Tuesley Farm, Godalming

Tuesley Farm Godalming

Application No: WA/2007/1962

Review of Polytunnel Management Scheme 5th November 2007

Tuesley Farm, Tuesley Lane, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1UG

Proposed Development: Erection of up to 20 ha of Polytunnels on a rotational basis within defined areas on the 190 ha Agricultural Holding at Tuesley Farm

Application Reference: WA/2007/1962).

Review of Landscape Statement (August 2007)

1.Introduction

1.1This report has been prepared by David Withycombe (BSc, MSc, MPhil, MLI) of Land Management Services Ltd for Waverley Borough Council. Land Management Services Ltd was appointed by Waverley Borough Council in order to assist the Council in the assessment of a planning application for the erection of up to 20 ha of Polytunnels on a rotational basis within defined areas on 190 ha of land at Tuesley Farm, Tuesley Lane, Godalming (Application Reference: WA/2007/1962).

1.2David Withycombe presented evidence on landscape and visual impact issues on behalf of Waverley Borough Council, at the public inquiry held between February and October 2005, relating to the enforcement action taken against Hall Hunter Partnership regarding the erection of polytunnels and other issues at Tuesley Farm.

1.3Following the Appeal Decision in favour of the Council (15th December 2005), Hall Hunter Partnership has prepared a modified Polytunnel Management Scheme. Hall Hunter Partnership commissioned David Huskisson Associates to prepare a Landscape Statement (August 2007) in support of the planning application (Reference: WA/2007/1962).

1.4In preparation of this report I have attended three pre-application meetings with the applicant and their agents and undertaken a walkover of the farm with Hilary Hobbs (Case Officer, Waverley Borough Council) on 14th September 2007.

1.5I have also reviewed the correspondence between Waverley Borough Council (letter dated 2nd October 2007) and the response from Bradbeer Planning Limited, on behalf of the applicant (Letter and Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007).

1.6I have also viewed the Landscape Report submitted by Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd on behalf of the Tuesley Farm Campaign (30/10/07) and the Draft response from Hall Hunter Partnership dated 31st October 2007, but do not comment on the views expressed in these reports.

2.The Landscape Statement (David Huskisson Associates August 2007)

2.1The approach taken to the Polytunnel Management Scheme is described in detail in the Landscape Statement. The key elements of the Management Scheme are summarised below:

• Landscape and Visual Appraisal informed by desktop and site survey (Landscape Drawing 2). This drawing identifies zones of sensitivity with regard to the potential location of polytunnels at Tuesley Farm.
• Definition of a protocol for different sensitivity zones and features across the farm with regard to the siting and extent of polytunnel coverage and the definition of buffer zones between polytunnels and features or visual receptors eg properties, roads and public rights of way (Landscape Drawing 3).
• Preparation of a Landscape Masterplan for the farm which builds on planting associated with the existing Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) (Landscape Drawing 4). A revision to Landscape Drawing 4 (Revision D) was issued with the Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007.
• Illustrative plans (Landscape Drawing 5) to show a typical annual polytunnel rotation using the protocol and based on a peak polytunnel coverage of 20 hectares at any one time (at the 2005 inquiry a peak coverage of 39 hectares was envisaged).
• Visualisations from 5 viewpoints (A to E) illustrating the typical annual polytunnel rotation. The viewpoints correspond to key views identified at the 2005 inquiry.
• The Statement also includes details of the methodology used in the creation of the 3D visualisations.

2.2It should be noted that the 2007 application relates purely to the erection of polytunnels and associated landscape works. The scheme considered at the 2005 inquiry also included other ancillary matters principally windbreak fencing and the caravans which provide temporary accommodation for farm workers.

3.Background Reports

3.1In addition to the Landscape Statement, reference is also made to the following reports relating to the 2005 inquiry:

• Proof of Evidence by David Withycombe on behalf of Waverley Borough Council (December 2004)
• Proof of Evidence and supporting appendices prepared by Kevin Light (Davis Light) on behalf of the Hall Hunter Partnership (24th March 2005)
• Appeal Decision Letter dated 15th December 2005

4.Landscape Planning Policy Context

Local Plan Policy Context

4.1The policy context for the land at Tuesley Farm remains largely unchanged from that considered at the 2005 inquiry:

• The whole of the farm lies within the Green Belt
• Land east of Tuesley Lane (comprising between two third and three quarters of the total farm area) lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)
• The farm lies outside the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The AONB boundary follows the line of Hambledon Road to the east
• Part of Shadwell Copse is a local Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI)

2005 Planning Inquiry Decision

4.2The Inspector to the 2005 inquiry concluded that:

“The extensive blocks of polytunnel would not meet the high standards of design and appearance that development plan policies seek of buildings in the countryside. The proposed development together with the landscaping masterplan would be out of place in terms of their scale, height, form and appearance failing to protect the openness and intrinsic qualities of the countryside and failing to respect its character…. Their presence would fail to conserve or enhance the quality of the landscape within the AGLV to its long term detriment and, in that part of the appeals site outside the AGLV, would fail to retain the distinctiveness of the landscape.”

(Paragraph 142, Appeal Decision Letter 15th December 2005)

4.3In paragraph 7.7 of my Proof of Evidence (December 2004) I concluded that:

“development of this nature on such a scale is unacceptable in terms of impact on landscape character, visual amenity and the openness of the countryside”

4.4For the revised Polytunnel Management Scheme to be acceptable in landscape and visual terms, it must address the issues raised in Paragraph 142 of the Appeal Decision Letter.

Surrey AGLV Review

4.5The Surrey Planning Officers association recently commissioned a review of the Surrey AGLV in response to advice issued by central Government and embodied in PPS 7 regarding the status of local landscape designations. The Final Report for this study was issued on 26th June 2007 (Chris Burnett Associates). Although this report does not have any statutory status, it is relevant to this assessment as the characteristics of the land at Tuesley Farm within the AGLV were considered as part of the study.

4.6The study includes a landscape character based assessment of land within the AGLV, in comparison to the characteristics of adjacent land within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This assessment is character based and does not draw conclusions in relation to landscape quality.

4.7Land within the AGLV was graded as follows:

Green = area of AGLV with identical characteristics to the AONB

Amber =area of AGLV with some shared characteristics to that of the AONB

Red =area with few or no characteristics in comparison to the AONB

4.8The area of Tuesley Farm which lies within the AGLV is graded as red and is described as “very large open, flat fields, with no shared characteristics of the surrounding AONB Greensand Hills” (AGLV Compartment W5 and Figure 6.7, Surrey AGLV Review, Final Report 26th June 2007).

4.9It is emphasised that the report does not draw conclusions on the quality of the landscape. The conclusions of the report are that land classified as green could be included within a revised AONB boundary without further assessment, whilst areas classified as red or amber should be subject to further assessment.

4.10The issue of the landscape character of the farm landscape was considered at some length at the 2005 inquiry. The majority of this evidence considered the character of the farm as part of the local Greensand Plateau landscape character area as described in ‘The future of Surrey’s Landscape and Woodlands’ (Surrey County Council 1999), as opposed to a comparison of the farm landscape with the adjacent AONB.

4.11The degree to which the proposals at Tuesley Farm could contribute to the establishment of characteristics similar to the adjacent AONB would be relevant to any future consideration of the AONB boundary. Elements likely to be considered in keeping with the characteristics of the adjacent AONB are:

• The planting of native hedges and hedgerow trees
• The planting of small woodland blocks or shaws
• Management of existing woodland and hedges, including Shadwell Copse

4.12Elements likely to be considered out of character with the adjacent AONB are:

• The polytunnels
• The wind break planting

5.Landscape Character and Visual Assessment – Changes since 2005

5.1The main changes to the character and appearance of the farm landscape since the 2005 inquiry are the result of maturing planting associated with both the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) and windbreak plantings of alder and poplar (these are identified on Landscape Drawing 4 Revision D). Much of the planting which had just been carried out in 2005 is now starting to read as features in the local landscape. with some hedges now approaching 1 to 1.5 metres in height and some windbreaks up to 3 to 4 metres in height.

5.2Hedgerow re-instatement to the full extent shown in the original CSS scheme does not appear to have been completed as yet, and in some locations proposed hedge lines are currently defined by windbreak planting, which it is assumed has now been taken out of the CSS. The Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007 states that the CSS is “an ongoing process at Tuesley Farm until 2012”. It is also stated that “a number of amendments have been made to the original plan” but the exact location of any changes eg hedges which may have been removed from the original scheme is not indicated.

5.3Planting under the CSS is starting to establish field patterns across some of the farm (a key objective of the scheme), but this is interrupted by the windbreak planting which now define hedgelines, in particular in the eastern areas of the farm.

5.4The use of windbreak planting is common agricultural practice, in particular on open exposed sites; it is particularly widespread in some fruit growing areas of Kent, for instance. Surrey benefits from being a well wooded and predominantly rolling landscape and, as such, the use of windbreak planting is not a characteristic feature of local agricultural landscapes.

5.5At the 2005 inquiry, the visual impact of the polytunnels was assessed from a number of near and more distant public viewpoints[1] (highways, public rights of way, access land). These are summarised as follows:

• Views from Footpath 162 which crosses the farm
• Views from Bridleway 163, in particular in the vicinity of Clock Barn Farm
• Views from Footpath 161 between Milford Station and Milford Hospital
• Views from Station Road and Hambledon Road

• Distant Views principally from Gibbet Hill and to a lesser extent Mare Hill, both of which lie within the Surrey Hills AONB

5.6There do not appear to have been any other changes in vegetation management to other surrounding areas such as Hydon Hill, which would affect potential views to the farm.

6.The Proposed Polytunnel Management Scheme

6.1It is understood that the style of Polytunnels remains unchanged from that assessed at the 2005 inquiry. These are ‘Spanish’ polytunnels which are approximately 3.9 m high and 7.2 m wide. Polytunnels on the farm when visited were covered with either a clear plastic or a matt green coloured plastic.

6.2The Sensitivity Drawing (Landscape Drawing 2) identifies fields of highest sensitivity within which polytunnels would not be located under any circumstances. This zone broadly follows the southern and eastern boundaries of the farm and constitutes an estimated 25 to 30% of the total farm area (my estimate). The rationale behind the areas of sensitivity is described in the Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007.

6.3The area of Medium Sensitivity constitutes the bulk of the remaining land to the north of Shadwell Copse and to the east of the farm itself (northern section as shown on Landscape Drawing 3). This land includes sections of Footpath 162 as it crosses the farm. A short section of Footpath 161 on the north east boundary of the farm and the section of Footpath 162 south of Shadwell Copse are also shown as medium sensitivity.

6.4The main area of Low Sensitivity lies to the south and west of Shadwell Copse (western and southern sections).

6.5The Landscape Protocol defines criteria to be met in the siting of polytunnels within the Medium and Low Sensitivity Zones. Buffer zones are common to both Sensitivity Zones and are summarised as follows:

• Minimum 50 metre clearance between polytunnels and residential properties
• Minimum 15 metre clearance between polytunnel and public right of way
• Varying clearances of between 4 and 20 m between polytunnels and field boundary/feature

6.6With regard to the location of polytunnels, in the Medium Sensitivity Zone:

• No two adjacent field areas to be covered at any one time (Note: some smaller fields are treated as one field as described on Landscape Drawing 3)

6.7In the Low Sensitivity Zone:

• No more than two adjacent fields to be covered at any one time

6.8The Landscape Masterplan (Landscape Drawing 4, Revision D) builds on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) through:

• Hedge and hedgerow tree planting
• Planting of woodland blocks, principally in the north eastern sections of the farm
• Further planting and management of Shadwell Copse
• Other habitat enhancements in the form of wildflower meadows, wetland creation and management
• A proposed ‘Quiet Lane’ link between Hydestile and Milford Station

6.9The Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007 includes indicative planting mixes for hedges, hedgerow trees and woodland blocks/shaws. All mixes are of locally native species of trees and shrubs. The proposed hedge mix is similar to the mix for the existing CSS hedges across the farm. The hedgerow trees are predominantly oak (75%) with some ash (25%). The woodland mix also includes wild service tree and whitebeam.

6.10The Draft Response to Consultation Comments prepared by Hall Hunter Partnership (31/10/07) clarifies which elements of the planting shown on the Landscape Masterplan, the Applicant considers form part of the planning application:

• Planting which forms part of the existing CSS has been identified “for clarity” (it is therefore assumed these do not form part of the application)
• The existing windbreak planting does not form part of the application and none is proposed as part of the application
• Proposed planting – hedges and hedgerow, small woodland blocks, wildflower meadows are proposed as part of the application and are identified as proposed on the Landscape Masterplan

7.Comparison of the 2005 and 2007 Proposals

Scale

7.1The 2007 Polytunnel Management Scheme proposes a reduction in the polytunnel coverage at any one time from 39 hectares (as reviewed at the 2005 inquiry) to up to 20 hectares ie by about 50%. This would represent around 10% of the total farm area (just under 190 hectares as stated at the 2005 inquiry).

7.2The fields within which polytunnels could potentially be located (Lowest and Medium Sensitivity Zones) under the management scheme comprise an estimated total area of just under 70 hectares (my estimate from Landscape Drawing 3 as amended by Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007 in respect of the areas of Fields 10a and 10b), or approximately 37% of the total farm area.

Siting and Location

7.3The proposals assessed at the 2005 inquiry were based on rotations from previous years and allowed for the location of polytunnels in any field.

7.4Under the 2007 scheme, the Area of Highest Sensitivity defines a broad band around the southern and eastern edges of the farm within which no polytunnels will be sited. A minimum buffer between properties and polytunnels of 50 metres is stated although from my estimates this figure is nearer 100 metres for the closest properties (Clock Barn Farm) and in excess of 200 metres for the majority of properties on Station Road and Hambledon Road.

7.5The 2007 scheme also includes the landscape protocol which will control the massing of polytunnels in adjacent fields.

Buffer Zones

7.6Buffer zones between the polytunnels and public rights of way and boundary features were defined in the landscape proposals prepared by Davis Light at the 2005 inquiry. These constituted a fairly uniform 15 to 20 metre wide belt and were in all cases to be planted as a solid belt of trees.

7.7Buffer zones are defined in the 2007 scheme which will comprise either a mix of hedge and hedgerow tree planting or windbreak planting with other features such as beetlebanks and farm tracks. Buffer zones of varying width and character are described on Landscape Drawing 3.

Landscape Masterplan

7.8The Landscape Masterplan prepared by Davis Light for the 2005 inquiry proposed a relatively uniform treatment of all internal and external boundaries through the planting of 15 to 20 metre wide tree belts. The 2005 Masterplan also included for further native hedgerow planting and the creation of a number of small field corner woodlands. All planting was of native tree and shrub species.

7.9The 2007 Landscape Masterplan (Landscape Drawing 4 Revision D) is described in Section 6 above. The similarities and differences between the 2005 and 2007 Landscape Masterplans are summarised below:

• Both schemes propose the use of native tree and shrub species.
• Both schemes include hedge and hedgerow tree planting to supplement that already carried out under CSS.
• Both schemes propose additional planting and management of Shadwell Copse
• The 15 to 20 metre wide tree belts proposed in 2005 are not a feature of the 2007 scheme.
• The 2007 scheme includes two woodland blocks in the northern sections of the farm. The 2005 scheme proposed a series of smaller field corner woodlands.
• The 2007 scheme includes wildflower areas and the proposed ‘Quiet Lane’ in the southern areas of the farm.
• A Landscape Management Plan was submitted as part of the 2005 scheme.

7.8The Statement of Clarification dated 12th October 2007 states the following with respect to management objectives:

• “All native hedges crossing the farm will be managed according to CSS.
• All natural windbreaks (poplars and alders)…will be managed to heights not exceed(ing) 5.5 metres tall.
• The windbreak adjacent to footpath 162 will be thinned, removing every other tree, to allow increased openness to the west. These trees will be removed by the end of December 2007. Alternative native hedging will be planted which will allow further thinning of the windbreak as it increases its height and volume.
• The poplar trees next to the station will be thinned to one every 3 metres”.

8.Landscape Character and Visual Assessment – 2007 Proposals