WHITEHEAD PLANNING Town Planning Consultancy

Environmental Statement

Construction of 3 poultry houses together with office, associated plant, gates, amended access, parking and

turning area

Land East Of Crossways Bungalow, Stoke Climsland, Callington, Cornwall

For

Mr Jamie Hatch KB Products

Non-Technical Summary

Trehere Cottage, Trewidland, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL14 4SR Tel: 01503 240641 Mob: 07592 832953 Email: peter@whiteheadplanning.co.uk

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Planning permission for this development was sought by application registered

by Cornwall Council on 14th May 2012, ref. PA12/04501. After due

consideration, the application received an Officers recommendation of

approval, and was reported to the Council’s East Sub-Area Planning

Committee on 26th September 2012. The Committee resolved to refuse the

application for one reason, as follows:

“The proposal harms the natural environment within a valued landscape by

introducing large scale buildings on an elevated green field site within an Area

of Great Landscape Value. The application is therefore contrary to Policies

ENV1 and ECN5 of the North Cornwall District Local Plan 1999, Policy 2 of the

Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and paragraph 109 of the National Planning

Policy Framework.”

1.2 An appeal was lodged against this refusal on 12th December 2012.

1.3 By letter dated 4th April 2013, the Secretary of State determined that the

proposals that form the subject of the appeal constitute EIA development for

which an Environmental Statement (ES) is required; notwithstanding that

Cornwall Council earlier determined otherwise. The Secretary of State’s letter

advises, inter alia, as follows:

“The development proposed, namely the construction of three poultry houses,

together with office, associated plant, gates, amended access, parking and

turning area, falls within the description at paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and

Wales) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1824)(“the 2011 Regulations”) and the

Secretary of State hereby directs that the development is “EIA development”

within the meaning of those regulations.

The reason for this conclusion is that the proposal is for the development of

an installation for the intensive rearing of chickens with more than 85,000

places for broilers. The proposed development would accommodate 131,000

birds.”

1.4 This document comprises a non-technical summary of the required

Environmental Statement, taking account of the information provided in an

Environmental Statement submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 17th May

2013, and further information submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 31st

October 2013.

1.5 The purpose of the Environmental Statement is to identify the potential

environmental effects arising from the development, consider their level of

impact/significance and, if and when appropriate, consider ways of mitigating

them. A number of experts in their respective fields have assisted Whitehead

Planning in the production of the Environmental Statement, these being: -

Redbay Design Landscape Consultants – Studio Five, Cockington

Court, Torquay, Devon, TQ2 6XA – Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment

ADAS UK Ltd, IID Milton Park. Milton. Abingdon. Oxfordshire. 0X14

4RS – Emissions to Air, Ground and Water

Hydrock Ltd, 2 East Pool, Tolvaddon Energy Park, Camborne,

Cornwall, TR14 0HX - Transport

H2OK, Nanjerrick Court, Allet, Truro, Cornwall, TR4 9DJ –Hydrology

Spalding Associates (Environmental) Ltd., 10 Walsingham Place, Truro,

Cornwall, TR1 2RP - Ecology

2.0 Site and Environs

2.1 The site of the proposed development lies in the countryside, approximately

3.5 miles to the north of Callington and 9 miles to the south of Launceston.

These two towns are linked by the A388, which lies approximately 0.9 miles to

the west of the site. Upon leaving the A388, access to the site is gained via

the rural road network. Figures 2.1 and 2.2, below, show the relationship of

the site to the settlement of Stoke Climsland and to dwellings in the wider

area.

Figure 2.1 Location of the Site in Relation to Stoke Climsland – Site

Coloured Red

Figure 2.2 Site Location – Site Outlined in Red

2.2 The site comprises an agricultural field, roughly rectangular in shape, and

measuring some 1.33ha (approx). It is currently overgrown with brambles and

nettles, having been fallow and unused for a number of years. Some illegal

tipping of household effects and refuse is evident, too. The field slopes gently

down from a highpoint of 55m AOD at its north-west corner to 48.7m AOD at

its south-east corner. It is bounded by Cornish hedges on all four sides. The

hedges to the north and east are trimmed to a height of 2.5m (approx.). The

hedge bounding the road to the south is higher at approximately 3m. The bank

to the west is topped by a line of trees some 13m (approx.) in height.

2.3 Access to the site is currently gained via a gateway in the field’s south-west

corner.

2.4 In terms of other public rights of way, it is noted that a bridleway directly

adjoins the site to the west. This leaves the Stoke Climsland - Horsebridge

Road at the point of the site access, adjoins the site’s western boundary

throughout its length and thereafter progresses northwards and away from the

site.

2.5 A public footpath leaves the Horsebridge - Stoke Climsland road at

Tremeaden Farm, approximately 360m to the east of the site. This footpath

progresses northwards, roughly parallel with the site’s eastern boundary,

before turning to the north-east, towards a group of dwellings at Higher Old

Clims/Pempwell.

2.6 The site of the proposed development is relatively remote from residential

properties. The closest residential properties to the site, measured from the

relevant site boundary, are identified as follows:

Crossways Bungalow – approx. 368m west

Tremeaden Farm – approx. 430m east

10 Kyl Cober Parc – approx. 380m south-west

2.7 Kyl Cober Parc is a modern estate development situated on the north-eastern

edge of the village of Stoke Climsland. The main built-up area of the village

lies further to the south and west of 10 Kyl Cober Parc.

2.8 The undulating countryside surrounding the site is predominantly in

agricultural use, comprising a patchwork of fields of various shapes and sizes

subdivided by stone-built Cornish hedges. Hedge growth is typically kept quite

short but tree belts and occasional areas of woodland appear. Farmhouses,

farm buildings and dwellings are scattered through the landscape, reached by

winding sunken lanes. Villages and smaller settlements appear at intervals,

clustered around Medieval churches (as in the case of Stoke Climsland) or

more modern chapels.

2.9 In terms of landscape designations, it is noted that the site lies within Area of

Great Landscape Value (AGLV). This is a local landscape designation

ascribed to the site through the North Cornwall Local Plan (1999). Land

designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national

landscape designation, lies to the east of the site, and is located approximately

650m from the site at its closest point.

2.10 The available historic environment records for the site, sourced from the

Council’s Historic Environment Service, identify the site as Medieval

farmland/ancient enclosed land. There are no scheduled monuments or listed

buildings close to the site, the nearest listed building being Turlea, situated

some 500m (approx.) to the north-east.

2.11 The site does not lie within or adjacent to a designated nature

conservation site although a statutory nature conservation site and three non-

statutory nature conservation sites lie within the wider area. Of the former,

Greenscoombe Wood, Lucket Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is of

note, being situated 2 miles (3.3km) to the south-east of the site. Of the latter,

Deer Park Wood County Wildlife Site (CWS) is situated 0.62 miles (1km) to

the south of the site; Bradford Wood CWS is situated 1.05 miles (1.7km) to the

north- east of the site; and Watergate Wood to Woodabridge CWS is situated

1.1 miles (1.8km) to the north-west of the site.

3.0 The Development

3.1. The proposed development comprises the construction of three poultry houses

together with office/machine store, electrical intake shed, feed bins, amended

access, parking and turning area.

3.2 A simplified copy of the site layout relating to the proposals appears as Figure

3.1, below. It will be noted that the three poultry sheds are arranged parallel to

one another, and orientated to account for changing ground levels across the

site. The floor levels of the sheds reflect the requirement to ‘cut and fill’ in

order to achieve consistent ground levels on which to construct the buildings.

Figure 3.1 – Site Layout

3.3 The proposed poultry houses will measure as follows:

Poultry House No.10 = 86m x 25.3m x 6.6m in height

Poultry House No.11 = 85m x 25.3m x 6.6m in height

Poultry House No.12 = 95m x 25.3m x 6.6m in height.

3.4 The poultry houses will be externally clad with profiled steel cladding, coloured

juniper green. The south-facing end elevations of these buildings will be clad

with cedar boarding.

3.5 A separate standalone building accommodating a farm office and machine

store is proposed to the west of Poultry House 10. This shed measures 15.5m

x 6m x 3.7m in height, and will be clad in timber boarding with a roof of box

profile cladding coloured juniper green. A further separate electrical intake

shed is proposed to the north of the office/machine store. This modest building

measures 7m x 4.2m x 3.7m and will be similarly clad.

3.6 The development also includes a cylindrical water tank, measuring 3.35m in

diameter x 7.1m in height to be located between the electrical intake shed and

office and machinery store. The water tank will be comprised of glass-

reinforced plastic, coloured dark green.

3.7 A total of six feed bins are also proposed. These measure 3.5m in diameter x

8m in height and are coloured green. They are to be grouped in threes, and

located between Sheds 10 and 11, and Sheds 11 and 12.

3.8 LPG tanks are also proposed – LPG being used to heat the sheds.

3.9 Vehicular access is to be gained via an access to the south-western corner of

the site as indicated on Figure 3.1, above. The proposals involve the widening

of the existing field access situated in this corner of the field and setting back a

section of existing bank/hedge to the east of this to provide the requisite

visibility splay. The access will be enclosed by a 2m high random rubble stone

wall comprised of local natural stone, with steel gates approximately 1.7m

high.

3.10 All vehicular movements will be accommodated on a hard surfaced area to the

front (south) of the three poultry sheds. This area has been engineered to

accommodate the parking and turning of vehicles, and it will be noted that

Poultry Shed No.11 has been shortened to accommodate a turning space for

HGVs.

3.11 Three attenuation tanks are to be provided beneath this hard-surfaced apron

to accommodate surface water emanating from the roofs of the buildings and

to control surface water run-off. These details follow the recommendation of a

Flood Risk Assessment completed to accompany the original planning

application.

3.12 The layout of buildings and areas of hard surfacing evolved mindful of a key

aim to avoid impact upon hedgebanks and trees on the periphery of the site,

beyond the rebuilding a section of bank/hedge to the road-side boundary,

necessitated by a requirement to improve visibility from the site access.

3.13 In addition to retaining hedges and trees around the site’s periphery, the

proposals also include the provision of new landscaping on the strip of land

between Shed 12 and the site’s eastern boundary. This will comprise a mix of

native hedge and tree species, notably hawthorn, hazel, oak, holly and

spindle, and will augment the existing planting on the hedgebank defining the

eastern site boundary. The same species mix is proposed on the section of

hedge to be rebuilt to the east of the site access.

3.14 The poultry houses will be constructed to meet the higher welfare standards of

the RSPCA Freedom Foods scheme. The buildings will be fitted with high

speed roof ventilation to limit emissions, smells and noise.

3.15 Bedding will be provided by wood shavings or chopped straw to a depth of

approximately 20mm which allows the floor to breathe and release moisture,

thus enhancing environmental conditions inside.

3.16 Water will be provided by mains supply, fed from the proposed storage tank.

3.17 A centreless auger will convey feed to pan feeders from the feed bins. Feed is

supplied either by a regional or national compounder and delivered to the site

as and when required.

3.18 The feed is composed of high quality raw materials, and is nutritionally tailored

to the broiler’s requirements. It contains enzymes that enhance digestion of

the cereal component of the feed. As a result of the improved digestion, the

amount of water drunk by the birds is reduced, and this in turn leads to a lower

moisture content in the litter. Consequently the risk of odours are reduced by

this drier litter.

3.19 The 3 poultry houses will accommodate a combined total of 131,000 (max)

birds at any one time and will operate on an 8 week cycle, producing 7

batches of chickens per year.

3.20 A cycle begins in week 1 with the delivery of 131,000 day-old chicks to the site

in 3 lorries. All lorries will be routed to/from the A388 to the west. The chicks

arrive in trays, with roughly 150 birds per tray. The trays are stacked onto

trolleys and wheeled into the sheds, whereupon the chicks are released. This

operation involves 3 members of staff.

3.21 The birds are thinned in week 6, with 25% of the birds removed. The thinning

process requires a catching gang of 4 persons, plus a fork-lift driver. The birds

are caught and placed in modules (crates) which, in turn, are taken from the

sheds by fork-lift truck to waiting lorries. The birds are removed from the site in

6 lorries, likely over a 2 day period. It is anticipated that removal of the birds

will take place during the daytime.

3.22 Removal of the remaining birds takes place in week 7. The process is identical

to the thinning process, requiring a catching gang of 4 persons, plus a fork-lift

driver. The birds are removed from the site in 19 lorries, likely over a 3 day

period. It is anticipated that removal of the birds will take place during the

daytime.

3.23 Apart from the delivery of chicks, thinning, removal of birds and cleaning of the

sheds, the day to day running of the site will be carried out by 3 full-time

employees, overseeing both this site and the appellant’s existing poultry site in

Kelly Bray. The prime task is, of course, the welfare of the flock and daily tasks

involve close inspection of the birds, together with checking of the equipment

and general cleaning. Any mortalities are checked for and removed on a daily

basis. Mortalities are frozen prior to removal by a specialist contractor. This

ensures the welfare of the stock is maintained and there is no opportunity for

odour generation to occur.

3.24 Feed is delivered as and when required, a total of 20 lorry-loads of feed likely

to be required per cycle. 2 LPG deliveries are anticipated during the same

period.

3.25 At the end of the flock production cycle, during week 8, the poultry buildings

are cleaned out and washed down. This involves the scraping out of all the old

bedding/waste and its removal offsite and the pressure washing, disinfecting

and drying out of the buildings. Washing down water from the cleaning of the

poultry houses will be diverted to dirty water tanks for storage prior to being

taken away by tanker for landspreading. The dirty water tanks will conform to

the required standard and will be compliant with the requirements of the

permitting regime to ensure that the potential for leaks or overflows is

minimised. All waste handling and litter removal is undertaken by specialist

contractors who operate in accordance to best practice management plans to

minimise any potential impacts. Litter is removed from the site on sheeted

trailers.

3.26 The sheds will then be re-stocked with bedding to allow the cycle to begin

again.

3.27 Although operation of the poultry unit will require an environmental permit

under the terms of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and

Wales) 2010, the Environmental Statement provides a detailed overview of the

impact of emissions. Potential emissions from the proposed development

include emissions to air (odour, ammonia, dust and traffic emissions),

emissions to water and soil (including surface water run-off, washing water

from cleaning of the poultry houses and run-off from landspreading of poultry

manure and washing water), noise and light.

3.28 The construction phase will occur over a period of approximately 12 months,

the ground works will take approximately 4 months, following which two sheds

will be constructed, taking approximately 18 weeks with a further month for

internal fitting out, the third shed will then be constructed taking a further 12

weeks.

4.0 Site Selection and Alternatives

4.1 KB Products is a long-established local company based at Station Road, Kelly

Bray, Callington, Cornwall, approximately 2 miles from the site. The company

currently has nine poultry houses at Kelly Bray, used to rear chickens for meat

production. The 3 sheds proposed are required as part of a planned expansion

and diversification of the business.

4.2 At the time of the planning application, representations were made questioning

why the proposed sheds could not be situated on the applicant’s land at Kelly

Bray adjoining the existing sheds.

4.3 The 3 sheds will be used for indoor broiler production and will operate on a

different cycle to the sheds at Kelly Bray. The proximity of the sheds to one

another would lead to a high risk of cross-contamination, with older birds in

one group of sheds able to pass infection onto younger birds in the other. To

avoid such issues, poultry farms are typically located at least a kilometre apart,

and preferably further. The possibility of siting the development on land

adjoining the existing poultry farm at Kelly Bray was therefore discounted by

the appellant before consideration of the current site began. The advantage of

the site at Stoke Climsland is that, as far as the appellant is aware, there are

no other commercial-scale poultry operations for several miles – the nearest

probably being the appellant’s own site at Kelly Bray.

4.4 Beyond the site at Kelly Bray, the appellant has not pursued alternative sites

for this particular proposal, the proposed site being considered ideal in all

respects – in terms of its proximity to his existing base in Kelly Bray, distance

from other poultry farms, cost, construction and operation but also in terms of

meeting the requirements to secure an environmental permit and relevant

planning policies in order to secure planning permission.

4.5 The reality, in the appellant’s view, is that no alternative sites are likely to be

available within reasonable distance of his base in Kelly Bray that would be

equally suitable. Certainly, no land has become available in recent years that

the appellant would consider pursuing as an alternative to the current scheme.

Settlement pattern, national landscape designations and nature conservation

sites make it especially difficult to find new sites for intensive poultry

production that not only meet the needs of the business, but which are also

likely to secure both planning permission and an environmental permit.

4.6 With regard to the site itself, the proposals evolved in order to provide the

most effective layout from an operational point of view, but also as discreet a

development as possible, with close attention paid to siting, levels, screening

and the design and materials of the buildings. The layout has been designed

in order to work with the site’s topography. Having regard to the number and

size of buildings and the number of chickens they are designed to

accommodate, this represents the minimum amount of development to ensure

viability. Reducing the number or size of sheds would result in a scheme that

was not commercially viable and is not, thus, an alternative open to the

appellant.

5.0 Assessment

5.1 The Environmental Statement considers all aspects of the development that

may give rise to environmental effects. Where relevant and appropriate, it

proposes measures to prevent, reduce or offset the effects identified.

Landscape.

5.2 Initial site choice was informed in part by an aim to produce a development

that was discreet in the local and wider landscape. The site is considered ideal

in this regard, benefitting from natural screening to all boundaries.

Landscaping and topography in the wider area also assist in limiting views into

the site. The scheme proposes the retention of hedging and trees to the site’s

boundaries and the reinstatement of a section of hedge removed to produce

the required access. Further mitigation is proposed in the form of additional

planting to the east side of the site as part of a full landscaping scheme.

Existing hedging and trees will be protected during the construction process.

The impact of the development is further reduced by stepping the building’s

into the contours of the site, and the choice of appropriate cladding materials

for the buildings. It is noted that the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA) concludes that the development will only have a slight

adverse impact.

Transport

5.3 Vehicle movements associated with the use are considered modest, and

consideration must be mindful that the scheme proposes an agricultural use

on agricultural land. HGV movements associated with the poultry farm once

operational are anticipated to amount to no more than 2.6 vehicle movements

per day on average. Movements associated with the construction phase will

be significantly higher than those of the operational phase, but over a

commensurately shorter period.

5.4 It is noted that the Council’s Highway Officer raised no objection to the

proposals at application stage, and identified 2 routes from the A388 via which

HGV traffic could appropriately reach the site. Neither route entails HGV traffic

passing through the centre of Stoke Climsland village.

5.5 The development proposed on the site has a modest impact considered below

the levels that would normally require mitigation in terms of environmental

impacts. Assessment of transport impact is a normal part of any EIA. In this

case, the data presented is considered sufficiently robust to draw a reasoned

conclusion that the proposals will not generate unacceptable, or indeed

meaningful adverse transport related environmental impacts.

Emissions

5.6 An assessment has been made of the potential residues and emissions from

the construction and operation of the proposed poultry unit. The assessment

included a scoping review to identify those residues or emissions with the

potential to result in a significant impact. This was based on a review of the

development and comparison to existing guidance or published research

where available.

5.7 Ammonia emissions were scoped out on the basis of a screening assessment

carried out by the Environment Agency as part of the Environmental Permitting

application. Dust emissions were scoped out due to the distance to

neighbouring properties and the best practice measures proposed to control

dust. Development generated traffic emissions were scoped out as the

proposed development is unlikely to generate or increase traffic congestion, or

give rise to a significant change in traffic volumes, speed or composition,

either during the construction or operation period. The development does not

have a requirement for significant external lighting and therefore lighting

impacts were scoped out. During the construction of the poultry houses, the

Environment Agency’s pollution prevention guidance would be adhered to in

order to minimise pollution impacts on soils and the water environment.

Limited potential exists for pollution of water and soils during the operation of

the site apart from the landspeading of manure and dirty water. As this will

take place following best practice guidance as recommended by the Code of

Good Agricultural Practice, this was also scoped out. Further assessment was

however undertaken for odour and noise impacts.

5.8 Odour generated during the operation of the poultry unit was considered to

have potential for a significant impact and was therefore assessed further.

Odour emissions from the proposed poultry houses were assessed and

quantified using an emissions ‘blueprint’ developed by ADAS, the Met Office

and the Silsoe Research Institute. The emission figures obtained were then

used in atmospheric dispersion modelling in order to assess the likely impact

of odour in the area around the site. The dispersion modelling predicted that

odour exposure levels would be well below the Environment Agency’s odour

guideline threshold at all residential receptors surrounding the site. Odour

impacts during the clearing out process would be minimised by following best

practice measures. Odour impacts are therefore not considered significant.

5.9 A noise impact analysis has been carried out by S. & D. Garritt Ltd. of the

proposed poultry houses. The noise assessment has focused on the

operational period. As construction noise will be temporary and short-term, it is

unlikely to be significant.

5.10 The noise analysis assessed the key noise sources from the proposed

development. The noise assessment also included sound measurements

taken inside and outside similar existing poultry houses at other premises.

The predicted noise levels at the nearest receptors were then compared

against relevant noise guidance. The assessment found that the noise levels

would be well below (i.e. better than) the “good resting and sleeping

conditions” recommended by the British Standard 8233 and would be entirely

inaudible inside the dwellings. Noise impacts are therefore not considered

significant.

Hydrology

5.11 Potential for increased surface water run-off given the presence of buildings

and hardstandings on what is currently a ‘greenfield’ site will be mitigated by

the provision of appropriate on-site attenuation. These attenuation measures

comprise a system of trenches and soakaways/tanks. The Flood Risk

Assessment completed to accompany the original planning application

concludes that with these recommended surface water drainage measures in

place, the runoff rate will be lower than at present and that there will actually

be a reduction in flood risk to third parties.

5.12 Interceptors and on-site tanks will ensure that groundwater is not polluted by

activities on site. Contamination arising from construction site run off can be

similarly mitigated by the adoption of EA pollution prevention guidelines; safe

storage of oils and construction materials; preparation of a CEMP and

construction phase monitoring. The overall impact of the development is

deemed to be neutral.

Ecology

5.13 The construction process will not have an effect on nature conservation sites

or bats. However, it will have a short-term negative effect on hedgerow habitat,

Badgers, nesting birds and reptiles. Following appropriate mitigation, including

the replacement of hedging and further planting, the construction phase will

have a negligible impact on these habitats and species.

5.14 During its operation the proposed poultry units will not have an effect on

nature conservation sites, hedgerows, Badgers and bats. However, it may

have a negative effect on nesting birds and reptiles. Following appropriate

mitigation, the operational phase will have a negligible impact on nesting birds.

Due to the low magnitude of the effect, no mitigation is proposed for reptiles.

Heritage Assets

5.15 Desktop assessment has revealed that the site lies within an area of Medieval

farmland where the potential for buried archaeology is high. A geo-physical

survey has thus been carried out. However, this revealed nothing of

significance.

5.16 The site is remote from known heritage assets and no material impact upon

the setting of such assets is likely to arise from the development. This

conclusion concurs with the expert advice of the Council’s Historic

Environment Service. No further measures to reduce or offset the

development’s impact are thus proposed or required.

Population

5.17 As is evident from Figures 2.1 and 2.2, the site is relatively remote from

residential properties; the nearest, Crossways Bungalow, being situated

approximately 380m to the west of the proposed poultry sheds. Consideration

of all topic areas has given due regard to potential impact upon residents.

From the findings and conclusions drawn in relevant topic areas, it is

considered that impact upon residents will be negligible, the development

having no material impact upon outlook from properties and the use, including

traffic movements to/from the site, not being significant in terms of odour,

noise or vehicle movements.