A New 1,148 m² Polytunnel at Tamar Nursuries — Who Is Seeing the Whole Picture?
When I first began raising concerns about development at Tamar Nurseries, I kept returning to one question.
Who is responsible for seeing the whole picture?
A new planning application has made that question harder to ignore.
This is not a request for others to adopt my dispute or take a position on every concern I have raised. It is an invitation to look at what is now in the public record, place the separate pieces beside one another, and ask whether anyone is considering their combined effect.
What we know so far
A new planning application has been submitted at Tamar Nurseries — 26/01323/F — for a 1,148 m² polytunnel, described as providing “further controlled growing space”.
The site is in Flood Zone 3 / 3a, yet the publicly available documents do not appear to contain a detailed, proposal-specific drainage strategy for the additional covered area.
Previous planning material has described the nursery as substantially self-contained or off-grid in its energy arrangements.
Ecological consultants acting for UK Power Networks have confirmed in writing that overhead-line reinforcement works are being undertaken “in connection with the Tamar Nursery solar development”and because “Tamar Nursery [is] being added to the network.”stages
Those electricity works are being dealt with through a separate consent process.
This does not prove that the new polytunnel caused, or depends upon, the electricity reinforcement. It does mean that changes to Tamar’s energy arrangements form part of the wider context. They should not disappear from view simply because they sit in a different file.
Now there is another planning application.
And again, the question is how the pieces fit together.
What does this new development actually require?
The application tells us surprisingly little about how the new polytunnel will operate.
It does not say what plants or crops will be grown there, or explain what “controlled growing space” means in practice.
We are not told whether it will require heating, artificial lighting, irrigation, pumping, ventilation or automated systems.
Nor does the application explain what electricity supply will serve it, whether existing arrangements are sufficient, or whether any new or upgraded infrastructure is required.
Not every polytunnel will need all of these things. But this one cannot be understood only as another rectangle on a plan, particularly when the stated purpose is to create further controlled growing space within an already substantial nursery operation.
Tamar Nurseries already contains glasshouses, polytunnels, outdoor growing areas, storage and retail facilities.
What changes when 1,148 m² of outdoor growing space becomes covered, controlled growing space?
How does it work with the existing glasshouses and polytunnels?
What additional capacity does it create?
How will it be powered, watered and drained?
And does it depend upon infrastructure being considered somewhere else, through another process?
There is also an unexplained discrepancy in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Part of the Sequential/Exception Test identifies the development as a “Customer sales centre at existing nursery”, rather than a polytunnel.
There may be straightforward explanations for all of this. But those explanations should come before the application is determined.
Why this matters
This campaign has never been about opposing horticulture, renewable energy or necessary electricity infrastructure.
It is about what can happen when development is broken up across different applications, different consent regimes and different pieces of land.
A proposal may appear modest when considered on its own. But its effects sit alongside what is already there, what has already been approved, and what may be happening through another process.
If Tamar’s energy arrangements are changing, if further controlled growing space is being created, and if electricity infrastructure connected with Tamar is being pursued separately across neighbouring land, there is a legitimate public-interest question:
Who is assessing the cumulative picture?
Relational activism does not only happen through protest, or when an issue reaches our own doorstep. Sometimes it begins with noticing the connections that formal processes divide up. It can mean placing documents beside one another, asking who or what will carry the effects, and making sure a careful question enters the public record.
What you can do
1. Comment on the application.
Reference 26/01323/F.
Or email borough.planning@west-norfolk.gov.uk, quoting the application reference.
12 September deadline.
2. Raise one or more points in your own words.
You might ask the Council to:
establish how the 1,148 m² polytunnel will actually operate — what will be grown there, and whether it requires heating, lighting, irrigation, pumping or other infrastructure;
require a flood risk and drainage assessment that is specific to this proposal;
consider the effects cumulatively, alongside existing and proposed development and infrastructure at Tamar.
You might simply ask:
Before determining application 26/01323/F, please establish how the proposed 1,148 m² of controlled growing space will operate; require an accurate, proposal-specific assessment of flood risk and drainage; and consider how the proposal relates to the nursery’s existing and approved development, including any associated servicing or infrastructure requirements.
3. Pass it on.
Share this update with neighbours or local community groups. You can also ask your parish council, borough councillor or other local representatives whether the cumulative effects of Tamar’s existing, approved and proposed development are being considered.