1, the red line development boundary does not include the hen ranging areas, considering the environmental impacts, dust, manure, flooding, noise and the engineering works required on the ranging area’s this is fundamentally a development zone and should be within the red line development. The other issue is the lack of neighbour consultation, we were not informed about this application, and the properties that bound this site are between 1 metre and 87 metres from the hen ranging areas. 2, the landscape visual assessment was supposed to incorporate a 5 km zone; the applicants did this at 3km. 3, the threat to residents of Nancegollan and the surrounding district via zoonotic diseases are a public health matter, there appears to be no consultation about this threat. 4, the manure disposal plan will not work as one site can only legally take 345 tons per year, the proposed site will produce 90 ton per week. The other site is a green waste company near Hayle where the residents are suffering the smell from the St Erth sewage treatment plant; this additional smell will only increase their misery. 5, the site is situated at the start of the river Hayle, it suffers from severe run-off, and pollution will enter this river system and cause a potential disaster. 6, the site will generate heavy traffic, the proposal is endorsed by highways for the articulated lorries to enter the B3302 via the blind white Horse cross roads, this is a dangerous access point and does not have the width to take such large vehicles. 7, there are 5 dwellings at the base of this site, all of which suffer from this site’s run-off, all have a private drinking water supply that will suffer contamination. 8, the non-technical summary does not comply with the EIA requirements. 9, the Environmental Statement and non-technical summary are out of date. 10, the ES provides assumptions about the production of manure, which are not based on any evidence and hugely understate the amount of manure that will be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. The Agents appear to have rushed the submission of this application to beat the deadline before the 2017 EIA regulations came into force. The submitted application shows all the hallmarks of an ill thought out proposal; it has created an enormous amount of work for the planners and subsequently the residents. There many issues about this proposal, due to the inaccurate submission and the amount of alterations to the application, the council should insist on a new application and one that gives a true and honest idea of what the applicants are trying to achieve.