Our reliance on the Statutory Consultees to Protect Biodiversity

Since the first application for Chicken Broiler Units was submitted in April 2013 the residents of Upton Snodsbury and its surrounding villages have learnt more than we ever wanted to about

• Intensive Farming 
• Chicken Broiler Units 
• Attenuation Ponds and Flooding models 
• Biodiversity
• Environmental Permits
• the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) 
• Saved Local Plans and Policies 
• the NFU and 
• the Applicant Mr Edward Davies from Presteigne, Powys as well as his
• Agent Ian Pick from Driffield, Yorkshire.

Map of Proposed Chicken Broiler Units

Now that the Application by Edward Davies has gone to the Planning Inspectorate we hope that due weight is given to the strength of local views that support the view that these chicken broiler units are completely inappropriate in this greenfield setting. 

Among those local voices is that of Councillor Adrian Darby whose comments to the Planning Inspector have focused on the impact on the biodiversity of the area. Councillor Darby has considerable knowledge and experience in this area having been Chairman of the RSPB, Plantlife, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Kemerton Conservation Trust. He was appointed OBE for services to nature conservation in 1996. 

The comments below are extracted from his letter to the Planning Inspectorate and his full submission can be read on the Wychavon website.

"When the original application for 2 broiler houses W/13/01511/OU was refused by Wychavon DC, reason 2 was:

Paragraph 120 of the Framework also states that 'to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution…planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location'. It is considered that the proximity of the site to the Piddle Brook is likely to result in the potential contamination of a major watercourse. This watercourse is a designated County Wildlife Site, which, together with its tributaries drains most of the eastern part of the east Worcestershire plain, forms a valuable wildlife corridor and is part of a wider ecological network. By reason of the broiler units' proximity to medium and high risk flood zone areas, it is considered that there is strong likelihood that the site would be subject to flooding and that the run off of waste generated by the development from the site would discharge into the Piddle Brook and adjacent ditch. In addition, a particular high level pollution risk would arise regularly when the broiler units are being cleaned out between the flock cycles and when manure is being removed from the site. Therefore, the Piddle Brook would be put at unacceptable risk from water pollution, which would have an adverse impact

upon biodiversity and the natural environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Saved Local Plan Policies ENV5 ; ENV6 & ENV7; emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (2013) Policy SWDP22 as well as guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework."

"At the committee meeting concern was again expressed about the risks of contamination of the Piddle Brook as outlined above, and it was pointed out that if the site were flooded contamination would not only affect the Brook itself but might also spread overland to the Naunton Court Meadows SSSI. Anecdotal evidence from a neighbouring farmer was quoted to show that such overland spread had occurred in a recent flooding event. It was also pointed out that contamination of the Piddle Brook would adversely affect the European protected species, European Otter, Lutra lutra, which is cited in the LWS designation for the Piddle Brook, although it was not included in the list of UK BAP species that were to be found within 2km of the site according to the applicant’s Ecological Report. However given the inspector’s decision cited above it was felt that pollution of the Piddle Brook could not be used as a refusal reason.

It was also pointed out that poultry production produces large quantities of ammonia which has the potential to seriously damage species-rich grassland and ancient woodland.  However we had been informed that the Environment Agency had screened out this application for ammonia and that Natural England had raised no objection on the basis of this screening out. The planning officers did not therefore consider that an objection could be sustained on this ground. Consequently the only refusal reason given was that the development “would have a harmful visual impact upon and would undermine the character, appearance and openness of the countryside.”"

So the question is, have Wychavon District Council been able to fulfill their statutory obligations which they do by relying on information supplied by the Environment Agency and Natural England (a group formed in 2006 from English Nature and a couple of other non-governmental organisations which are more accurately called a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB). 

It is interesting to see that Natural England whilst providing information and Standing Advice state the following in their submission regarding this application (a standard letter):

"We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:Page 2 of 3 on their standard letter.

 local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)

 local landscape character

 local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. 

Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link. 

Protected Species 

We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species."

So on the one hand we have Natural England and on the  other we have Wychavon and their specialists. Which group do look at the impacts on protected species for example? 
We have photographic and video evidence of Otters (lutra lutra) just one kilometre downstream from the site. They aren't even mentioned on the Ecology Survey!

This is not good enough!

Councillor Darby quotes:

"NPPF paragraph 113, footnote 24

Circular 06/2005 provides further guidance in respect of statutory obligations for biodiversity conservation and their impact within the planning system.  [Part 4 A 99 of the Circular states that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, must be established before planning permission is granted.  It further states that the need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.]"

Otter caught on camera at night at side of Piddle Brook, downstream from Chicken Farm site 2014.

Otters weren't even mentioned in the reports and yet they are present. Who is protecting this European protected species? Not Natural England!

The remit for Natural England is on the letter submitted to Wychavon  - "Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. "

How exactly are they meeting that by their guidance to Wychavon? 
There are glaring holes in the protection of the environment and biodiversity. 

Add to the NPPF the Local Plan (my red highlight):

"Local Plan policy ENV6

Development proposals which would have an adverse effect or which would result in an unacceptable risk of an adverse effect on any species protected by National Legislation will not be permitted unless:

a) there are over-riding reasons for the development that are in the public interest and that outweigh the protected status of the species; and

b) the Council is satisfied that there are no reasonable alternative sites or solutions to accommodate the development proposed; and, where appropriate 

c) measures have been taken to reduce disturbance to the species to a minimum, and included to facilitate the survival of individual members of the species.

Development proposals which would have an adverse effect on any species protected by European Legislation will only be permitted where, in addition to a), b) and c) above, it can be demonstrated that the impact of the proposal is not detrimental to the maintenance of the species’ population at a favourable conservation status in its natural range."

Quoting in full the summary on Councillor Darby's letter - Wychavon did not grant permission for the development on the basis of impact on the landscape but his point is that actually it would have failed in its duty of it had granted it on Biodiversity grounds.

"Additional Argument for Refusal on Biodiversity Grounds

I consider that if it had granted permission for this development Wychavon would have failed in its biodiversity duty on the following grounds.

The applicant did not carry out a survey of the Piddle Brook for a European protected species, Otter Lutra lutra, which was likely to be in the vicinity of the development and did not consider how any potential harm to this species could be mitigated.  This species is cited as one of the species present in the designation sheet for the Piddle and Whitsun Brooks Local Wildlife Site.

The appellant’s ecological report only referred to two designated sites, Naunton Court Meadows SSSI and Yellow House Meadow SSSI. Since these were over 750 metres distant the consultant regarded them as being too far away to be affected, although he gave no justification for this distance. His desk study found no local wildlife sites, although he did consider the Piddle Brook without seeming to recognise that it is in fact a LWS. In fact one would normally expect all sites of interest within 2 km to be listed after such a desk top study. If he had done this he would have considered the effect on the nine further local wildlife sites shown in the attached map to be situated within 2 km of the appeal site.  All of these, except for Naunton Court Orchard, are semi-natural neutral grassland, which is what people think of as epitomising traditional flower-rich hay meadows. Lowland neutral grassland is arguably the most important semi-natural habitat in Worcestershire. The county has approximately 20% of the remaining UK resource of this threatened and declining habitat and it has been a focus for conservation effort in the county for many years. It is a habitat of principle importance listed under section 41 of the NERC Act and occurs in complex mosaics across Worcestershire, meaning that many small fragments are of increased value because of their place in the wider grassland landscape framework. Given this rich resource and the number of sites involved many of the county’s best grasslands have been missed out of the SSSI series (which only aims to select a representative fraction of the candidate sites) and yet are probably of national importance. Taken together the sites are at threat from isolation, fragmentation, agricultural intensification, neglect and development pressures and it is essential that we take appropriate steps to retain and enhance this precious resource, for which the county has such a responsibility. The importance of these Local Wildlife Sites is recognised in Local Plan policies ENV7 and SWDP22 – see above.

     I consider that the damage to semi-natural grassland habitats could occur in three possible ways. 

A) Direct pollution of the Piddle Brook which would affect those sites downstream and                     within its floodplain.  This was the only harm considered by the inspector in the earlier appeal.

B) Pollution outside the normal floodplain of the Piddle Brook caused by overland flows in times of exceptional rainfall. I understand that there is evidence that such a flow has affected the Naunton Court Meadows SSSI in the previous decade and that Natural England was not aware of this at the time it made its comments.

C) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition through the release of Ammonia leading to eutrophication, which is now the principal cause of the deterioration of our semi-natural grasslands.

Releases of ammonia may also have a deleterious effect on ancient woodland, both through the effect on lichens and bryophytes growing on the trees and on the ground flora.  Grafton Wood SSSI lies only 2.2 km to the north east (i.e. downwind) of the site.

The planning authority did not have before it sufficient information as required in paragraph 165 of the NPPF to assess the harm of the network of grassland sites which this application might produce.  This concentration of unimproved grasslands along and to the north of the Piddle Brook has the potential to achieve conservation of a meadow landscape which for this vegetation type (MG5) would be one of the most important in the country. I have sought information on whether all these local wildlife sites were taken into account by the Environment Agency in its initial screening. I have been given a list of the sites which were included. This contains all the SSSIs as far away as Portway Farm Meadows (2.8 km away), but only two of the LWS, Piddle Brook and North Piddle Meadows. This is presumably because a smaller distance was considered appropriate for non-statutory sites.  However I would argue that for Wychavon, in fulfilling its biodiversity duty, it is more important to consider the impact of ammonia deposition on the network of much closer LWS meadows. Ecologically, this group of meadows, taken as a whole, is of national significance It is disappointing that this point cannot be examined in more detail at a hearing or public inquiry where the Environment Agency could be asked to explain and justify its procedure."

When all is said and done, what we must ensure is that the intention of the NPPF is followed, not the political dogma of whichever Government might be in power. Which as we know is up for review in 2015....

Naunton Beauchamp Walk. Worcestershire

We are so lucky to have to various Local Reserves and areas of Special Scientific Interest within a few miles of Upton Snodsbury. Administered by the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation these are protected areas.

Aside from this the area around Naunton Beauchamp, Grafton Flyford, Flyford Flavell and Upton Snodsbury which has Cowsden with its views over toward Abberon, is dominated by sheep farming and some arable farming.  The landscape is defined as Bishampton Claylands.

Here are some photos from a recent walk from Naunton Beauchamp up Piddle Brook towards North Piddle.Just a snapshot of a typical 1/2 hour walk. What isn't typical are heavy HGVs, trailers with manure and the smells of chicken farms! Tomorrow is the Wychavon Planning Committee Meeting. We hope that common sense prevails...again.

Yellowhammer on the road

Local with his vintage caravan

Local kerbside pears used for making traditional perry

Meadowsheet in the verges (careful cutting preserves these verges)

Quince alongside Piddle Brook

Crataegus otherwise known as Hawthorn berries

Overzealous pruning that took out the buzzards perch

Hedge clearing

Crack willow remnants alongside Piddle Brook after clearance

The typical weekend cyclists drawn to the area for its quiet lanes and attractive village (with normal rural smells, not chickens!)

Dandelion

Speckled Wood

Naunton Beauchamp Village with its no-chicken-farm.org sign

Grafton Flyford Gymkhana

It was a beautiful day for a Gymkhana at the crossroads near Libbery on 31st August 2014

The importance of local events like this can't be over-emphasised. They give these villages a sense of place, an opportunity for villagers to meet up and share a cut of tea and a burger whilst watching the children and ponies compete in various competitions. In the afternoon there is a dog show. It is also an important fund-raiser.

The field that this takes place at is about 750m from the F C Jones & Co application site and just over a kilometre from the Edward Davies site. Aside from the issue of odour if there is a cleanout at the site when an event like this takes place, more importantly this lane is the preferred route for routing traffic onto and off the A422.  What are the effects on the amenity of residents if the 3 million chickens per year developments take place?

Here are some pictures from the event. 

Grafton Woods, the Brown Hairstreak and Bechstein's Bats

A beautiful day at Grafton Woods yesterday. Grafton Woods has the most northerly documented population of Brown Hairstreak Butterflies and the very rare, red-list Bechstein's Bat.

Both of these populations don't go to the edge of the wood and turn back. It isn't a zoo with fences! They use the area around the wood for foraging and for breeding. For the Bechstein's Bat the 2012 survey showed one female going as far as Whitsun Brook by Naunton Beauchamp via Piddle Brook. A distance of 3 kilometres. 

The proposed Broiler Chicken Farms by Edward Davies and Kinsey Hern, who has recently put in an application of an Environmental Permit for 250,000 broiler chickens, would lead to 3 million chickens per year in the area between Naunton Beauchamp and Upton Snodsbury. The sites are about 2 kilometres from Grafton Wood. 

It is a known fact that the deposition of the fine dust which is extracted by fans from the chicken broiler units will have an impact on the area. Eutrophication is the process by which nitrates from agriculture or in this case from the broiler chicken farm change the water quality. The impacts can be a change in the biodiversity of the area as a result.

So, with Brown Hairstreaks and Bechstein Bats you would think that the Ecological report that was produced by Edward Davies' Yorkshire based Ecologist would refer to them. Especially with such important populations and Bechstein Bats being a population of European significance and on the red list of endangered species. 

1) There is NO MENTION of Brown Hairstreak Butterflies on the Ecological Report.

2) There is NO MENTION of the Bechstein Bat on the Ecological Report - Here is the information from the Wold Ecology Report on Bats - 

"Bats

 Currently there is no pre-existing information on bats at the site. 

 Data for the 10km grid square SO95 shows records of brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, noctule Nyctalus noctula, Natterer’s Myotis nattereri, whiskered Myotis mystacinus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus (source – WBRC and NBN Gateway 2013). 

 There are no bat roost records within 1km of the Application Site."

There is no mention of the Bechstein Bat on the Report. Yet the Bechstein's Bat was reported on the BBC as long ago as 2010.  The use of a grid square map be the reason for the omission but if this is the case logic would say that other checks should be made. Especially for a bat on the red list.

In the Report on the Bechstein Bat in 2013  "A STUDY ON THE POPULATION SIZE, FORAGING RANGE AND ROOSTING ECOLOGY 

OF BECHSTEIN’S BATS AT GRAFTON WOOD SSSI WORCESTERSHIRE" was published in January 2013.

Data was definitely available to say that the Bechstein Bat is within 2km of the site. Why did Wold Ecology not find them?  

In 2014 the scarce More recently the Brandt Bat was discovered at Grafton Woods. 

Unfortunately the process of Planning is such that while we can point out errors and ommision to the Council there is little more that we can do. The rest is left with the Council Officer to pursue. Time constraints and a process of planning in favour of development at any cost means these questions are largely seen to be irrelevant.

In respect of the Edward Davies application which will be held on 11th September at 2pm we are now dependent on the Planning Committee to take a view and hopefully take into account some of the reasons for refusal that we have pointed out.

We hope that they will REJECT the Application in favour of local knowledge and the economy of the local area.

Public Footpath to Grafton Woods. There was no Bull! 

Beautiful Grafton Woods

Otters! Proof on camera and video - April 2014

We were delighted to see otter prints alongside Piddle Brook when the flood waters receded in Spring.  We knew there had been several sightings up the Piddle towards Grafton Flyford and at properties alongside the brook there had been evidence of their presence but we didn't have photographs.

Now we do...and video!  

We've logged the sightings with Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and they were as delighted to see the pictures as we were.

Otters (lutra lutra) are a protected species.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/species/otters.aspx

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made

There are some fact sheets on the web links.

The important aspect for the local community is to ensure that developments do not harm the otters. Our big concern is pollution of Piddle Brook. Now that otters have returned it would be tragic if contamination from the proposed Chicken Broiler Units at Upton Snodsbury had an impact on the quality of the water and the habitat in which the otters survive. They are a long way up the food chain and any impacts further down will affect the quantity of fish.

Additional Units Proposed for Chicken Farm at Upton Snodsbury

Residents of the Wychavon Parishes including Upton Snodsbury, Naunton Beauchamp, Cowsden, North Piddle, Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford and Libbery will probably relate to this comment from William Morris. It is a shame that the Planning Inspector who approved the original chicken farm application for two sheds doesn't see our beautiful corner of rural Worcestershire in the same light.

Thanks to William Morris Gallery

Upton Snodbury Chicken Broiler Units on Farming Today!

Sybil Ruscoe contacted WPAG (Wychavon Parishes Action Group) this week to ask if we would like to talk to Farming Today about the planning application by Mr Edward Davies for Chicken Broiler Units. 

We learnt that Mr Davies has recently submitted a Full Planning Application for four broiler units which will produce more than one million broiler chickens per year at the site. It is yet to go live on the Wychavon website but we await with interest the application that Mr Davies said at a public meeting that he would not submit!

We told Wychavon Council (and the Planning Inspector) that the application for just two broiler units would not be economic. Guess what? It wasn't and now he has achieved his aim of getting Outline Planning Permission for two sheds and effectively a foot in the door for more. However, it was clear that the planning inspector felt that the impact on the landscape although not significant (in his opinion which was different from the Council's who felt it was) with two units would be if there were more....Time will tell if this argument is won by the local population or Mr Davies.

Some of the WPAG committee and Froghall Farm resident Pat Stanley who is one of the closest "sensitive receptors" as the planning application calls her was also interviewed. As a farmer Pat gave an interesting perspective on the application which will effectively take a perfectly good arable field growing winter wheat out of food production and turn it into chicken sheds on a concrete base in an area that floods regularly.

Farming Today 4th April 2014 - 

"Farming Today hears about a planning row over an application to build four poultry broiler units in Worcestershire. Residents near Upton Snodsbury are campaigning against a new development planned by Powys farmer Edward Davies. The poultry units would process over one million birds a year. Sybil Ruscoe meets with the farmer and local protesters."

Click this link to go to the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zdkjs

Sybil Ruscoe interviewing Alastair Findlay for Farming Today

Sybil Ruscoe interviewing Pat Stanley of Froghall Farm for Farming Today

Sybil Ruscoe interviewing Liz Holpin, Alastair Findlay and Pat Stanley

Sybil Ruscoe from Farming Today at Upton Snodsbury

Upton Snodsbury Proposed Chicken Farm on Central ITV News

Central ITV News filmed at the site of Upton Snodsbury Chicken Farm today - Alastair Findlay did a great job being interviewed. As Alastair said, to misquote David Cameron (who yesterday was talking about how English people have no vote but they do have a voice), we have a vote and no voice. 

Alastair Findlay being interviewed on Central ITV News 8th February 2014

There is a definite feeling among the local population that a bad decision has been made. An unjust decision. This is understandable as the applicant and agent have experience of playing a system that has the odds stacked in their favour. The system is not democratic and it is not fair.

Our landscape will change, it will smell when the manure is spread and when the sheds are emptied, it will be noisier than it is now and the peace and tranquility that exists in this area will never be the same.

Here is some of the flooding from today - another 2.5 metres and we would be up to the 2007 levels..

From the bridge at Naunton Beauchamp

Looking downstream from the bridge at Naunton Beauchamp

Upton Snodsbury Chicken Farm is Given the Go Ahead! A sad day...

Despite a huge amount of effort by local residents the Appeal Inspector has decided to allow the Planning Application for two chicken broiler units housing 80,000 birds to go ahead. Detailed plans will now be submitted. There are some conditions which we sincerely hope protect this beautiful part of Worcestershire countryside.

There was no talk of Localism - how is it possible for Wychavon Council to reject the application by 14-0, for over 70% of local residents to oppose it, only two letters of support - on from the Poultry Association and one from Two Sisters group who Mr Edward Davies of Presteigne, Wales supplies. What value is a Localism Act if this kind of decision is made by an un-elected person on their own (surprisingly quickly after his visit to the site). Not exactly a democratic process.

So, residents of this quiet area where sounds carry in the flood plain which has little in the way of big trees or hedges are going to be disturbed by the catching gangs who arrive during the night when the birds are sleeping. Additional HGV movements are moving the manure from 80,000 chickens seven times a year to...where? Covered trailers, lovely in the heat of the summer and don't even consider spreading it on the land in the winter - you just have to look at the pictures to know that for many months of the year it's going to sit in a great pile of manure stinking and rotting, a haven for rats.

It was pretty predictable but we weren't cynical in the beginning and we followed the process. How disappointing that it has ended like this. The next time the gloves will be well and truly off.

Flooding has not been bad so far this year - pretty typical in fact. 2007 was at least double the depth that we've had so far at the main measurement points. Even so, the Piddle Brook has been close to the top of its banks since before Christmas.

So even if the Applicant has his way mother nature may have a way of ensuring that the operation does not succeed long-term. We can only hope that justice will have its way of being done in the end.

16th January 2014 

25th January 2014

26th January 2014 

2nd February 2014

2nd February 2014