The great rural debate: spread of polytunnels across the countryside Company boss has her say
WithWimbledon under way, everything in the garden should be rosy – or at least strawberry-coloured – for Hugh Lowe Farms (HLF) managing director Marion Regan, writes Peter Erlam. Her company supplies the official caterers for the tournament – a massive and prestigious deal. But Mrs Regan (pictured right) has things other than soft fruit on
‘‘
her plate at the moment, namely a planning application that was submitted originally in December 2008 but has still not be deter- mined by Tonbridge andMalling Borough Council. This month’s planning meeting, which was finally expected to clarify the com- pany’s consents on 532 hectares (1,200 acres), was postponed. A new date has been fixed for July 12 at Hadlow Manor Hotel.
THIS has been a strawberry farm for at
least 118 years – probably longer but our family started in soft fruit in 1893. Produc- tive fruit farming has prevented suburban- ization of these villages, and held off permanent development in these fields. It is not an expansion: no more tunnels are proposed than the area we already use and have used for many years. People will not see more tunnels in the landscape. The land use – and hence the ap- pearance of the landscape - will stay exactly the same as it has for years, with one third of the land growing soft fruit (strawberries, raspberries, a few blackberries), one
ROD King loves wildlife with a passion. Since moving to his smallholding at Vines Farm,West Peckham, 32 years ago, he has devoted a large part of his time to creating a nature reserve. It includes a series of ponds and is a haven for birds, small mammals and insects. Kingfishers, great crested newts and a
rare species ofwhite-legged damselfly are happy to call it home. But Mr King (67), fears his life’s work
is under threat from the spread of poly- tunnels. He claims they pose a flood risk to his property and heworries chemicals used to grow strawberries could endan- ger wildlife. He is supported by neighbour Gilly Kin-
Rod King, pictured with Gilly Kinloch, claims the knock-on effects of polytunnels could ruin the nature reserve he has created at Vines Farm.
She added: “Rod has built this reserve over
loch, of AdamsWell. She alleged that an ecology report, recently commissioned by applicant Marion Regan of Hugh Lowe Farms (HLF) is “blatantly and purposefully mis- leading the public”. The report says
the years but now it is in danger of being washed away and polluted by chemicals.” Neither she nor Mr King
The opponents’ big concern is is that if HLF is given the green light by the planners it will be a signal for other local farmers to cover the countryside in even more plastic. “If that goes ahead we will not just
that “as the tunnels have been in situ for more than 10 years, and no surveys were car- ried out prior to their erection, it is unknown whether populations of identified protected species have increased or decreased over that period.” But Mrs Kinloch says the tunnels were not
there a decade ago. “They have not been up for 10 years. You can check that on Google Earth. What other things are they (HLF) mis- leading the public over?” The planning application affects land in six parishes -West Peckham, East Peckham,Wa- teringbury, Hadlow, Mereworth and Kings Hill. The first three have recommended it be turned down. Mrs Kinloch objects mainly to the scale of
the operation, with some properties sur- rounded by plastic: “What we are asking for is a little more sensitivity. There has to be a balance.”
4 Malling
be talking about hundreds of acres but thousands,” said Mrs Kinloch.
could give the Downs Mail examples of how chem- icals had affected the nature reserve but took issue with HLF for not telling them what chemicals they use on their strawberry-growing land. Nor, said Mr King, had
HLF ever asked him about the ecology at his reserve, despite all his years’ experience there.
WEST Peckham turned out in force to con- front planners as they set off on a site visit. The residents’ placard messages spelled
out powerful messages to councillors who will decide on the highly sensitive Hugh Lowe Farms application. ‘Welcome to the garden of plastic’, ‘Un-
pretty poly!’, ‘Tunnel vision’, ‘Landscape does matter’, ‘Garden of plastic’ and many more greeted the councillors’ minibus. They were doing a site inspection as part
of the planning process prior to a resched- uled meeting of the Area 2 planning com- mittee on July 12.
You can e-mail the Downs Mail —
info@downsmail.co.uk
third growing arable crops (wheat, beans, barley); and one third woodland and grass- land.
Because of field sizes and shapes, the area of land actually used each year for tunnels
is far less than one third. Our farming practices, including using tunnels and table tops, benefit wildlife: the farm is not a monoculture, and tunnels re- duce the need to spray our crops. We en- courage native beneficial insects such as bees and other pollinators. We have over 100 species of farmland birds recorded on this farm. Animals and birds move freely about the farm through the crops and via themany hedges, ditches, field corners and woods. There is no objection from the Environ-
ment Agency. Flooding is not recorded com- ing from covered tunnels but mitigation measures are in the proposal just in case. This is an intimate horticultural land-
Over 100 local, resident full-time jobs in the immediate area depend on this farming business continuing – with over 40 of those being skilled people directly employed by us. Imag- ine the impact on a small rural community, and the rural skills base, if these jobs were to be lost. Our efforts represent one-third of the contribution all farming makes to the Ton- bridge andMalling economy.We also directly employ many seasonal staff, all from within the EU and many of them agricultural students, who are made very welcome, as is tra- ditional in Kent. They spend a substantial amount in the local economy as well as paying full taxes and NI.
Flood and pollution fears for nature reserve
scape shaped by generations of fruit and hop farmers in the ‘Kent Fruit Belt’ of the Garden of England, over centuries. The many hedges, copses and wind- breaks shelter the small fruit fields and reduce the landscape impact of the tunnels. Tunnels are the latest in a long
line of tools used by Kent’s innova- tive fruit farmers, enabling us to supply the important home market and stop the need for imports. There is no objection from Kent
Wildlife Trust or Natural England. Landscape mitigation measures are detailed in the proposal.
Row is the ‘final straw’ Continued from page one
the tunnels In high winds, the metal frames rattle Fruit pickers generate noise from ra-
dios and tractors early in the morning. The council also wondered if tourism
issues had been taken into account. Its objection said the area’s reputation
as the Garden of England is based on small-scale market gardening, prevalent in the area for centuries, not on large- scale “agri-business that ruins the beauty of the landscape”. The council added: “Many foreign tourists visit the area. However, the num- bers may reduce if the beauty of the area is reduced.” It would also “ruin” the GreensandWay
andWealdWay walks that locals enjoy. The council said it was not making a “blanket” objection to polytunnels but questioned whether the development's scale was “appropriate to this setting”. It also claimed Canon Lane residents adjoining the site had not been consulted. “I am sure residents in other areas feel
the same,” added the document signed by Mrs Averill. Asked by the Downs Mail about Mrs
Averill's decision, parish clerk Susan Cockburn said: “We are sorry to lose her. She was an extremely good chairman.”
Protest on the green greets polytunnel planners
‘‘
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56