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 further considered by the Polytunnel Review Group when it reconvened in 2006.

In view of the number of written questions received from the public prior to the meeting, it was confirmed that an individual written response would be given in each case.  A copy of the questions/comments and the subsequent response is set out at appendix 1 to these Minutes.

The Chairman permitted a number of questions or comments from the public attending the meting, the principal points being:

·         Responding to whether there was a deliberate link between this agenda item and the previous item on Biodiversity, the audience noted that environment issues were the primary remit of the Committee.  Many of the environmental aspects of polytunnel use had been touched on during the review (as set out in the Committee’s report on the findings of the Polytunnel Review published June 2004).

·         In relation to the issue of increased water run off due to the expanse of plastic the Committee were informed that this was a general issue affecting not only polytunnels, but any covered surface e.g. residential development.  The Committee was informed by a grower that it was in the grower’s interest to both preserve the soil and store and recycle the water.

·         The Committee heard from a grower that he considered it impossible to efficiently grow organic strawberries without polytunnels.  He had 3 acres under green polytunnels and while he thought the visual effect had improved further research work was needed.

·         Concerning the siting of polytunnels in the County the Director of Environment considered that in accordance with the 2 year time scale in the Code, many polytunnels were being relocated to new sites, hence there were less in the south of the County.

·         Reference was made to the legality of the Code.  The Committee were informed that the current Code was legal.  In relation to enforcement, under the Code, the grower undertook to provide notice to the Council confirming that notification had been given to the relevant Parish Council(s) and nearby neighbours of the intention to erect polytunnels.  The Head of Planning Services reported that the Code was not an instrument of enforcement but a means whereby planning officers were made aware of proposed sites and thereby considered and advised on planning issues.  Planning Services was made aware of issues by the public and Parish Councils on a weekly basis and each issue was looked into when raised.

·         Issues around noise were dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

·         A view was expressed that the Council was ignoring two clear pieces of case law and that the Council would ignore the outcome of the current two local public inquiries.  It was also suggested that the Council was acting inconsistently with other authorities and that this caused problems where the policy of both Wye Valley and Malvern Hills AONBs (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) was concerned. The Committee heard that the cases were neither comprehensive nor clear cut and in the circumstances the Council considered that the Code was wholly appropriate.  The Council would consider the outcomes of the two public local inquiries in relation to their relevance to the polytunnel issue.

·         A further grower informed the Committee that the majority of growers complied with the Code. Growers were embracing new technology e.g. less reflective plastics.  He claimed that there was no evidence of any detrimental effect on the environment (wildlife) and that a last season strawberry field was now producing a good crop of winter wheat.  He was not aware of any detrimental effect on tourism caused by polytunnels.  He was happy to comply with the Code and contribute to the next review.

·         The Committee noted that planning application CW05/0698/F for ‘raised bed cultivation’ at Marden had been withdrawn pending an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) due to the suspected presence of a protected species (Greater Crested Newt).

·         Responding to a suggestion that the Council encourage growers to plant other crops e.g. grape vines in the Wye Valley, the Committee was informed that the Council was unable to prescribe the type of crops farmers wished to grow.

·         It was suggested that as the Code was only voluntary there was therefore little legal power to enforce it.  It was further suggested that to abandon the Code now in favour of requiring a planning application would cause severe difficulties, and be costly for the Council.

RESOLVED:

That

a)      the experience of the past 12 months of operation of the Code of Practice be noted;

b)     a further report be made in the event of any significant change in case law which would change the basis of the current Code of Practice;

c)     the Cabinet Member (Environment) be recommended to consider incorporating the pre-consultation requirements of the Code of Practice into the draft Statement of Community Involvement currently in preparation;

d)      the Cabinet Member (Environment) be recommended to continue to operate the Code of Practice subject to a full review in October 2006; and

e)     the Cabinet Member (Environment) be recommended to consider amending the Code at Section 3 bullet point 2 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.”