Polytunnels for soft fruit at Forsham Lane, Sutton Valence

What was proposed

The application proposed 11.06 hectares of polytunnels, approximately 8 metres wide and 4.25 metres high, for growing strawberries.

“Planning Committee Report 19 March 2026 approximately 34 metres AOD (111 feet). The access to the farm site is via the access from Chart Road. The land owned by the applicant at Park Farm and part of Ladds Court Farm (south of Chart Road) extends to approximately 63.8 hectares (157 acres) which has operated as fruit/arable farm for over 100 years. The current cropping regime is top fruit (apples) and soft fruit (strawberry) production under polytunnels.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is countryside south of Park Farm, on the Greensand Ridge’s south-facing slope, with Low Weald landscape of local value to the south and east.

“Planning Committee Report 19 March 2026 Relevant planning history Land to the north east of the current application site 25/500499/FULL Land at Rectory Farm, Rectory Lane, Chart Sutton, ME17 3RD - Erection of polytunnels. – application pending consideration with separate report on this agenda.”

“The land to the south and east of Forsham Lane is in the Low Weald LLV. The northern section of the farm is on Greensand (Hythe Beds) and southern end of the farm, on the lower slopes of the ridge is on a band of Atherfield clay, which sits above the Weald clay. The northern end of the farm is situated at approximately 84 metres AOD (275 feet) and the southern end of the farm site is APPENDIX 61”

Officer report

Earlier committee consideration

The application was deferred to obtain drainage information, the flood authority’s response, tunnel covering timings and further cumulative landscape assessment.

“A decision was deferred on this application at the on 19 March 2026 committee meeting to allow for the following: (a) Further detailed drainage information to fully access flood risk and surface water management.”

“These four matters are now considered in turn…”

Officer report

Landscape and agricultural balance

Officers recognised visual harm but considered the tunnels necessary for soft-fruit production, reversible, relatively low-key and not significantly cumulatively harmful.

“It is highlighted that polytunnels harm the visual character of the countryside, however this harm needs to be balanced against the needs of agriculture. The buyers of soft fruit require the produce to be grown in polytunnels and as such polytunnels are a necessity for producers to have access to the market. In terms of balance, there is a ‘need’ element to the proposal, and it is accepted that the tunnels are necessary for the purposes of agriculture.”

“The countryside has an intrinsic character of openness and a lack of development, and this location does typify that. However, there are other agricultural buildings and uses in the area which the proposed tunnels would be seen in context with. Allowing the placement of tunnels into what is not an entirely natural environment (i.e. the existing agricultural uses) supports the agricultural economy of the borough and the retention of agricultural uses in the countryside.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Residents, the parish council and CPRE objected on grounds including flooding, landscape, cumulative impact, ecology, highways, heritage, pollution, noise and residential amenity; consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Planning Committee Report 19 March 2026 4.LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS Local residents: 4.01 29 representations received objecting to the application for the following (summarised) reasons: •Flood risk and surface water •Physical appearance of the poly tunnels •Landscape harm •Cumulative impact of tunnels •Harm to ecology and biodiversity •Harm to protected species •Highways impacts •Harm to heritage assets and conservation area •Potential to be included in the Kent Downs National…”

“Planning Committee Report 19 March 2026 5.CONSULTATIONS KCC Highways 5.01 Proposal does not meet criteria for consultation as per the protocol. Natural England 5.02 No objection Environmental Health 5.03 No objection Southern Water 5.04 No objection KCC Ecology 5.05 No objections subject to conditions 6.APPRAISAL 6.01 The starting point for assessment of all applications in the countryside is policy LPRSP9.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

[name withheld], an objector, representatives of Chart Sutton and Sutton Valence parish councils, and the applicant addressed the meeting.

The committee vote

The committee voted to grant permission by 12 votes to 1, with no abstentions.

“Permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report and urgent update report with:”

“The Head of Planning and Economic Development be given delegated powers to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions and/or informative in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes