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.
.jpg) |
| 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!
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.]"
.jpg) |
| 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.
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....
