel development in the County since the matter was last considered by this Committee in March 2007 when the findings of the Polytunnel Review Working Group were reported.

The Committee considered progress in the control of polytunnel development in the County since the matter was last considered by this Committee in March 2007 when the findings of the Polytunnel Review Working Group were reported.

The Head of Planning Services reported that in light of the Tuesley Farm, Waverley, case the Polytunnel Review Working Group reported to this Committee in March 2007 that changes were needed in the way the Council sought to control polytunnel development.  The Committee agreed with the findings and submitted the recommendations to the Cabinet for consideration.  Cabinet on 22nd March 2007 considered the issue and decided among other things that new polytunnel development would require planning permission. 

The Head of Planning Services further reported that since March 2007 planning officers had been in contact with all the main growers who used large-scale polytunnels. In some cases a programme for removal had been agreed, in others planning applications had been submitted.  Enforcement action was now underway in respect of those growers who had not submitted applications and were not, apparently, intending so to do, and whose polytunnel installations damaged material planning interests.  Where planning applications are received they were being reported to the Area Planning Sub-Committee in the ordinary way. 

He further reported that the Cabinet decision on 22nd March, in respect the statement that “all new polytunnel developments within the county…. be treated as development requiring planning permission” had been challenged by way of Judicial Review. In effect, the words used were too absolute and went beyond the tests established in the “Tuesley Case” and other related cases. He anticipated that a revised wording would be agreed by Cabinet and the Judicial Review process could then be set aside.

The Committee noted that the outcome of planning appeals, being held as a result of enforcement action, may give further clarification, or guidance, to other aspects of planning control for this type of development e.g. jobs v environment and development in an AONB.  Costs associated with the enforcement appeals were contained within the Development Control budget.

A supplementary Planning Document on the subject of polytunnel development had been drafted and was currently being consulted on.

Responding to criticism that Members, particularly those whose wards contained polytunnel developments, had not been kept informed of progress, the Head of Planning Services commented that this was a rapidly changing area, however, he undertook to provide information to Members as issues became clearer.

Questioned on how sites were monitored the Head of Planning Services reported that most of the operators had complied with the Code of Conduct. Whenever developments became known officers monitored the site.  However, problems occurred with those operators that hadn’t provided notification of development and the question of accurate records being kept had been raised during the recent planning appeal. 

The Committee briefly debated whether, for consistency, polytunnel development applications should be considered by Planning Committee rather than by the relevant area sub-committee.  Also debated was whether economic and tourism impact information should included for consideration as part of the planning application process.

The Head of Planning Services further reported that, despite the Tuesley case, no definitive planning guidance concerning polytunnel development had been received from Government.

RESOLVED: That the Executive’s response, and subsequent actions, arising from the findings of the Polytunnel Review be noted and the Polytunnel Review Working Group monitor the situation and report back as necessary.