30th June 08 -

(a) Very recently I was blocked by a large Sainsbury’s lorry which had just left Tuesley Farm and was attempting to go up Tuesley Lane on the ‘single-track’ back route up to the Convent into Godalming! It got badly stuck just on the bend below the Hospital back exit and had to reverse all the way back…causing some anger/irritation to those trapped in front and from behind. This vehicle HAD NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be there.

(b) Have noticed recently other (non-supermarket) very large container lorries coming from Milford towards Tuesley Farm.

(c) Reinforcing my earlier ‘published’ comments that this whole Tuesley exercise is not ‘normal farming’, but a large-scale industrialized factory type agricultural business.

30th June 08 - This just goes to prove this type of farming is not suitable for this area. Waverley Planning - what have you done! We have left messages for David Kay and he completely ignores us! Is there no justice! We have reported it to the noise pollution officer at Waverley. Let's hope they do something.

30th June 08 - I gather from phone calls to Waverley that a notice has gone out to Tuesley Farm seeking more info on the 'need' to use noise to frighten off birds attracted to the fruit growing. Gunshot, canon etc are not permitted unless all other means fail, under NFU codes of pratice, so I'm told.

The very loud explosions, not unlike mortar bombs, happen every few minutes starting around 7 am and go on til dusk, 7 days a week. One wonders if this is to persist for the 25 years of blueberry cropping!

The sheer quantities off jackdaws and pigeons here on our property alongside the farm is beyond belief.

We had none of this up to two years ago. We are woken every morning now by Tuesley Farm activites of this kind.

We have pretty well all but two chimneys now blocked by nesting jackdawas and one car has been resprayed last year due to fouling by pigeons feasting on fruit while we were away for a few days.

We can see no end to the nuisence this "English success story" is creating for us, and with Waverley's unwavering support too in very dubious circumstances.

27th June 08 - Up to now we have tolerated the dull thud of the bird scarers. But then we have had to endure a four-wheel drive driving around the field with siren gun. Like the one's you get at a football match or yacht race! No no no HHP! This is an insult to our senses. Not only do we have to tolerate your hideous polytunnels but now this attack on our hearing and rights to peaceful enjoyment of our homes. If you have birds eating your fruit that is your problem, don't make it ours! And please! NOT ON SUNDAYS!!!!

26th June 08 - re the noise - I left a message with David Kay about it - didn't get a response although they don't seem to be turned on quite so early in the mornings now. Glad it's not just me!

24th June 08 - I understand from Defra and the NFU that the guns should be pointing away from nearby houses and should also be as far away as possible. The guns also should not go off more than 4 times in an hour. They should not be used on Sundays.

In addition to the specific noise nuisance legislation, there are other acts that can be used; Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 (can be implimented civily as well as criminally), Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (ASBOs)- these can be prosecuted by police or local authority (as well as landlords/housing trusts etc.).

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 7 July 2005]: The National Farmers Union has produced a code of practice on the use of bird scarers, on which the Department was consulted. This code of practice

11 Jul 2005 : Column 645W

recommends, among other things, that auditory bird scarers sound only four times in any one hour, and that they are placed as far away as is practicable from nearby hospitals, homes or schools in order to avoid causing a nuisance.

Should a local authority receive a complaint of noise from an auditory bird scarer, they have a duty to take reasonable steps, where practicable, to investigate the complaint under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If satisfied that the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, or that a statutory nuisance is likely to occur or recur, the local authority must serve a notice requiring the noise to be abated or restricted. Failure to comply with an abatement notice can result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon summary conviction.

23rd June 08 - The bird population is gone down, we hardly have any birds in our garden. We also have not seen or noticed the badger, who was a regular in our garden, for the last couple of years. The fox which was enjoying the sun on our lawn has not visited our garden for ages.
What ever they say about their sprays, it is not harmless, I have no voice and my cough also is back and I have a soar throat exactly like last summer.

23rd June 08 - Dear fellow sufferers,

Yes we also have the pleasure of being woken up by the noise of the "guns".
We have had a very miserable time over the last 2 months when they were getting the fields ready for the raspberries - dust, intolerable noise from tractors. They also put a blue toilet just in front of my windows, which were moved after I complained.
For the last couple of days I hardly can speak and my lungs are congested as I seem to be allergic to what ever they are spraying.
This certainly is a factory and not a farm. I still look out on to a "service road".....May be they use it a little less than before.

23rd June 08 - I don't know whether any of you mind the noise from the simulated mortar bombs and gunfire off Tuesley Farm since Thursday morning but being woken up each day by this neighbour's behaviour has driven me to send an email to Waverley's noise complaints contact.
It is on the WBC site under N for noise.

13th March 2008

Responses to HHP's presentation of housing options at Tuesley Farm.

1. "Waverely are "back-pedaling". They capitulated on the polytunnels and now they are trying to find a way out of the enforcement order on the caravans. By allowing the applicant (HHP) to present ludicrous options for converting agricultural farm buildings into permanent housing just brings us back to the choice of the caravans. If the buildings are converted into housing then what happens to the farm when it is sold? There will be no buildings to service the farm in its traditional form. There will be a housing estate with permission and the new owner could possibly sell it and fragmentation is exactly the situation that Waverely wanted to avoid. If public opinion and the Officers decide against the conversions then the caravans get to stay and the enforcement order lifted. THIS IS THE RESULT THAT WAVERLEY WANT! Since it is easier for them to concede than to fight."
   
2. Last week’s WBC forum was yet another form of quiet torture to go through after the Council’s “white flag waving surrender” to HHP (one day would like to know how our own Council members utterly capitulated).
   Let’s hope for the following scenario……the price of grain/barley/wheat keeps soaring whilst the wages in Poland keep dramatically increasing, making the immigrants think twice about coming over. Strawberry growing becomes less and less profitable…leading to HHP to rethink their future at Tuesley.
   I agree with you that the caravans ought to stay and that NO new major conversion or new extensions are built. Landscape around the caravans and hide the impact. As I cannot believe anymore in WBC after the “surrender”, far better to have caravans rather than another major battle if HHP ever leave, whereby HHP apply for planning permission to turn the ‘converted’ immigrant housing into a major residential housing association and ANOTHER new planning battle starts!

   This must be one of the biggest local council foul-ups in memory at Tuesley.

3. Following the planning meeting, it seems most of the options, other than retaining the mobile homes, entails conversion of the outbuildings, which are mainly single storey, but also the farm buildings,which could be 3 storey. The dormitory lights will be seen from a long distance and, therefore, conversion of these buildings is likely to be more visible.
   By using the farm buildings for residential purposes, Hall Hunter will, no doubt, need to have these replaced to run the operation and, indeed, David Kay was uncertain what the freezer requirement will be for the blueberries.
   I, therefore, believe Busbridge Parish Council and CPRE should, in response to the planning officers remarks that there would be no reversion to agricultural purposes once the farm buildings have been converted, should now prefer to retain the caravans.
   The blueberries stand in black pots, which are an eyesore. Can the planners not ask them to set them in the ground?
   Some of the hedgerow trees planted between the fields have grown massively. Is there any definite curb to their height? This was discussed at meetings in the past.

4. I have totally lost faith in our Planning system. It seems that anyone can do anything nowadays. I could have had my Dormer windows after all!
   
5. I am a young mother and what concerns me is the amount of workers that are planned in the height of the summer. When we want to enjoy our countryside and parks, they will be overrun by foreign workers. I can't get around the shops nowadays without them snapping up all the bargains. My doctor's surgery is full of them! Waverley Planning? - ha! What are they Planning! You only have to look at Herefordshire to see what is happening to this country. Are strawberries really that important to us?
   
6. David Kay would not commit to the upper number of workers. We need assurance that there will not be MORE than 250!
   
7. Have WBC seen proof that HHP have exhausted all other options for their housing situation? We would like to see it. Why do we have to have workers living here to travel to other farms?
8. USEFUL SUGGESTION... Can the Councillors be taken on another tractor trailer ride around the farm in the height of the season? Perhaps then they can see what is being discussed and what is being decided on in Council Chambers and not looking at the true picture. We have to live here and we have to put up with the polytunnels and now we have to put up with all these workers and the uncertain future of our area.
   It would be more helpful and reassuring if the timing was a bit better thought out.
   
9. More opinions coming in, please return to us soon... if you have an opinion you can post it via "contact us". Thank you.

Statement to Waverley Borough Council, Eastern Planning Committee

30th January 2008

The Tuesley Farm Campaign Group is a group of homes of around 80 and now consisting of just under 200 people on our email list. These are all very concerned people who are raising many questions about the procedure or policies that have been followed by WBC regarding the situation at Tuesley Farm.

At the last planning application meeting, the subject of the continued use of caravans at Tuesley Farm was not deemed a material consideration, we feel this now to be erroneous advice to the previous Committee.

We were informed by your Officers that it was an acceptable way forward to consider the planning application for 20 hectares of polytunnels without considering the housing needs for the 250 workers to service those polytunnels. Whereas this is clearly an error of judgement by your Officers since the farm cannot possibly operate with one without the other.

In fact in the report presented to you this evening by Officers in which a quote from the Inspector is used:

"Justification for the caravan site would be substantially dependent on the continuing presence of the polytunnels; without them, there is no evidence that would justify the continuing presence of the caravan site at Tuesley Farm "

So why was the granting of the permission recommended given when the Officers were aware of the "parasitic" need for the accommodation for the workers? And why was the Council permitted to vote on an application that was clearly incomplete?

If this development for farm workers were to be judged on its own merits, it would be refused. Therefore since the Council accepted the separation of the polytunnel application from the residential application, it must be judged on its own merits.

The Council knew that an application for a development housing up to 250 workers was coming after the polytunnel application was made. The Council decided that the polytunnel development was not dependent on the outcome of any residential development, because it chose to grant permission for polytunnels without any reference to residential development. In other words, the Council decided the polytunnel development could go ahead even if residential development were to be refused. If the Council now accepts the Hall Hunter’s argument that the farm is not viable without the residential development (a claim made as part of this application to have the enforcement notice relaxed), and chooses not to enforce for this reason, the Council was clearly wrong proceedurally in the polytunnel decision. If, in fact, polytunnel usage does need a residential element to make it viable, then is should have been made clear during the first application.

The Milford Hospital development site is opposite Tuesley Farm, and its development, part of Waverley's existing framework, will stretch the schools, roads, health service and infrastructure of Milford to the breaking point. Is it likely then that this area can support an additional development that would be roughly the same size, in number of inhabitants? Have your Officers considered the impact on the schools, hospitals, GPs, fire and police services, and of course the already inadequate roads.

There is no mechanical reason the enforcement order cannot be enforced. It was suggested that there would be some physical difficulty removing the caravans from the site. Please recall that the Hall Hunter Partnership managed to remove them several times in the past. In fact, it was always the stated case that they are to be removed annually. It would be very strange if the Council now decided that it would be difficult for the Halls, or the Council itself, to do so for the final time.

We are baffled as to the reasons of serving enforcement notices if the Council doesn't enforce them? People are already cynical enough about the political process. Hull Hunter has had 13 months to comply with the enforcement notices, or come up with an alternative plan. They have done neither. They are entirely in a situation of there own creation, and there is no reason for the public to accept their economic justification.

There are many residents also concerned about the future of this site and if 250 workers is the limit. Can the Council get any assurances that their won’t be any more?

We ask you to speak out firmly and enforce the enforcement order.

Tuesley Farm Campaign Group

MOBILE HOMES - ENFORCEMENT ORDER

The enforcement order compliance date for the removal of the mobile homes and associated engineering works was 15th December 2007. You can view the enforcement notice by clicking here

HHP have not complied and have submitted a request to extend compliance period. Waverley have issued a statement saying:

"On 28th November the Council’s Joint Planning Management committee resolved to grant planning permission, subject to a legal agreement, for the erection of up to 20.ha of polytunnels on a rotational basis within defined areas on the 190 ha. agricultural holding at Tuesley Farm. Following this resolution The Hall Hunter Partnership have written to the Council to seek a relaxation of the terms of the notice to allow an extended period for compliance with the enforcement notice."

To view the whole statement please click here.

The Council seem to be back-peddling in order to justify their granting permission for the polytunnels. We wonder if the situation has not been predetermined.

We are urging members of the public concerned with the mobile homes to complain to Waverley's Enforcement Team. You can do so online here.

By telephone : 01483 523114

By Email : sdunn@waverley.gov.uk

DECISION MEETING 28TH NOVEMBER 2007 - PRESS RELEASE

Tuesley Farm Campaign Group, which is made up of around 80 local residents who live around Tuesley Farm, are disappointed with the outcome. We represent the 158 genuine letters of objection that were received by the Borough Council.

The issues that were discussed at the decision meeting were not relevant to Waverley's planning policies but represented a complete U-turn on their own local policies, in particular policy C3. They have turned their backs on the decision taken by the Inspector at Public Inquiry which was upheld by the High Court. The conclusion then (2005) was that "the harm would FAR outweigh the agricultural benefit on this land".

There has been no change in policy both local and national.

Having the polytunnels spread according to the rotational plan will have a “scattering” affect resulting in more detriment to a wider area of the farm. It will affect more of the farm and visual amenity of the surrounding footpaths, roads and neighboring properties.

We feel the current proposal is incomplete. There is no mention of the issue of 250 workers to service the 20 ha of polytunnels. Even those that supported the application were concerned about the sustainability of the farm without arrangements for the housing of the 250 workers. It's ludicrous to permit 20 ha of polytunnels without addressing the needs for the workers to service those polytunnels. Common sense dictates that more workers will be needed to erect and take down the polytunnels in between rotational periods. And then there's the picking of the fruit itself.

We are not fooled by the public relations campaign undertaken by this large company. The 500 or so letters generated were mostly from those outside the Borough and abroad. We also know that at least 100 of the letters were from their workers! We are also not deluded by the spin for food miles and carbon footprints. This issue is about whether polytunnels should be allowed on Green Belt land designated an Area of Great Landscape Value. This is not about whether we should be supporting our British Farmers.


TUESLEY FARM CAMPAIGN

NEW POLYTUNNEL DANGER TO COUNTRYSIDE

The prospect of a new polytunnel development scarring the countryside at Tuesley Farm near Milford came closer today (Nov 9) with the announcement by Waverley Borough Council (WBC) officers that they intend to recommend approval of the scheme despite strong objections from local residents and countryside campaigners.

Officers revealed their intention to allow the scheme to go ahead during a meeting at WBC called by Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey, and attended by, among others, Isabel Mason of the Tuesley Farm Campaign, and Tim Harrold, Chairman of the Surrey Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

The Council was represented at the meeting by Steven Thwaites, WBC’s Director of Planning & Development, and John Anderson, Development Control & Policy Manager. It was called specifically to discuss the new application by Hall Hunter Partnership for more polytunnels at Tuesley Farm, which is on Green Belt land in countryside designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) between Milford Station and Hydestile.

The decision is a major policy reversal by the Council, which previously opposed polytunnel development on the Tuesley Farm site. Two years ago there was an 11-day appeal when WBC, strongly backed by the Tuesley Farm Campaign and CPRE, sought to enforce planning policy against 95 acres of polytunnel development and 45 mobile homes for a seasonal picking work force.

Hall Hunter Partnership lost the appeal and took the matter to the High Court who supported the Inspector’s decision that the polytunnels and caravans were inappropriate development in this beautiful stretch of countryside. All of this cost a great deal of money and time. Now Hall Hunter is seeking a planning application for more polytunnels that represents a dangerous precedent for protective countryside designations everywhere.

Jeremy Hunt MP has supported the Tuesley Farm Campaign from the outset and spoke at the appeal. He commented: "This new development will disfigure beautiful countryside. The farmland is overlooked by the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which is equivalent in status to a National Park. The policy is clear: landscapes in Surrey such as this are precious and must be protected.”

Isabel Mason, who lives at Clock Barn Farm, spoke on behalf of the Tuesley Farm Campaign. She said today: "Although I speak for residents whose amenity is affected, I also have to take a stand on behalf of all those visitors who walk, ride, and cycle on Rights of Way that run across and around Tuesley Farm. The polytunnels and caravans will also be highly visible from the West Surrey Golf Course, from Gibbet Hill at Hindhead, and many other parts of the AONB. We have to make sure that this repeat attempt to overturn the High Court decision taken so recently is stopped."

Tim Harrold, Chairman of CPRE Surrey, who also spoke at the Public Inquiry concerning the polytunnels and caravans at Tuesley Farm, added: "Waverley Borough Council has clear policies supporting Green Belt land and countryside designated as Areas of Great Landscape Value and of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The debate about this new application is not therefore a matter of economic argument but planning principle in defence of the best of Surrey countryside.

“Waverley Borough Council has a duty to protect and enhance AGLV land and to ensure openness of the Green Belt. This is why they have joined with local authorities across the county in a campaign to protect Areas of Great Landscape Value which act as a buffer to the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is wholly inconsistent for WBC officers to recommend approval of this application, especially as, at the Public Inquiry, they championed the need for planning policy to be observed. It is surprising therefore that after spending so much time, money and effort on this issue they now appear to have caved in to external pressure."

A meeting will be held at Waverley Borough Council offices on the evening of 14 November at which the polytunnel and caravan application will be discussed and debated. A final decision will be taken by Councillors at their meeting on 28 November.

Tim Harrold added: "I am amazed by WBC’s U-Turn on such an important policy issue. It is a matter of upholding the planning process and policies agreed by democratic decisions that have stood the test of time. They should not be overturned in the interests of economic expediency. All those concerned with landscape survival, rural beauty, and the countryside environment are watching this case. Many English visitors have seen the damage polytunnels have done in Spain and elsewhere where policy controls are relaxed; is this what we want for this country, for Waverley, and for Tuesley Farm?"

"Polytunnel must be rejected!"
Surrey Advertiser 2nd November 2007

In 2005, the independent Inspector concluded that “the use of polytunnels at Tuesley farm, as a matter of fact and by reason of their size, permanence and degree of attachment to the land amount to development”.

The size and enormity of the polytunnels at Tuesley are deemed as development. They will alter the landscape. If we have 250 new houses at Milford hospital and we have acre upon acre of huge blocks of polytunnels at Tuesley this will close the whole area in. Not to mention the birds and wildlife. So what about our open spaces the Government has promised us for our children and generations to come?

There’s been many letters of support for the Hall’s enterprise hailing it a success for the British farming economy, saving on carbon food miles. We need to keep in mind that this is not the issue. This is a local planning issue and as such we need to protect this open landscape from development.

Of course we should support our farmers and buy our produce locally. But we need to get some control over this type of aggressive farming that is ruining our protected countryside. We urge Waverley to stand firm to their policies, especially as outlined in the Local Plan (C3) which states “Landscapes designated as AGLV make a valuable contribution to the quality of Waverley’s countryside… Strong protection will be given to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the landscape character.”

It will not affect the rural economy if these polytunnels were not permitted on this farm.

The detriment far outweighs the benefits, if any.

Isabel Mason, Clock Barn Farm

The campaign group “Tuesley Farm Campaign”, which is made up by the residents around Tuesley Farm, is very concerned at the public relations campaign undertaken by Tuesley Farm owners Hall Hunter Partnership. The Halls want to turn a local landscape issue into a referendum on the soft fruit industry, seeking to force Waverley Council to abandon its clear and unwavering support for the Greenbelt and the AGLV. These policies are adhered to because they preserve the countryside for us now and for our children and their families. Even though the Council, like the Tuesley Farm campaign, wholly supports British farming, the residents and the Council are still being bullied by a grower seeking to put aside the judgment of the Planning Inspectorate and the High Court that Tuesley Farm is not suitable for this type of development. The Halls want the public to believe that unless they are allowed to use polytunnels on this protected landscape, British farming will be harmed. Again, this is patently untrue, and the Halls themselves testified to this at the appeal, and noted in this new application that Tuesley farm was suitable for many other types of growing.

What is more disappointing is that the new application is so similar to the last application that was rejected. HHP are advertising a 50% reduction on the maximum monthly coverage by polytunnels. Yet the simple maths is that the Halls could actually have more tunnels up now than under the rejected plan, especially if they continue to use tunnels twelve months a year. Reduction in maximum coverage from 39 hectares to 20 hectares has been HHP's selling point. But that is only partial information which could mislead the public. They have not offered to reduce the total coverage during the year by 50%. The opposite is true. They can spread their maximum of 20 hectares of coverage out over more months of the year, rather than concentrating polytunnel use in the summer months as they had previously proposed. For example, they could have 20 hectares of tunnels up in December, January and February, when in 2005 they said there would be none. That makes a huge impact in months when the landscape had previously been natural. Most of us have noted that tunnels are up from January to December, and we believe that the Halls will seek to maximize the tunnel coverage as they have done every year.

The Halls don't mention either that the total area covered will also rise, from 60 odd hectares to 70 in the new proposal. In other words, they are spreading tunnels over a greater area and putting them in new places. More land than before will be blighted. The campaign group does not feel this is right.

The campaign group calls into question the truth that “thousands” have signed the grower’s petition as stated in last week‘s Surrey Advertiser. As far as we know they have placed petitions in the village shop and in the local pub and certainly “thousands” do not visit these establishments. Furthermore, the petition itself is misleading. The wording says “Polytunnels – Our farmers need our support. We petition to keep Tuesley Farm farming the way it is, proving a success for our Country”, is leading people to think they are signing this petition to object to tunnels on the land! We have spoken to many people who have signed the petition for support in error.

There have been reports that pressure is applied to customers, particularly those who don’t know very much about the issues, at the local village shop to sign the petition. The campaign group have now managed to put a petition of objection beside the supporting one it in the village shop “we are getting a lot of signatures” says Isabel Mason, one of the campaign members.

The campaign group have received reports that HHP are using scaremongering tactics by suggesting that should the land not be farmed using polytunnels then it will be turned into housing. This will not easily happen in a Greenbelt or AGLV. The government, even in the face of a national housing shortage, is still seeking to protect these vital open spaces for generations to come.

The campaign group is greatly encouraged by the recent submission to Waverley planners by the Busbridge parish council, whose members are unanimous in their opposition to the new application. Main points submitted by the parish council are:

• The proposals are inappropriate for this Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) which is overlooked by the by the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), in that proposals fail to conserve the quality of the AGLV.

• Substantial blocks of plastic tunnels as proposed will continue to dominate the landscape for lengthy periods of the year, thereby significantly changing the character of the rural landscape to its detriment.

• Attempts to disguise the polytunnels by planting quick growing poplar and alder trees, which are alien to the locality, will result in the characteristic openness of the area being jeopardized. The trees are running down the fields away from Hambledon Road and then running parallel with the road from the crossroads to Clock Barn Farm. The combined impact on the AGLV is such that, in the opinion of local residents, it has already been destroyed.

• The blocks of polytunnels have significant detrimental effect on the outlook of the numerous dwellings which surround Tuesley Farm, as well as that of the many walkers who use the footpaths in the immediate area.

• It has been established by the Planning Inspector [and confirmed by the High Court judge] that there is no agricultural or economic justification for positioning any polytunnels on Tuesley Farm.

The campaign group is urging Waverley Borough Councillors to keep in mind that this is a local planning issue. Many local residents, who are affected, are praying for a responsible and just result.

Tuesley Farm showing below peak coverage in March 2006

• High Court Transcript- pdf
• The Inspector's decision - pdf
• C.Katkowski QC (residents' barrister) final submission to inquiry - pdf
• CPRE's final submission to the inquiry - pdf
• Enforcement order to remove tunnels and windbreaks - pdf
• Enforcement order to remove mobile homes - pdf

• Letter from Waitrose about their future intentions - do they really mean this? We are waiting to find out. - pdf
• Letter from HHP's surveyors to a resident - pdf
• 23.08.04 - Ros Mason's letter to NFU together with their response - pdf
• 21.06.04 - Letter from Tony Blair - pdf

See what Waverley Borough Council have to say about the Inspector's decision.. here