This objection is confined to setting out the many errors, omissions and contradictions in the Environmental Statement (ES). Whilst we would normally also address the policy context of the proposed development in an objection, we have not done so because of the inadequacy of the ES, which does not constitute a genuine assessment of impacts as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (now 2017). However, in the light of the many adverse impacts of the proposed development and the landscape harm identified in the accompanying report by Carly Tinkler, the Local Planning Authority may take the view that it would be inappropriate to ask for the volume of new environmental information required given that proposed development is in clear conflict with the development plan and unacceptable in this location. 1) ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The Environmental Statement and non-technical summary are out of date meaning the public cannot rely on the information in these documents for an accurate and up to date description of the proposed development or its likely significant impacts. The documents have been superseded by later environmental information provided in response to a Regulation 22 request (EIA 2011 Regs), which contradicts and supersedes information in the ES and non-technical summary. The purpose of these two important documents is to enable the public to understand the full likely impacts of the development without having to refer to the more complex technical reports. Good practice is to update the Environmental Statement and non-technical summary to contain new environmental information and to clearly identify what is new information and what has changed and/or been superceded. This also assists decision-makers who, in having to follow a paper trail to understand the environmental information, risk having regard to immaterial considerations or failing to have regard to material considerations. 2) NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY The non-technical summary does not comply with the EIA requirements. The purpose of a non-technical summary is to set out the content and findings of the more detailed assessments in a simplified form. This summary makes no reference to the supporting assessments and amounts to little more than a promotional statement for the proposal and a denial of any environmental effects. This is the relevant planning practice guidance: “The Environmental Statement may, of necessity, contain complex scientific data and analysis in a form which is not readily understandable by the lay person. The main findings must be set out in accessible plain English in a non-technical summary to ensure that the findings can more readily be disseminated to the general public, and that the conclusions can be easily understood by nonexperts as well as decision makers”. (ID 4-035-20140306 Last updated 06 03 2014) 3) SURFACE WATER As is demonstrated by photographs and videos submitted by objectors, the drainage assessment has failed to consider local evidence that there are significant flooding problems from the site. These appear to have been exacerbated (if not caused) by the applicant’s ploughing up of old pasture land approximately 12 years ago. The Regulation 22 submission claims that it addresses this concern but there is no evidence of professional expert input to the proposed solution or that the proposed solution would be effective. The submission advises that “as this is a voluntary approach to flood risk mitigation consultant hydrologists have considered the 1 in 30 year and the 1 in 100 year rainfall events to be suitable comparisons” although it is clear from the submission that the hydrologist has not carried out any further calculations or assessment in the light of evidence provided by objectors. The calculations in the hydrology report were produced to consider the impact of the buildings and hardstanding and not for the ranging area. There is no evidence that any expert hydrologist has been made aware of the extant flooding problem or carried out any calculations of run-off from the ranging area. There is no calculation of the volume of water the ridge and furrow would be required to hold, which would require measurements of the surface area from which the water is flowing and an understanding of where the water is running from and to. The claim that the ridge and furrow would “attenuate some 1.75m3 per linear metre of ridge” is not supported by proper calculations. Nor are there any plans showing where the ridge and furrow would be created. The use of low soil banks would not provide any substantial flood defence as they would easily be washed away during a storm (note the Met Office is warning of more extreme weather events - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/high-risk-of-unprecedented-rainfall). In any event, the proposal merely redirects the water and it is unclear where the water would flow when it either breaches the ridge and furrow or flows out at the sides. The claim that the water would evaporate or soak into the ground relies on storms being of only short duration and not for any continuous period of rain. The only amendment to the flood risk assessment following the Reg, 22 request is at 8b to add: “In terms of regular maintenance, the proposed infiltration trenches would require: inspection; litter and debris removal; grass cutting; and weed and invasive plant control. In addition, sediment management will occasionally be required and structure rehabilitation / repair and / or infiltration surface reconditioning may be required as remedial maintenance.” It is clear, therefore, that the hydrologists advising the applicant were not made aware of the flooding problems arising from the site. The hydrological report relied on the Environment Agency flood risk maps, which are general, often out of date and frequently contradicted by local experience. In this respect, the Reg. 22 response has entirely failed to understand one of the purposes of an EIA and the consultation process - that it invites local knowledge which may contribute to an understanding of the potential environmental impacts of a development and allow - where possible - the applicant to find solutions to identified problems. Objectors have presented clear evidence that there is already a flooding problem from the site, which will result in further serious detrimental impacts - pollution of surface waters with the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies and harm flora and fauna - if permission is granted for the development without clear evidence that such harm can be prevented. The correct response would have been to seek advice from experts as to how - or indeed if - this risk could be avoided. Instead the applicant has sought to obfuscate by suggesting that the proposals put forward to address the problem have been developed by experts, when clearly they have not. The proposal to create a ridge and furrow system to manage the flood/pollution risk has no evidential basis and brings risks of its own. Poultry ranging areas require careful management to prevent the build up of parasites. This includes regular harrowing and the use of chemical parasite controls. The introduction of ridge and furrow with lying water will restrict the ranging area for chickens, which do not like wet ground or to cross water so the proposed solution is impractical and will prevent good pasture management, resulting in a build up of parasites and contaminants. The lying water itself will encourage the breeding of flies and other insects. DEFRA guidance suggests that free range chickens deposit around 20% of their excrement on the ranging areas, and so the applicant needs to explain how this manure will be removed to prevent pollution to ground, air and water. 4) CLEAN OUT There are significant omissions from the EIA as detailed here, but an important oversight requiring separate mention is clean-out. The supporting documents do not explain the clean-out process. Normal clean-out processes at poultry facilities involve the use of forklift trucks - with reversing beepers - and large numbers of tractor and trailer movements, the use of mechanical blowers and then wash down generating noise from pressure washers, which is more or less continuous for a number of days. The application documents also refer to twice-weekly removal of manure using a belt system, but again this process is not described and there is no noise, odour or dust assessment of impacts. 5) BEST AND MOST VERSATILE AGRICULTURAL LAND The ES advises that the application site is Grade 3 agricultural land but does not say whether Grade 3a or 3b, although this is a critical distinction because Grade 3a land is best and most versatile agricultural land, protected from development under the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 21 (d) of the Cornwall Local Plan. As the extract from Natural England’s Agricultural Land Classification Map shows, agricultural land of any quality above Grade 3 is scarce in this region. The ES is also incorrect to state that the land will remain in agricultural use - the erection of buildings covering several hectares will remove land from agricultural production. Natural England has said the following when scoping poultry unit applications elsewhere: “Soil is a finite resource that fulfils many important functions and services (ecosystem services) for society; for instance as a growing medium for food, timber and other crops, as a store for carbon and water, as a reservoir of biodiversity and as a buffer against pollution. It is therefore important that the soil resources are protected and used sustainably. The Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) 'The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature' (Defra , June 2011), emphasises the importance of natural resource protection, including the conservation and sustainable management of soils and the protection of BMV agricultural land. Development of buildings and infrastructure prevents alternative uses for those soils that are permanently covered, and also often results in degradation of soils around the development as result of construction activities. This affects their functionality as wildlife habitat, and reduces their ability to support landscape works and green infrastructure. Sealing and compaction can also contribute to increased surface run-off, ponding of water and localised erosion, flooding and pollution.” 5) MANURE The ES provides assumptions about the production of manure, which are not based on any evidence and hugely understate the amount of manure that will be generated. This information can be obtained from the following statutory sources: • Guidance on complying with the rules for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in England for 2013 to 2016 - Annex 6 • The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 - Schedule One These show that the birds would deposit 392 tonnes of manure each month inside the units and a further 78.4 tonnes per month on the ranging areas. This would generate 26 tractor-trailer movements per month (assuming standard 15 tonne trailer) to remove the manure from buildings alone. The Reg 22 documents advise that all of the manure will be removed from site, although the ES has not been updated to reflect this. 6) DIRTY WATER The ES says only that dirty water will “be handled appropriately”. This does not explain how a key pollution source will be controlled nor what other impacts the controls may introduce. For example, on most poultry sites, dirty water is directed to a sealed water tank of appropriate capacity and then later removed from site for disposal. This entails both operational development - the installation of the tanks - and additional transport movements. On a development of this scale, final clean-out is likely to produce some 15,000 gallons of contaminated water*. If removed - as is common practice by tractors drawing 2,000 gallon tankers - it will generate an additional 7 to 8 vehicle movements per cycle. These have not been accounted for in the Transport Statement. Nor has the ES allowed for or described water use for external cleaning of building and hard standings, which is critical for biosecurity. This will also generate tens of thousands of gallons dirty water every month, requiring disposal off site. Dirty water is often disposed of on fields, but this is inappropriate where disinfectants - as are required in poultry units - have not been kept separate from the slurry. * The Northern Ireland Environment Agency assess the average broiler unit washout rate as 6.8 litres per sq m. https:// www.doeni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/doe/pollution- guidance-operators-preparing-an-agricultural-wateraudit- IPPC-farming-installations-2011.pdf 7) ODOUR The odour report contains numerous assumptions, which do not appear to be based on any evidence, and reaches a conclusion that does not factor in any uncertainty. The lack of any empirical evidence to support the findings of the odour report is a concern in the first instance, and the failure to consider uncertainty is in conflict with the guidance from the Institute of Air Quality Management. (http://www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/air-quality-planning-guidance.pdf) For example, the odour report advises that “the internal concentration (of odour) is assumed to be constant at 750 ouE/m3 ; this figure is based upon a review of available literature,” but the report does not cite the available literature or provide any reference to explain how this figure was arrived at. The report does not contain any data from equivalent poultry units. The assessment says: “The emission is assumed to be continuous with no diurnal, seasonal, or temperature dependent variations.” It claims this assumption is “probably quite precautionary” but this does not comply with the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is that where scientific evidence is not available, the worst case must be allowed for and that has not been done here. For example, the odour report assumes only 20% of the manure is deposited outside, although this is the standard amount assumed by DEFRA, not a possible worst case. The report confines the assessment to a small area around the units and not to the whole ranging area. The assumption that the birds will congregate in these areas does not conform to the precautionary principle - poultry often find favourite areas, which might be on the boundary with a neighbouring property, where they will deposit large amounts of manure. There is no assessment at all of the odour generated by the twice-weekly removal of manure, final clean-out or the spreading of manure on land - wherever this takes place. These comments also apply to the ammonia assessment. While there will be an Environmental Permit to control the main impacts of the development, the Environment Agency does not normally require odour or noise modelling. The Environment Agency relies on the LPA to determine whether proposed development is appropriate for the location - which is why such assessments are included in the EIA not in the environmental permit application. The Environmental Permit then manages odour and noise impacts through the use of odour and noise management plans. A permit holder will not be in breach of his or her permit if odour or noise levels cause harm to amenity, provided they are in compliance with the odour or noise management plan. While the EA may require amendments to the odour or noise management plans, the scope of such plans is limited by available technology, cost and the operational requirements of the facility. The Environment Agency receives some 2,000 complaints about odour, dust and noise from poultry units each year, equivalent to two complaints for every permit for poultry units (source: Environment Agency), which highlights the importance of ensuring that such developments are appropriately located. 8) NOISE The noise impact assessment lists a number of activities that will generate noise as follows: “The feed will be blown from bulk feed lorries into the bulk bins and will occur typically 4 times per week. A manure belt collection system will run twice a week removing a quantity of litter with the remaining litter on the floor removed during the wash down at the end of the cycle. The buildings and equipment will be power washed, disinfected and then dried out before the 56 week cycle starts again…” but then fails entirely to carry out any assessment whatsoever of the impact of these noise generating activities, It also omits assessment of these further activities: • Deliveries and collections from the site, usually made by large Heavy Goods Vehicles • Routine transport noise from those working on site and visitors, such as vets, inspectors, maintenance staff etc • Operational noise, from egg collection, bringing birds in to roost at night etc Given the distance between the buildings and the need to transport eggs, this will entail large numbers of vehicle movements within the site which have not been identified or described in the EIA. The development would introduce a noisy industrial operation into a hitherto tranquil and unspoilt rural area. Such a change is harmful in itself to the character of the countryside and would result in significant harm to the amenity of neighbours and visitors. The impacts are not comparable to any other agricultural operation, which may result in intense tractor movements over very short periods throughout the year. The current use of the land is for growing asparagus, a single annual crop, which is harvested by hand. In appeal reference APP/L3245/W/16/3146508, Inspector R. C. Kirby upheld refusal of a four broiler unit development of similar scale in Shropshire saying the following: “…the noisy activities on the site would result in significant adverse effects on the peace and tranquillity of this attractive area of countryside, in conflict with development plan policies and national planning policy as contained in the Framework. Further harm would be caused to the living conditions of nearby occupiers as a result of noisy activities on the site and in the surrounding area. This harm would be significant.” 9) ECOLOGY The field study was carried out in March, a sub-optimal time of the year for an ecological survey, meaning important species may have been missed. The survey is confined to the development area only despite the potential for impacts spreading beyond the boundaries of the site. For example, the report has not considered hydrological or ground pollution impacts: there are records of water vole and otter in the adjoining lagoon, whose habitat would be threatened by potential nutrient enrichment from the ranging areas. The introduction of an intensive population of domestic foul poses further serious risks to wildlife, including the risk of spreading diseases including botulism and avian flu. (see. 10) Assemblage of farmland birds records show grey partridge nesting on or around the site. These Red List birds are not mentioned in the ecology report. 10) DUST The ES cites DEFRA research project (AC0104) to support the claim that dust particles will travel no more than 100m from the buildings. This limited research from 2004 has been superceded by Characterising poultry dust properties, assessing the human health implications, quantifying emission levels and assessing the potential for abatement (DEFRA 2009), which found that dust particles harmful to human health (PM10 and PM2.5) can travel 400m or more from source. Neither the research, nor the ES, has considered the dust from poultry faeces on the ranging area. DEFRA guidance estimates that 20% of the poultry manure is left on the ranging area - some 940 tonnes per annum. This can become airborne in dry conditions posing a health threat to humans and livestock as well as flora and fauna in the vicinity. Poultry manure carries the botulism bacteria, which can be fatal to livestock. It can also carry other pathogens including Campylobacter, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Escherichia coli, Globicatella, Listeria, Mycobacterium, Salmonella, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus as well as the Avian Flu virus. The ES cites DEFRA’s 2016 Local Air Quality Management technical guidance, relating to poultry houses (not to poultry ranging areas), suggesting that this precludes any requirement for assessment under the EIA. The fact that local authorities do not have to retrospectively screen poultry units housing fewer than 200,000 birds (if naturally ventilated) does not mean that such units are exempt from Environmental Impact Assessment. The purpose of an EIA is precisely to ensure that environmental impacts are properly assessed and mitigated before the development take place. The LAQM guidance assumes that this was done. 11) TRANSPORT The Transport Statement is wholly inadequate. It offers no more than a rough (under) estimate of vehicle impacts, it does not say what type of vehicles would be used - principally 16.5m 44 tonne heavy goods vehicles - or where the movements would be to and from. The number of vehicle movements is understated by: 1) Under assessing the number of movements required to remove manure* 2) Omitting removal of dirty water 3) Omitting staff and other vehicle movements 4) Understating feed deliveries - i.e. 4 vehicle movements per week does not equate to 16 per month 5) Omitting vehicle movements removing dead birds 6) Omitting fuel deliveries** * 26 tractor-trailer movements per month. Tractor trailer movements are assessed as equivalent to HGV because they have the same impact on the highway network. **The documents do not provide any details of the heating system, although the units need to be heated prior to delivery of young birds and during cold weather to ensure continuous laying. The claim in the Transport Statement that “these likely flows are considered comparable if not lower than average existing farm related flows” lacks credibility. This is especially the case because the site has in recent years been in use for growing asparagus, an annual crop with little intervention throughout the year. In earlier years, it was pasture. The transport statement says that “the new staff will be encouraged to car share, cycle, walk or use nearby local bus services thereby reducing their likely daily impact” but this is unlikely to be deliverable. Staff would almost certainly work part time and on a shift system, not in any case from 9-5 (the bus services cited suggest that they would). The Transport statement includes the following claim: “The proposed agricultural development addresses an identified need within Cornwall and the United Kingdom as a whole and is considered to be consistent with all the above core principles and comply with the intention of Policy 27.” The statement is entirely misleading. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that there is any local “need” for the development. The applicant has advised that the eggs will be delivered to Somerset for onward national distribution. The development does not, therefore, meet either any local need or the development plan objective of encouraging local food production. Rather the development proposes a threat to the local economy because of the potential harm to the local tourist industry, which is clearly set out in the accompanying review of landscape impacts. The bulk of the Transport Statement is an iteration of planning policies presented to suggest that they support the proposed development. This is wholly inappropriate in a transport statement (or any other EIA report), which should be a factual and unbiased assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development. 11) As previously observed, the application plan red line area does not include the whole area required for the development. The land within the blue line is part and parcel of the proposed development, including the requirement to construct intrusive fencing (no images provided to date but see below for example) which may have significant visual impacts. The Reg.22 information suggests that the site is bounded by hedgerows and only internal fencing is proposed, but this contradicts the ES, which says “fox fencing is planned for the entire site.” 12) LANDSCAPE Landscape impacts are covered by the accompanying review by Carly Tinkler. There are several appeal decisions upholding refusal of intensive poultry units in open countryside, a few of which are listed here. Planning inspectors have described such units as “industrial in scale and appearance”. See for example: APP/W1850/W/15/3129896 APP/W1850/W/16/3162464 APP/L3245/A/12/2187514 APP/L2345/A/10/2136255 APP/R2520/A/14/2228674 APP/H1840/A/14/2226234