Hall Hunter Parternship have recently submitted FOUR separate planning applications. One of which is for a 1725 sq m refridgeration unit..

The first.. WA/2008/1734 - is for Change of Use of agricultural land to retain the mobile homes and their associated engineering works. These caravans currently have an enforcement order against them as they were deemed as inappropriate development by the Inspector at the 11 day public inquiry. The enforcement order which currently has a relaxation of its terms is due to expire in December of this year. There are many members of the neighbourhood who are hoping that Waverley BC will reinstate the enforcement order to remove the caravans from the green belt site. Many people fear that once HHP are permitted to have the mobile homes within the fenced off area then it will enable them to have more caravans in there without public knowledge and more than 300 workers will be permitted to live there.

The second WA/2008/1735 - Alterations and Change of Use of existing agricultural buildings to provide living accommodation for 50 permanent workers. HHP would like to convert current redundant agricultural buildings for the purposes of accommodation. These are the original Victorian buildings, some built with Bargate stone. Local and national policy states that the re-use of agricultural buildings for the purposes of agriculture is permitted within the green belt and on the surface most residents would probably be supportive of this proposal. However, there is a grey area regarding the Change of Use. The proposal states Change of Use to residential dwellings - this is inappropriate development within green belt policy

The third WA/2008/1736 - Demolition of existing agricultural buildings to erect a building of 1725 sq m for the purposes of production/refrigeration of soft fruit. The general public and councillors need to assess this proposal very carefully. HHP maintain that since they are restricted to 20 ha of polytunnels then their focus is on blueberry and raspberry production. These can be stored and refrigerated. Whilst their argument may be legitimate but this is a planning issue and one that is proposed within green belt AGLV. And as such the consideration should be based upon what material harm will this building do to its surrounding countryside and will it "Converve and Enhance" the area.

The fourth WA/2008/1737 - Erection of a 2680 sq m hostel style building to provide accommodation for 250 seasonal workers. This proposal suggests that this building will be on part of the land currently used for the mobile homes. This suggests that if permission were to be granted then a further application may be submitted at a later date for another agricultural building to be erected or more mobile homes on the rest of the land. What is outlined in the application is that if permission were to be granted then this would house 230 people; what is not made clear is where would the 50 permanent staff be housed?

The general consensus on this proposal seems to be that the two storey building resembles that of army barracks and is totally inappropriate development in the green belt.

***********************************

Tuesley Farm Campaign Group are currently reviewing the proposals

There is a meeting to be held by the Easter Planning Committee in Council Chambers on Wednesday 30th January 2008 to discuss the Enforcement order regarding the caravans at Tuesley. Councillors and Council members are as follows:

Baily C R (CONSERVATIVE)
Band M H W (CONSERVATIVE)
Byham MW (CONSERVATIVE)
Ellis BA (CONSERVATIVE)
Ellis P (CONSERVATIVE)
Gates RJ (CONSERVATIVE)
Goodridge MBE M R (CONSERVATIVE)

Morgan B (Conservative)
Reed K (Lib Dem)
Savage C (Lib Dem)
Savage J (Lib Dem)
Diane James (Independent)

The meeting is open to the public and commences at 6pm.

This should prove to be an interesting and lively debate....

Waverley Borough Council have released the following statement:

"Enforcement notice at Tuesley Farm

The Council is aware that the enforcement notice relating to the stationing of caravans, the formation of a bund and erection of a fence and engineering works for the provision of services to the caravans came into effect on 15th December 2007 has not been complied with.

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.

The Hall Hunter Partnership have made this request on the grounds that;
• The caravans, when fully occupied, house some 250 workers who are essential to enable the farming activities.
• Fruit is picked by hand.
• It is not viable to house the workers elsewhere.
• No alternative accommodation is available in the vicinity.
• The nature of the work requires workers to start early in the morning and to be on call at short notice to maintain the polytunnels and ensure the protection of the crops.
• Keeping the workers together ensures that they are cared for.
• It is intended to house the workers in permanent living accommodation by adapting existing underused farm buildings.

The applicant has indicated the following time scale:
• Outline proposals for conversion of existing farm buildings to be presented in January/February 2008 for consultation.
• Planning application to be submitted before the end of April 2008.
• Work to commence immediately upon grant of planning permission.

The Council’s Eastern Area Planning Committee will be asked to consider a report on the matter. It is hoped that the report will be ready for the meeting on 30th January. The members of the Committee will be asked to consider whether they wish to agree to the request by The Hall Hunter Partnership. If the Committee is minded to agree the request to delay further action in respect of the caravans for a period of time, to allow The Hall Hunter Partnership to submit a planning application for the alternative accommodation, the enforcement notice will still stand and the ability of the Council to prosecute or take direct action to seek compliance with the notice will not be undermined. "

The majority I think was 32 votes in favour and 7 votes against.

Tuesley Farm Campaign Statement to residents:

We fought long and hard and unfortunately the Council Members have voted in favour of political gain. There is nothing we can do about that. However, we must remain steadfast to our principles that polytunnels are not right for this area. We are the neighbours to this farm we have to live with their activities and it's easy for those who are not exposed to it to vote in favour of local produce and British farming.

One Councillor, Cllr. Mrs James, who spoke as an objector stated in no uncertain terms that she was not fooled by the public relations campaign undertaken by this large company, nor is she deluded by the spin for food miles and carbon footprints. She was extremely sympathetic to us, who have had to endure this "rollercoaster" situation from the onset - when HHP first arrived at Tuesley Farm and set up their huge blocks of polytunnels we were horrified; we then felt a sense of justice when the enforcement orders were placed on them; they ignored the enforcement orders and went to appeal, again our hopes were dashed; but they lost their appeal and their planning application was turned down, our hopes and dreams for the future of our beautiful countryside were once again secure; then of course there was the High Court appeal which was expensive and worrying, but then again we won! We were all jubilant. A lot of us felt a huge sense of what was right for this beautiful part of rural Waverley was surely never now going to be spoilt. And now we had to fight again. And fighting an organisation with evidently lots of money is by no means an easy task.

She also went on to say that most soft fruit in this country is grown in Worcester and the reason for that is due to the flat nature of the land the fruit is exposed to more sunshine more of the time. Whereas in the Surrey Hills we don't get that amount of sunshine due to the undulating nature of the land and therefore the need for artificial environments is more important for the safeguard of the fruit. So we will have to endure more plastic than they use in Worcester. Which again proves the point that this area is not right for soft fruit growing.

Another Councillor, who in fact is the Mayor of Waverely, Cllr. Maurice Byham, spoke out against the supporting Councillors and stated "From the plans and what I've seen I conclude that this amounts to a large factory and I will NOT be supporting this application!" This is a key observation. We know in our minds that this is not the right sort of farming for this area. And whilst we are not adverse to modern agricultural methods, we have made the comments before that this is an intensive and aggressive commercial lead form of agri-business which does not fit on this land. And who benefits? The local Hambledon Village Shop? The neighbours who have lost their visual amenity and peaceful way of life? The Council Members getting more votes? Who gains? Hall Hunter Partnership gains - millions and millions of pounds. Who else? The supermarkets.

It seems that money really does make this crazy world go around. And we lose.

The planning officers have had pressure placed on them to come up with a plan. They say they need to strike a balance. A balance about what? How we must all turn our backs on local and national policies? Turn our back on the gruelling 11 day public inquiry? The High Court ruling? This is difficult for some of you to come to terms with I know and it's certainly difficult for us who have been at the forefront of the latest battle. But please take some comfort in what Councillor James said above. We say the balance is wrong:

The Inspector said that the harm FAR outweighs the need for this type of agriculture on this land - there's the balance.

We all know that this is not about local produce. We all try to do our best to buy local fresh produce THAT IS IN SEASON! So their arguments about how we must support our British farmers simply does not apply in this case.

We tried to put forward the argument that this application is not complete without any mention to the caravans and 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. But somehow the Council don't want to address this. Why? This is a subject that has baffled us. Again Councillor James addressed the issue by asking the question of how Council can possibly address this application without addressing the application for the housing. She also went on to say that she doesn't just see them as 250 workers, but 250 families who will put more pressure on our doctors surgeries, educational services and police. The infrastructure of this area is already under a major amount of strain. But yet the planning officers have recommended approval. And the Council have approved.

We get a "Quiet Lane" from Milford station to Hydestile apparently and whilst I don't want to appear totally negative about this, I'm sure there will be implications for some residents in that area.

We can be proud of the fact that as a result of all our campaigning that HHP can now only operate under stringent conditions. Section 106 agreements and planning conditions have been applied.

We must now look forward. And dealing with enforcement is a whole new arena. The onus is now upon us, the local residents, to inform Waverley enforcement officers if we see that HHP have breached the terms of their conditions. If anyone does see anything that looks out of place then please don't hesitate, inform Waverley.

Residents, it's difficult for me to say don't be downhearted, because I know some residents are taking this very hard. We must remain true to ourselves that we have stood up for what we feel is right for this area.

A Technical meeting was held in Council Chambers the Bury's Godalming on Wed 14th November. Here is a brief report:

As we predicted, at the Technical meeting, Waverley Planning was trying to justify their report. David Kay, gave a 30 minutes presentation ending with all the spin about wildlife, children and school visits and pretty hedgerows, making them out to be friendly, eco- aware and caring. Harry Hall kept silent but was obviously told to do so.

Natural England - Didn't show
Surrey Wildlife Trust - Mr Newell - his opinion was that should permission be granted then restrictions should be put in place and wildlife habitat must be taken in to consideration.
South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) Mr Stansfeld - Was in support of modern farming methods and polytunnel usage as a success story for British Farming.
CPRE - Colin Hall who was a resounding success
NFU - Mr Archer - echoed SEEDA.
Friends of the Earth - Kathy Smyth - This was interesting in that Kathy mentioned that she led the Tuesley Farm Campaign to the stage where HHP needed to apply for planning permission. But now she was concentrating on the application itself. She mentioned Field 17 and that it should be within the "sensitive areas". She mentioned that HHP are compromising. Organic was good as far as saving on carbon food miles. She finished by explaining their chemicals that they are spraying are perfectly harmless.
Witley Parish Council - Didn't show
Busbridge Parish Council - were with us. Maxine Long. Very good speech.
Hambledon Parish Council - John Anderson, for.
Tuesley Farm Supporters Campaign Group - yes that's right. Phillip Underwood manager of Hambledon Village shop. Generated some laughs but not taken seriously.
Tuesley Farm Campaign - Isabel Mason copy of her speech on the home page.

Thank you to Sally McGeughlin who has been instrumental in helping getting correspondence together and to Councillors and her support on the night which was incredible.

Also thank you all who came and supported us in the gallery.

We need you there again on 28th and more of you please!

ENDS

Waverley Borough Council have submitted a report recommending permission be GRANTED for 20 hectares subject to conditions.

Recommendation 1 - That permission be GRANTED for the erection of polytunnels on the fields as shown on the submitted plans subject first to the applicant entering into a legal agreement and subject to conditions.

Recommendation 2 - That planning permission be REFUSED for the erection of polytunnels on fields shown green on the landscape plans.

Tuesley Farm Campaign members and supporters of the campaign are bemused at this U-turn on their own policies.

A "Technical meeting" will take place on Wed 14th November at 7pm at The Burys Godalming to debate the issue. Followed by a meeting on 28th November for decision.

Waverely Borough Council officers announced today that they intend to recommend approval of the scheme despite strong objections from local residents and countryside campaigners. Read the full press release here.

80 residents have received letters regarding HHP's planning application for up 20 ha . In many ways, this might be worse than 2005. For example:

For all of 2005, the year the Inspector's rejected the Hall's last application, polytunnels coveraged on average 18.5 hectares of the farm. In the 2007 version, Hall Hunter wants up to 20 hectares at one time. If , as we expect, they use the maximum for 12 months, the tunnels would have an even greater impact than in 2005! As most residents are aware, tunnels were up in both December of 2006 and January of 2007...they are now here all year round.

HHP is withdrawing two fields from covered rotation, number 20, and what was formerly field 9. This year, and going forward, 5 new fields will be made available for siting polytunnels: fields 10, 11a and 11b, 12, 13 a and 13b, and 16a and 16b. These were not being covered when the Inspector rejected the last application, and everyone on the north side of Station Lane has tunnels a lot closer than in 2005. Compared to 2005, tunnels can be sited over an even greater area, all of which is in the AGLV.

The agricultural expert underlines this is all about incremental profits. He notes other crops would be profitable, just not as profitable as soft fruit: £785 per hectare, rather than £1447. So, in other words, the price for destroying the the AGLV and greenbelt is an additional £662 per hectare. The report then goes on to state that open row crops such as cereals, vegetables or salad crops, although well suited to the soil type seen at Tuesley Farm, are not in his opinion of greater value in terms of landscape (!) or financial gain. This is the crux of the matter: even the Hall's experts are saying Tuesley is suited to many crops and would be profitable, just marginally less so !

Writing to Waverley making points like these now is imperative! Let's not get fooled by the relentless public relations campaign. This application does not offer anything new to either the residents or countryside.

As many of you are aware, the Hall Hunter Partnership has been discussing their new planning application for Tuesley farm with various residents and parish councils over the past months. Although the final details are yet to be determined, their general position was that they would look for around 50 acres peak coverage, with a new landscaping scheme and many farm buildings turned into permanent residences for the seasonal workers. This contrasts with the roughly 96 acres the Inspector was asked to review in 2005, and the 72 acre peak coverage the year Waverley served it's enforcement notices. (2004) As before, we are by any description discussing a major development, approximately 70% the size of the peak coverage when the Council first served its notices. At first glance, this seems a small concession to the residents and Waverley Council after funding more than two years of protracted and costly disputes. To remind ourselves, it was only after a lengthy appeal and the High Court hearing that the Hall Hunter Partnership has begun to concede anything at all.

In addition, two residents consulted a barrister for his reaction to the preliminary scheme, and on his advice sent a letter to our councillors outlining his thoughts, you can view this letter here. Once the application is submitted, it will of course be useful to consult our landscape and planning experts to review the final proposals. Some new issues have arisen since the Inspectors report in 2005. Grain prices have sky rocketed, making traditional use of the farmland more profitable, and as many have read, farmers have requested a chance to use set aside land to start growing crops again. Although the Inspector already noted that there was no economic justification for polytunnels at Tuesley, these reports must underline that truth.

A new report on the future of the AGLV is now in the public domain, and we will be looking at that as well for guidance.
We are hoping to have a meeting of everyone involved in the Tuesley Farm Campaign in late August. That will give us two weeks or so to digest the application, which we expect in the early part of the month.

Hall Hunter loses appeal - planning permission needed for Spanish polytunnels, they are not permitted development. Mobile homes need planning. Planning permission denied. Click here to read the judgment of His Honour Judge Jeremy Sullivan which emphatically upheld the Inspector's decision.

Hall Hunter's appeal will be heard at the High Court in London on 14th and 15th December 2006!

The Government solicitor has appointed a senior barrister called Paul Brown to fight the HHP appeal.

Some of the hated rows of fast growing alders or poplars in the field along Station Lane were removed today by HHP. These were planted by HHP in spring 2005 after criticism of the original landscaping scheme. Let's hope that the rest of this insensitive planting which criss-crosses large areas of the farm will follow the Station Lane trees very soon and be removed.

Polytunnels now being erected on the Station side of Tuesley Lane.

A resident on Hambledon Road reports the first polytunnels of the year being erected on 'Field 5' over the early strawberry crop.

The Government's solicitor (known as the Treasury Solicitor) today received a copy of an application which Hall Hunter Partnership has submitted to the High Court. In the application HHP claim the Inspector was wrong about virtually everything! It's clear from this that Hall Hunter aren't yet ready to submit to the democratic process!

Dec 05

The results of the Inquiry

Hall Hunter Partnership has lost its appeal against the enforcement notices at Tuesley Farm. Waverley and the Residents and CPRE have achieved 100% victory. The polytunnels, mobile homes and all other works have been held to require planning permission, and planning permission has been refused. Hall Hunter are being allowed 12 months to exit the farm rather than the original 4 months stipulated in the enforcement notices.

A copy of the inspectors decision document is available for download here

A summary is available here

The Inspector said Waverley Borough Council and Tuesley Farm Campaign were right all along and that the polytunnels and mobile homes and all other items listed in the notices did require planning permission. He decided that he would not grant planning permission for any of them. He said Tuesley Farm was not suitable because of the huge scale of the HHP operation combined with the very open nature and sensitivity of the landscape and the visibility of the whole site to the general public from roads, the station and footpaths.

The Inspector also said that the polytunnels would affect the living conditions of some of the residents. He recognised that the enormous size and scale of the blocks of tunnels means they blight people's lives. The Inspector had been shown the NFU/British Summerfruits Code of Practice (which is not legally binding on growers) which says a grower should not put polytunnels within 30 metres of a boundary of a resident's property. Hall Hunter said they were prepared to make that legally binding but the Inspector could see that was insufficient to protect some of the residents next to Tuesley Farm. He had seen for himself that some people's lives were being blighted by having these huge, artificial structures so close to them and they were still quite a long way from these houses. Within a year or two they would be even closer and 'worse is yet to come' as our barrister put it. One resident who has had to endure polytunnels for the last two years has commented 'it hits me in the face every time I walk out of my front door or look through one of the front windows and this goes on for 10 months of the year'.

Hall Hunter's proposals to hide the adverse impact of the polytunnels (even their experts admitted they had a significant adverse impact on the landscape) by surrounding the polytunnels with a deep, dense landscaping scheme was rejected by the Inspector. Tuesley Farm Campaign could see straightaway when it was shown to us that Hall Hunter had completely missed the point by suggesting that a 15 deep metre belt of trees (which would take years to grow) around the entire farm and either side of the footpaths was the answer. The attraction of the landscape at Tuesley is its openness and the middle and long distance views you get across the farm. Historically we showed that the hedges have been low and thick, with the occasional mature tree, so the planting scheme put forward by the Halls could not be justified on a historical or landscape restoration basis

The decision is long and very complicated but a note has been prepared by a resident who is also a solicitor to try to help people understand the sections on polytunnels. See Summary notes on Inspector's decision on the polytunnels.

The polytunnels have just come down, which means that for now the far reaching views from the public bridleway at Clock Barn Farm are restored. Albeit slightly marred but better than the tunnels...