An Investigation to Assess the Current Level of Information Available for Local

Defra Research Project NANR 279

Research into Local Authority Insect Nuisance complaints and their resolution.

Bell, B.A.¹, Lole, M.J.¹, England, J.², Barden, H.²

¹ADAS UK Ltd, ²England Marketing

February 2010

Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Background 5 1.1 Consortium to perform the work 6 1.2 Objectives 6 2.0 Definition of Nuisance 7 2.1 What is a nuisance insect 7 2.2 List of nuisance insect species for Great Britain 9 3.0 Survey of Local Authority Environmental Health Practitioners 11 3.1 The range of sources of potential insect nuisance investigated by EHPs 11 3.1.1 Land covered by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 13 3.1.2 Legislative processes 13 3.2 Types of nuisance insects dealt with 15 3.3 How staff investigate nuisance insect problems 15 3.3.1 Nuisance insect training available for EHPs 16 3.3.2 Sources of information 16 3.3.3 Specific identification of nuisance 17 3.3.4 Internal processes 17 3.4 Identification, assessment and evaluation of information available to EHPs 18 3.4.1 Currently available information 18 3.4.2 Assessment and evaluation of information 21 3.4.3 Gap analysis 22 4.0 Practical examples and case studies of good practice 24 4.1 Landfill site, SW England 24 4.2 Municipal Landfill site 25 4.3 Energy from Waste Power Plant 28 4.4 Intensive poultry unit 30 4.6 Nuisance associated with sewage treatment works 32 5.0 Conclusions 34 6.0 Recommendations 35 6.1 Identification of nuisance insects 35 6.2 How to conduct effective investigations into nuisance insects 35 6.3 Technical guidance concerning Best Practicable Means 35 List of Figures / Tables 38 Acknowledgements 38 Appendix 1: Telephone survey questionnaire 39

Appendix 2: Defra Guidance, Section 101 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 42 Appendix 3 Breakdown of useful web pages by type and content 52 Appendix 3a Typical LA web based fact sheet for houseflies 53 Appendix 3b Typical LA web based fact sheet for bedbugs 54 Appendix 3c Typical LA web based fact sheet for wasps 57 Appendix 3d Typical LA web based fact sheet for cockroaches 59 Appendix 4: Local Authority Draft Code of Practice for the use of poultry manure 61 Appendix 4a Good Practice Guidance for fly management for animal husbandry units 65 Appendix 5: ADAS Programme for monitoring and control of flies in deep pit poultry houses 68 Appendix 5a Fly control in free range units 70

Appendix 6: Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the

Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008. (Section 5 Insect Nuisance

Provision) 73 Appendix 7: Defra.gov.uk: insect nuisance search 78 References 82 Further Reading 83

Executive Summary

A telephone survey of Local Authority Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs) was undertaken to determine the principal types and causes of insect nuisance complaints that they dealt with over the past three years and the information and practical guidance available to assist them in providing an effective solution to these problems.

Over the last three years nuisance insect complaints were received by 60% of the authorities interviewed with poultry houses or farms accounting for 36% of complaints. Sewage treatment works, animal housing, manure/silage storage areas and landfill site/refuse tips each accounted for an additional 10% of the complaints.

Complaints concerning flies were the most common and were the cause of all complaints about poultry houses or farms, and the primary complaint from all other premises listed in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Just over 20% of the authorities that received insect nuisance complaints went on to issue a total of 16 Abatement Notices and these all dealt with cases of fly nuisance.

The teams within the authorities that deal with insect nuisance vary in size from an individual to a team of 10+ and are made up of either Pest Control or Environmental Health Officers, each with the appropriate professional training but without specific training in dealing with insect problems. There seemed to be a general lack of formal internal procedures or protocols to deal with statutory nuisance from insects and where procedures are in place they have largely been based on either the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Defra guidelines which explain Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. . Identification of the cause of the nuisance would primarily be carried out using internal expertise or identification guides and pest control books and where in-house knowledge was deemed to be insufficient they would look to pesticide companies or the Defra website for advice. They may liaise with other authorities on cross boundary issues and some belong to local groups to share best practice as well as making use of the resources available on EHC.net. In most cases there had been little or no formal training on insects and most felt some form of formal training would be beneficial. Technical literature to send out to complainants, where available, was found to be generally nuisance or insect specific, rather than addressing the specific problem being reported.

The need for guidelines on how to deal effectively with complaints in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome without recourse to legislative processes was expressed by those authorities that had dealt with nuisance insects particularly in relation to poultry houses and flies – what constitutes a problem, how to locate the source, a protocol that can be issued to premises and how to treat the problem (including environmentally friendly methods). There were requests for information detailing insect identification and what to do next, what constitutes a nuisance and the lifecycle of flies.

To address the deficiencies in currently available information this report provides some case studies where good outcomes in dealing with nuisance insects have been achieved; identifies where practical advice is lacking and provides some guidance for EHPs on how to deal effectively with nuisance insect complaints.

1.0 Background

On 7 April 2005 the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill received Royal Assent following a successful passage through Parliament to become the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. It came into effect in April 2006.

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 deals with many of the problems affecting the quality of our local environment and a copy of the guidelines for nuisance insects provided by Defra can be found at Appendix 2.

The Act provides local authorities, parish and community councils and the Environment Agency with more effective powers and tools to tackle poor environmental quality and anti-social behaviour. In particular the Act includes sections on statutory nuisance, abandoned vehicles, litter, graffiti, waste, noise and dogs.

A section of the legislation introduces statutory nuisance from insects. Section 101 adds to the descriptions of statutory nuisances listed in section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: „(fa) any insects emanating from relevant industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance‟. This provision does not apply to insects from domestic premises or to insects listed in Schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, unless they are included in that Schedule solely to prevent their trade or sale. This measure is intended to provide local authorities with a remedy to nuisances from insect infestations (whether naturally occurring or caused by human activities) on „relevant‟ industrial, trade or business premises. However, it is not meant to be used against most naturally occurring concentrations of insects on open land or in ways that would adversely affect biodiversity.

Local authorities have a duty to investigate their areas periodically for statutory nuisances, and to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of nuisance and to issue an abatement notice once satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or may occur or recur. In order to serve an abatement notice, the source of the problem must be identified.

In this report we assess the current level of information available for local authority Environmental Health Practitioners to aid their investigation and resolution of insect nuisance complaints under Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and identify, where appropriate, the need for further practical guidance.

1.1 Consortium to perform the work

The partners are ADAS UK Ltd (lead partner) and England Marketing.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the project are:

1: To understand the sources of potential insect nuisance and the level, type, and nature of complaints received by Local Authorities.

2: To identify and evaluate the information and practical guidance that is being used by the Environmental Health Practitioners in their investigations.

3: To determine the need and type of guidance to further assist Environmental Health Practitioners.

4: To identify, if appropriate, the need for further practical advice.

2.0 Definition of Nuisance insects

An investigation into Nuisance Insects and Climate Change was commissioned by Defra in 2008 and published in March 2009:

‘An Investigation into the Potential for New and Existing Species of Insect with the Potential to Cause Statutory Nuisance to Occur in the UK as a Result of Current and Predicted Climate Change’ Roy, H.E.¹, Beckmann, B.C.¹, Comont, R.F.¹, Hails, R.S.¹, Harrington, R.², Medlock, J.³, Purse, B.¹, Shortall, C.R.² ¹Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, ²Rothamsted Research, ³Health Protection Agency

Elements of the input into the above report are relevant to this report on nuisance insects and have been replicated here in part for ease of reference (sections 2.1 and 2.2):

2.1 What is a nuisance insect?

Insects can constitute a nuisance in law. For a nuisance to be found in law depends on the circumstances, notably on the effects that insects have on humans and property. Nuisance has been defined as a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use or enjoyment of land (Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (2006), 19th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, ch. 20). So, where insects are harboured, allowed to remain, or cause an infestation, on land this may comprise a nuisance. The above definition is relevant to private nuisance. This is a tort, or civil wrong, which provides a right to owners of property to use it free from unreasonable interferences from neighbouring property. This condition is often referred to an ‟‟amenity‟ nuisance. The standard required to prove that the interference is unreasonable is a high one, so minor problems or mere annoyance would not be enough to amount to a nuisance in law. Because private nuisance is a civil action, the remedies available to a successful claimant include an injunction to prevent the nuisance from continuing and an award of damages to compensate for the harm. Some nuisances are so widespread that they amount to public nuisances. In A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, at 190–1, Denning LJ defined public nuisance as a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large. So if a class of people or a neighbourhood suffers to an unreasonable extent from insects emanating from a person‟s land, then a prosecution could be brought by the local authority or by a private individual against the person responsible. As with private nuisance, an injunction could be sought to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance in the High Court or the County Court.

Insect nuisances can also be controlled under the statutory nuisance regime. Section 79(1) (fa) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) provides that: any insects emanating from relevant industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance shall constitute a statutory nuisance. This wording indicates that there is a two-limbed structure to the provision: either prejudicial to health or a nuisance. This is a recent provision inserted into the Environmental Protection Act by section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. It requires a local authority to serve an abatement notice on the person or persons responsible where it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur in its area [section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act]. Failure to conform to the requirements of the notice is a criminal offence. A private

prosecution can also be brought by a person aggrieved by the statutory nuisance under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. A prosecution brought under the Environmental Protection Act can only take place if the problem arises on relevant premises. The statute excludes residential or domestic premises. Also excluded by section 101(5) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 is land used as arable, grazing, meadow and pasture land; land used as osier land, reed beds or woodland; land used as market gardens, nursery grounds or orchards; some other instances of agricultural land; and land included in a site of special scientific interest. Section 79(1)(fa) is an important extension of the statutory nuisance regime because it brings into the regulatory system a number of situations where insect nuisance is problematic. Insects may constitute a statutory nuisance in two ways because section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act provides a two limbed structure. The nuisance limb includes both private and public forms of nuisance; both these are sometimes referred to as common law nuisance because they are creatures of case law. Under this limb, the victim of the nuisance is not required to have a proprietorial interest in neighbouring land (which would be a requirement for a civil action in private nuisance). The nuisance is required to be one interfering materially with the personal comfort of the [person], in the sense that it materially affected their well-being (Wivenhoe Port v Colchester BC [1985] JPL 175, at 178).

The prejudicial to health limb of section 79 would be triggered where there was a significant risk of injury to health arising from the insects. The House of Lords decided in Birmingham CC v Oakley [2001] 1 All ER 385, at 399 that prejudice to health: covers what may be actually injurious as well as what may be likely to be injurious and [is] in either case something over and above what may be seen as a "nuisance". Its significance in the context of insect statutory nuisance is that under the nuisance limb quite a substantial number of insects would usually be needed to cause a material interference in personal comfort. By contrast, a relatively small number of insects posing a risk to health could trigger the prejudicial to health limb. Nuisance insects can emanate from a wide range of sources, but it is expected that most complaints of insect nuisance will be from the following sources: poultry and other animal houses, buildings on agricultural land including manure and silage storage areas, sewage treatment works, stagnant ditches and drains on relevant premises, landfill sites and refuse tips, waste transfer premises, commercial, trade or business premises, slaughterhouses and used car tyre recycling businesses. The archetypal nuisance insect species will generally exhibit one or more of the following traits:

 Synanthropy: A life-history strategy which brings the species into constant/repetitive contact with humans, either directly, e.g. blood-feeding parasites, or indirectly as a result of other life-history strategy parameters (synanthropic/ hemisynanthropic/ eusynanthropic).

 Overwintering Ability: A relatively low thermal minimum, e.g. -5°C, allowing a good level of survival during outdoor overwintering, in turn allowing a population reservoir to build up which is capable of infesting buildings. Parasitic organisms may not need this capability if they can instead overwinter on an alternative host.  Resiliency: Resilient populations capable of surviving unfavourable conditions, e.g. cold, application of pesticides, lack of food, etc. This can be either the result of a resistant life stage (e.g. flea pupae, which, until triggered by specific mechanical or chemical stimuli, can remain dormant for several months), or by having a large amount of redundancy built into the population

structure (e.g. the potential for parthenogenesis in cockroaches, or the polygynous, ephemeral-nesting nature of the Argentine & Pharaoh‟s ants).

 Diet: A generalist diet, particularly on human-created detritus, or alternatively a need to feed on humans, or on items precious to humans.

 r-Selection: A short generation time and high reproductive potential, allowing the species to take advantage of favourable conditions, particularly indoors, by producing large numbers of offspring quickly.

 Anthropogenic Dispersal: A high anthropogenic dispersive potential, giving the species a good chance of being transported between human settlements at a large scale, and between individual houses at a local scale.

 Natural Dispersal: A relatively low natural dispersal tendency. Species with a high natural dispersive ability will tend not to aggregate to nuisance numbers, but those with a low ability to disperse and a high reproductive potential will reach nuisance levels in a small area relatively quickly, while still allowing some element of dispersal, minimising the chances of the entire population being eradicated

 Potential for Harm: An ability to cause a nuisance event: the ability to cause human health issues, destroy or damage items held dear to people, e.g. furniture or pets, or creates severe annoyance by their mere presence, e.g. the incessant buzzing of a fly.

2.2 Lists of nuisance insect species for Great Britain

 Lists of insects, constituting potential nuisance (statutory or otherwise), were derived from the following reports, web sources or spreadsheets:

 Public Health Significance of Urban Pests (Bonnefoy et al., 2008)

 Audit of non-native species in England (Hill et al., 2005)

 EPPO A1, A2 and Alert lists (http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/quarantine.htm)

 British Pest Control Association (http://www.bpca.org.uk)

 Pest control companies and council pest control web pages

 Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (http://www.europe- aliens.org/aboutDAISIE.do)

The problems associated with nuisance insects are varied ranging from human health (vectors of disease, allergens and irritants, pain through biting and stinging), annoyance when numerous (tendency to occur in large numbers results in intolerable annoyance), to household pest species (damaging or destroying the contents of houses including fabrics, structural timbers and stored products).

It is clear that nuisance insects are taxonomically diverse, and their impacts reflect this. The distinction between statutory nuisance and non-statutory nuisance will vary on a case-by-case basis; an insect will be a statutory nuisance in some scenarios but

not others (particularly in relation to the source and abundance of the insects). The need for reliable information on these species and their impacts is paramount to ensure appropriate measures are taken to address these nuisance insects.

3.0 Survey of Local Authority Environmental Health Practitioners

A survey was carried out using telephone questionnaire research designed to determine the level of input by Local Authorities into the problems associated with

nuisance insects and how they investigate and deal with the problems and arrive at a satisfactory outcome for all concerned.

The questionnaire may be found at Appendix 1.

128 individuals responsible for statutory nuisance associated with insects agreed to be interviewed from a list of 403 authorities across England and Wales.

Caveat: The information used was supplied by the EHPs and was an accurate representation of available records.

3.1 The range of sources of potential insect nuisance investigated by EHPs

Complaints concerning nuisance insects from those identified as giving the most problems over the last three years were widespread although not universal, with nearly 60% of the authorities interviewed across England and Wales having received at least one complaint.

Fig. 1 Average number of nuisance insects’ complaints recorded per county per year for 2005 - 2008 Numbers of nuisance insect complaints recorded ranged from an average of one to eight per year over a three year period and ranged significantly in severity. On rare occasions the complaints were found to be largely unfounded upon investigation, however there were an unspecified number of accounts of very severe cases of

nuisance associated with invasions of flies over several days followed by an on-going lower number of flies at the premises for a few weeks.

The majority of insect nuisance complaints have arisen from poultry houses or farms across the UK, particularly in Lincolnshire where a large proportion of the country‟s egg production units are located.

Complaints were received concerning nuisance insects emanating from sewage treatment works, animal housing and to a lesser extent from manure/silage storage areas, and landfill site/refuse tips (Fig. 2).

45 40 35 30 25 20 15

10 Numbers of complaints complaints Numbersof 5 0 Types of premises

poultry farms domestic/empty properties sewage treatment works animal housing manure storage sites landfill sites chemical parts of mixed/residential buildings waste transfer trade or business other

Fig. 2 Numbers of complaints received according to type of premises (alleged source)

„Other‟ complaints accounted for 14 of those recorded and concerned nuisance insects from:

2 commercial hospitality venues 2 reservoirs 1 arable farm 1 farmyard 1 large pond that had been drained 1 army barracks 1 open building site drain 1 packing plant (poultry houses) 1 disused conference centre 1 local hospital 1 lime trees 1 stagnant ditch/drain

There had been anecdotal reports that nuisance insects, particularly flies emanated from slaughterhouses and mosquitoes and midges from used car tyre recycling businesses but none were reported from the survey as being associated with these types of premises.

Two Local Authorities also mentioned that complaints had been received concerning insects from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) but as these are protected under Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) they are exempt from the Act and as such they were unable to take action against them.

3.1.1 Land covered by the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005

Subsection (5) of Section 101 inserts two new subsections (7C) and (7D) into section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which exclude from the definition of „relevant‟ industrial, trade and business premises: (a) land used as arable, grazing, meadow or pasture land (but not structures placed on the land), (b) land used as osier land, reed beds, or woodland, (c) land used for market gardens, nursery grounds or orchards, (d) land forming part of an agricultural unit (but not covered by (a) to (c)) and which is of a description specified in regulations, (e) land included in a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and land covered by, and the waters of, rivers, watercourses (except sewers and drains), lakes and ponds.

Land which falls under (d) above is described by regulations. These regulations prescribe the descriptions of land under s.79(7C)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (introduced by s.101(5) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005), that form part of an agricultural unit and which are (in addition to the types of land already listed at s.79(7C) (a)-(c)) to be exempt from „relevant industrial etc. premises‟ from which the new statutory nuisance from insects (s.79(1)(fa) Environmental Protection Act 1990) is capable of emanating.

Certain types of land (e.g. SSSIs) are exempted from being capable of statutory nuisance from insects in order to safeguard endangered species, and protect biodiversity.

3.1.2 Legislative and planning processes

There are nine categories of nuisance contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These include: the state of premises; smoke emissions; fumes or gases from dwellings; effluvia from industrial, trade or business premises; accumulations or deposits of waste, animals; noise from premises, noise from vehicles or equipment in a street and other matters declared by other Acts to be a statutory nuisance. Insects and artificial light are two new statutory nuisances that have been in introduced under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

The status of insect nuisance as described by this Act is still in the process of being tried and tested. If it is felt by a Local Authority that an insect nuisance has been or may be caused by the actions of a person or business, an Abatement Notice may be issued instructing the person or business to take such steps as may be necessary to either abate the nuisance or to prevent it from happening. The Abatement Notice may simply state this, leaving the recipient to take professional advice on the matter; or the notice may have an appendix and technical notes giving detailed instructions on what must be done in order to abate or prevent the nuisance. In either case failure to comply with any of the details may lead to prosecution. The recipient has 21 days in order to lodge an appeal if they so decide. Drawing up an Abatement Notice is something that is not taken lightly by EHPs and care must be taken to ensure that any conditions contained within it are technically correct and will be effective when followed.

One fifth of the Authorities that had dealt with insect nuisance complaints had issued an Abatement Notice to abate or prevent an insect nuisance and in some cases a number of notices have been issued by the same authority.

Just over half of authorities issuing a notice consulted a specialist before issuing an abatement notice to advise on content. Almost all the authorities stated that they would have a meeting with the business owner and specialists on both sides in order to reach an agreed approach to the problem before issuing a Notice.

Abatement notices were generally seen as a last resort and it was felt to be best practice to try to resolve the problem amicably first and that meetings have avoided the need for an abatement notice to be issued.

As an incidental inquiry questions were asked of the EHPs concerning the use of Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 during the planning process. Planning applications are decided in line with the local development plan unless there are very good reasons not to do so and in the interest of consistency applications are now submitted to Local Authorities via the Planning Portal (www.planningportal.gov.uk).

Whilst insect nuisance cases were generally considered during the planning process this was only in applications for premises with potential for nuisance insects such as poultry houses, landfill sites or animal housing, however permission was recently refused where it was considered that erection of properties near to such sites may later result in complaints of nuisance insects from the new occupiers (MPRU v Peterborough Borough Council 2008). This was later reversed on appeal.

None of the respondents had a specific buffer zone within which nuisance insects would be considered but rather would look at applications on a case by case basis taking into account distance and other factors such as prevailing wind. As there is a buffer zone for farms, (agricultural development doesn‟t require planning permission as long as it is more than 400 metres away from another building) some authorities would look carefully at poultry houses or pig units if they were within this radius, more particularly however in relation to the nuisance that they have had experience of e.g. noise and light.

One respondent commented that where a poultry farm was proposed it would be the responsibility of the applicant to provide convincing evidence that they would be

taking the right precautions to prevent nuisance occurring and without such evidence the Application would be refused. . 3.2 Types of nuisance insects dealt with

Flies were the most common nuisance insect reported to Local Authority Environmental Health Departments. They were the reason for all complaints about poultry houses or farms and frequently common in complaints about all other premises listed under Section 101 of the Act.

The presence of fleas, wasps/hornets, cockroaches and bed bugs were limited to complaints about the commercial parts of mixed commercial or residential buildings, domestic properties or commercial hospitality establishments.

flies bedbug cockroach flea other wasp/hornet midges mosquito don't know

Fig. 3 Types of nuisance insects recorded

The „other‟ insects dealt with included ants, chironomids, breeding crickets (to feed to lizards), bees and poisonous spiders (imported).

3.3 How staff investigate nuisance insect problems

The teams that deal with statutory nuisance from insect cases in authorities vary in size from one to over 10, with the majority of teams having at least 4 staff that would be able to deal with such cases.

The workload within these teams can be split by geographical area or speciality i.e. domestic or commercial. In some authorities insect nuisance would be dealt with by the Pollution Team whilst in others it would be dealt with by the Environmental Protection Team but the individuals involved tend to be either Pest Control Officers or Environmental Health Officers. Insect cases tend to be seasonal (mostly occurring in the summer months), and in most cases they account for less than 5% of an individual officers‟ time. The remainder of their time would be spent dealing with other nuisance complaints such as noise, light or odour.

3.3.1 Nuisance insects training available for EHPs

Local Authority Pest Control and Environmental Health Practitioners are trained to a high standard but EHPs in particular do not receive any specialist training in how to deal with insect problems. Some training had been received by some of the EHPs when the Act was first introduced, although none of this training included how to deal with nuisance insects. Training courses for EHPs that would enable them to raise their professional capabilities in this area are currently available through numerous suppliers and in many cases result in formally recognised qualifications. Suppliers include: - The Royal Society of Health - Chartered Institute of Housing - Pest control companies - British Pest Control Association - Pesticide companies (various) - ADAS

3.3.2 Sources of information

In order to address nuisance insect problems Local Authorities usually rely on their Environmental Health Department‟s internal sources of information or experience, and general publications such as Identification Guides or Pest Control books. They often work or co-operate with other authorities on nuisance insects, particularly if there is a cross boundary issue and seek advice from staff who have previously dealt with similar problems. Many also belong to local groups such as the Local Authority Pest Liaison Groups which are either county or cross-county based and share best practice and advice. Technical information can be shared through the EHCnet site of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

The majority of the authorities that had dealt with insect nuisance complaints found that they needed to seek additional technical information on the nuisance, with the most widely used source being the EHCnet or the internet, either via a general search or specifically the Defra website.

EHPs also look to a lesser extent to: pest control companies, specialist entomologists, trade associations such as the National Pest Technicians Association (NPTA) and British Pest Control Association (BPCA), insecticide manufacturers, agricultural consultants or the Natural History Museum.

Number of local authorities which Source of advice mentioned source Internet 20 Defra 12 Own sources/experience 7 Publications 7 Pesticide supplier 4 ADAS 3 Pest control books 3 EHC.net 3 Identification book 2 Entomologist 2 NPTA 2 Other Councils 1

Pest liaison group 1 Pest Control Company 1 Local University biologist 1 BCPA 1 Insecticide manufacturers 1 BASF 1 Agricultural consultants 1 Natural History museum 1

Table 1. Sources of advice used by Environmental Health Practitioners

3.3.3 Specific identification of nuisance

Respondents realised the importance of identifying insects to species in order to determine the best treatment and to substantiate their case, particularly if legislative procedures were being considered.

Whilst identification to type of insect (e.g. wasp. bee, ant etc) was said to be relatively easy, identification to species in order to try to identify the potential source has mainly been needed with fly complaints. The most common species identified have been lesser house fly, common house fly and sewage flies.

When trying to identify insects to species level the EHPs would first look to use internal expertise as the most cost-effective means of solving the problem.

Where internal expertise is insufficient, the services of a pest control contractor or pesticide company may be sought as many of the nationally recognised companies offer a free advisory service. The expertise of specialist entomologists or local or National museums may also be used.

Several Local Authorities reported that they would rely on the complainants to obtain the identification of the species concerned and one Local Authority said that they would ask the potential offender to carry this out.

3.3.4 Internal processes

Nearly 70% of Local Authorities reported that they do not have a formal internal procedure or protocol in place to deal with statutory nuisance from insects. Only 15% of these feel the need to develop a formal procedure and these tended to be authorities that had recently dealt with a difficult case.

Where formal procedures were in place these were largely based on the general nuisance procedures under either the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Defra guidelines in Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (see Appendix 2). These may generally be used as they stand although some Authorities have adapted them for their own needs.

As well as investigating nuisance insect complaints under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, any problems associated with food and catering may be dealt with under the Food Safety Act and complaints from private households may be dealt with under the Public Health Act.

All insect nuisance calls were taken seriously. Standard nuisance procedures include visits to complainant‟s properties (although a visit may not always be carried out),

visiting possible sources of nuisance and carrying out an assessment, sending out monitoring sheets or sticky traps to the complainant followed up by informal letters to the alleged source and finally moving to a notice being served if necessary.

In some cases initial assessment of the complaint over the telephone or the complainants being asked to monitor and keep records of the nuisance over a period of time was felt to negate the immediate need for a site visit.

When it was felt that the nuisance may have been associated with manure spreading many Local Authorities would issue the Code of Conduct for manure management devised by a number of councils that is particularly aimed at poultry farmers. This is currently undergoing refinement through the EHCnet and the National Farmer‟s Union. (Appendix 4)

3.4 Identification, assessment and evaluation of information available to EHPs

Currently standard information on how to approach problems associated with nuisance insects is not available in an easy to access and use format. Guidance on what constitutes a problem, how to locate the source, guidelines or protocols that can be issued to the premises with guidance on how to treat the problems, possibly with environmentally friendly products were all requested, particularly in connection with complaints from poultry houses or fly problems generally.

As previously reported all respondents would initially use existing in-house knowledge and expertise to identify insects and only where this is not sufficient or there is a risk of the case going to court would refer to an external body - mainly pest control contractors but also poison or pesticide manufacturers, independent entomologist/consultants, local museum/university or a laboratory, to provide an independent and more detailed identification. As the use of external advice can be costly it is usually avoided unless absolutely necessary.

In all the cases experienced by the respondents the insects that needed to be formally identified have been flies and have been identified to species but recorded and reported by the EHP in the more easily recognised format i.e. common housefly, lesser housefly, bluebottle, cluster fly.

There did not appear to be any pattern in the number of insects examined or sent for examination during an investigation. Responses varied from six; a handful; 12 to 20; small numbers; a representative sample; as many as we need to make a strong case; enough to aid sampling; based on common sense; what we have available and what we catch on the sticky traps.

3.4.1 Currently available information

A range of sources of information on nuisance insects available to EHPs were identified. Technical references were available from textbooks (Robinson, 2005, Busvine, 1980); from refereed publications available through academic sources and fee-paid websites; Chartered Institute of Environmental Health News (http://www.cieh.org/media/news.html) and many other websites, including description and identification, life cycle, nuisance impact (reasons for control), management and control, on nuisance insects from books refereed publications. An internet search of the most commonly identified nuisance insects (flies, fleas, wasps, cockroaches, bedbugs and Harlequin ladybirds) was carried out which

confirmed the findings of the Defra report on insects and climate change (see p.7). Websites fall broadly into the following categories:  Local Authority sites giving generic information on biology, behaviour and control methods. The information available is variable both in quantity and quality, but it is relatively easy to find a fact sheet relating to a species of concern from a reputable source. Whilst these vary in content many seem to have used the same sources (unidentified) to produce an information page on a variety of common species with flies in general, wasps, ants, cockroaches and bedbugs being the main insects featured.

 Pest Control Companies giving some general information on a variety species as a lead-in to advertising their services.

 Chemical companies such as Killgerm, Novartis and Sorex provide technical leaflets which are available free of charge. Some also supply free insect identification although this may be limited to the common insect groups.

Appendix 3 provides an overview of the sources of information from pest control companies and local authorities for the species mentioned above including the type of general information available on each species.

Information on nuisance insect control is also available via a number of publications and websites, some of which are only accessible by subscription.

 Professional Pest Controller – a quarterly magazine which is also available online. This is the journal of the British Pest Management Industry, edited by the British Pest Control Association and covers all aspects of UK pest control. Updates on all nuisance insects are discussed at topical times of the year along with technical inputs on new products and techniques. www.bpca.org.uk

 Pest Control News – an online forum for pest items and articles for pest technicians and others involved in the pest control industry. Provides useful links to other sites and information on pests of all types including nuisance insects. www.pestcontrol-uk.org/news

 Pest Magazine – a bi-monthly printed magazine for all areas of the pest control industry including local authorities. www.pestmagazine.co.uk.

 Pest+ - produced on alternate months to Pest Magazine, Pest+ is available online with updates, news and new products. www.pestmagazine.co.uk/content/pestPlus

 Environmental Health News – the industry newsletter for EHPs produced by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. www.cieh.org/ehn

 Today’s Technician – the official journal of the National Pest Technicians Association published quarterly. www.npta.org.uk

 Government sites – Defra has guidelines available in pdf format available online „Statutory Nuisance from insects and artificial light – Guidance to Sections 101 -103 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005‟. www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/localenv/legislation/cnea/statnuisance.pdf

Scottish Government has a considerable amount of very useful information on their website incorporated into the „Guide to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health (etc) Scotland Act 2008‟. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/01/23142152

 Pestportal – Pest Control Portal is the search engine for the pest control industry leading into areas providing technical information on all aspects of pest management including nuisance insects. www.pestcontrolportal.com

 Pesticide manufacturers – information leaflets and booklets are available free of charge. Novartis UK, the largest manufacturer of fly control products for use in animal units provides a technically based booklet. www.flycontrol.novartis.co.uk

There are a number of academic sites which are accessible by subscription. This information is highly technical and specific and would supply very detailed data. It is unlikely that the majority of EHPs would either have the need or capacity to access these sites but they are mentioned here to complete the findings:

 SCOPUS - the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources. Subscription only, it gives access to many of the research papers on such topics as how far flies travel, biology and behaviours of different insect species, where different species will breed, what attracts insects to premises and how they become nuisance species. www.scopus.com

 Science Direct - An information source for scientific, technical, and medical research. Subscription required for some sections. Provides in depth information on all areas of entomological interest including nuisance insects. www.sciencedirect.com

In addition there are two annual, national pest exhibitions:  Pest-Ex – biennial London based 3 day event sponsored by the BPCA providing exhibitions and seminars on all areas of pest management, updates on techniques and products. www.pestex.org

 Pest-Tech – Midlands based one-day annual event run by the National Pest Technicians Association. This is the largest pest exhibition in Europe and provides access to the latest products and information. www.npta.org.uk

Those that have attended either ADAS or BPCA training courses would have been supplied with the ADAS/BPCA Technical Pest Handbook. The handbook covers the biology and behaviour of both invertebrate and vertebrate pests with information on identification as well as legislation, health and safety aspects and control.

3.4.2 Assessment and Evaluation of information

There is a considerable amount of useful information accessible to EHPs on the whole range of nuisance insects that they are likely to come across during the course of their duties. Most of the information has a fairly low technical content, however in the majority of cases the need is simply to be able to identify the insect to a common

group e.g. wasps, ants, cockroaches etc., in order to advise the complainant on the best course of action.

The web based information was found to be up to date and technically correct however if information of a more technical nature needs to be accessed there are a number of texts listed under the Further Reading section at the end of this report which will provide details of biology and behaviour. Whilst some of these may appear to be dated e.g. ‟Busvine, J.R. (1980) Insects and Hygiene: The biology and control of insect pests of medical and domestic importance‟, the information contained within them remains technically sound and relevant.

Except in cases of fly nuisance the complainant is usually directed to a pest control operator (this will be either a local authority pest control unit, a local authority sub- contractor who may offer concessionary rates or a purely commercial operator) or they may be given an advisory leaflet on how to carry out control themselves if this is appropriate.

In the case of fly nuisance however the source of the nuisance needs to be identified so that the problem can be solved by the owner of the breeding site and further infestations prevented. Information on how to locate the possible source using identification to species of the flies found at the complainant‟s premises and the corresponding likely breeding medium is difficult to locate. This information is only available in the more scientific publications or from consultant entomologists who specialise in control of insects in the environmental health arena. Some manufacturers and/or suppliers of fly control products used in animal units e.g. Novartis UK, Killgerm, Bayer UK will supply, on request, informative booklets that not only give advice on fly control but also detail the differences between different fly species, wing venation and range of breeding sites.

Difficulty also arises once the possible source has been identified and the owner has to be advised on the best method of control for the problem. They cannot easily be directed to a pest control company who will provide the necessary services to rid them of the nuisance. The need for fly control is often spasmodic and seasonal and very few pest control companies offer fly control services because of the difficulties of achieving satisfactory control over any length of time. For this reason controlling flies in animal units is usually carried out by the owner of the business and/or their staff. They may or may not have received relevant training in the use of pesticides or the specialist techniques needed to achieve good control as currently pest control can be carried out without the need for specialist training. None of the EHPs interviewed had the necessary skills in order to offer effective advice in such cases.

Many companies which sell pesticides for the control of flies offer free training courses in fly control to farmers and EHPs, and free identification services, although it was reported that these services are very variable in both their quality and effectiveness.

3.4.3 Gap analysis

The information available was further assessed to determine what additional information would be needed in order for EHPs to be able to carry out the effective investigation of the more complex nuisance insect problems. These inevitably concern problems associated with fly nuisance either from landfill sites, sewage

treatment works or intensive animal production units, particularly egg production sites where large quantities of human or animal waste are stored for long periods of time.

Whilst the information available may help to identify the general insect responsible for the nuisance, once the need for more detailed identification is required so that the potential source of the nuisance can be more readily sought, the information needed is only available to those who can access the specialist sites such as SCOPUS and Science Direct identified in 3.4.1 above.

There are over 6000 species of flies found in the British Isles as detailed in Colyer, C.N. & Hammond, C.O. 1968, Flies of the British Isles, and Warne and Oldroyd, H. 1964, The Natural History of Flies, both of which give extensive information on the potential breeding sites for each group of flies. It is important that EHPs are familiar with the more common species that may be the cause of nuisance complaints and be able to distinguish between species that may appear at first glance to be very similar. For example the autumn cluster fly (Musca autumnalis), the common housefly (Musca domestica) and the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans) all look very similar to the untrained eye and have all been the subject of nuisance complaints however they have significantly different biology and behaviour. Knowledge of these differences can help those investigating potential sources to more readily identify where they should concentrate their efforts however areas detailing the commonality and differences between such species are not easily available.

The advice for the control of the more easily identified nuisance insects such as wasps and ants relies heavily on the householder employing a pest control company to carry out a targeted control programme which will quickly eradicate the problem and when coupled with improvements in hygiene and proofing will usually result in permanent removal of the problem. This is usually a one-off problem, however social housing in certain areas and institutions such as older prisons may have nuisance insect problems such as cockroaches, fleas and bedbugs associated with them on an almost permanent basis (fig.3). Again these are dealt with by pest control companies using routine visits and treatments at sites where it is known that these insects recur regularly.

A gap in expertise and information lies in determining and carrying out effective treatments when flies are the cause of the complaint. Effective advice is available for control of specific problems such as the seasonal treatment in autumn and spring of cluster fly problems. The wide range of potential sources for nuisance species such as common house fly (Musca domestica) and lesser house fly (Fannia canicularis) and the lack of trained technicians to carry out effective control at sites such as intensive animal units leave EHPs (who may only come across these problems once or twice during their careers), struggling to decide on the best course of action.

One of the objectives of the survey was to determine if there was a need for additional guidance to further assist EHPs and if this was found to be the case to identify the type of guidance that could be offered.

This need for additional advice was voiced by the EHPs in the case of fly nuisance, particularly when associated with egg production units. Cases of good practice that also offer practical examples of how nuisance fly problems that were reported to Local Authorities and have been dealt with effectively were identified.

There are a very small number of specialist consultancies advising EHPs and business owners about cases of nuisance insects and particularly those most difficult to solve problems associated with fly nuisance.

The information detailed below relates to successful cases dealt with by the authors (ADAS) which illustrate how co-operation, thorough investigation of the problems and innovative solutions can lead to a satisfactory conclusion for all concerned. Some examples of good practice for operators are to be found at Appendix 4.

4 Practical Examples and case studies of good practice

4.1 Landfill Site, South-West England (ADAS UK Ltd) Introduction Complaints by householders about nuisance flies believed to be emanating from a rural landfill site were relayed without investigation to the site owners by the Environmental Health Dept of the Local Authority. The site owners did not believe that they had a fly problem at the site and were therefore reluctant to accept blame for the problem. There was no evidence available to either support or refute the claims of the householders. The site owners therefore decided to employ consultants to help them manage the problem.

Requirements 1. Confirmation of the species and numbers of flies that were triggering complaints from the householders. 2. Development of a monitoring system that would allow the site owners to understand the species and numbers of flies at the landfill site. 3. Assessment of the methods of waste handling utilised at the site with a view to modifying practices that would tend to favour the breeding of nuisance flies.

Methods Sticky traps were used to sample the populations of flies causing a nuisance to householders. The traps consisted of a white styrene sheet 30 cm x 20 cm coated on one side with a non-drying glue. Traps were placed in the dwellings of the complainants, in areas where the householder considered the problem to be most severe. These traps were exchanged weekly for fresh traps and the numbers and species of flies on the used traps were recorded. Identical sticky traps were also used to sample the flies on the landfill site. Twenty traps were deployed around the site in April. Weekly, these were replaced with fresh traps and the flies on the used traps were identified and counted by an entomologist. The weekly monitoring was maintained until October. Site visits were made by an experienced entomologist to assess the waste handling methods used on the site and report on their potential to lead to fly nuisance problems.

Results The flies caught on the traps in domestic premises were relatively small in number. Common house flies, bluebottles, lesser houseflies and other species of little or no nuisance value were all caught, but numbers and species composition were very variable between traps. The most significant species caught, however, was the stable fly or biting house fly, Stomoxys calcitrans, which was frequently the most numerous species at the premises of the most vociferous complainant. At the landfill site, relatively small numbers of common house flies were trapped, usually close to the working face of the site. These were supplemented by species of cluster fly, including the yellow cluster fly Pollenia rudis and the green cluster fly Eudasyphora cyanella. Stomoxys was sometimes found on traps situated close to a green waste composting area. There were also flies more associated with the grazing of animals, such as greenbottles, dung flies and crane flies, supplemented by a range of others with no nuisance value. On-site observations confirmed that, on occasion, the exposed flanks of tipped waste were inadequately covered with soil by the machine operator on site at the end of each working day. This left material potentially exposed to ovipositing flies.

Conclusions There was no clear evidence that flies emanating from the landfill site were responsible for causing a nuisance in the premises of the complainants. The number of nuisance flies at the landfill site was not excessive compared with other sites, and the main complainants premises were situated more than 500m from the boundaries of the site, where the risk of flies transferring from the site to domestic premises is already diminishing.

Outcomes Investigation of the premises of the main complainant showed that the occupier was involved in equine pursuits. There was a large manure heap close to the premises. The stable fly/biting house fly breeds in straw waste material that is contaminated with urine or faeces. This fly has always been common wherever horses are kept. It seems in this instance that the complainant had been mistaking the stable flies that he found in his premises for common house flies and had concluded that they must therefore have come from the landfill site. The two species are similar in size and conformation and it is not surprising that a non-specialist might confuse the two. In fact, the problem originated literally in his own back yard.

The presence of stable fly/biting house fly at the landfill site could be accounted for by the presence of large quantities of mixed garden waste at the site, being composted. This material was a possible source of breeding opportunity for the fly.

Improvements were made to the daily covering of the flanks of exposed waste, which resulted in lower trap catches of common houseflies and bluebottles on the landfill site.

There was an interesting spin-off from the monitoring of flies at the landfill site, which has been done on an annual basis since the original complaint was investigated. In 2005, the number of common house flies trapped at the site, which had been fairly constant though at a low level, began to decline, and at the same time the numbers of a new species caught on the sticky traps began to increase. This new species proved difficult to identify, but was eventually recognised as Hydrotaea aenescens, known as the black dump fly in the US. H. aenescens is a non-indigenous species of Pacific Island origin that has now become the dominant species in refuse dumps in the US and continental Europe, and this was the first record of it at a landfill site in the UK. The larvae of H. aenescens and those of the common house fly prefer similar habitats, but where the two occur together the former will eventually predominate as its larvae will kill those of the latter. The reverse does not occur.

Hydrotaea aenescens has subsequently been found at two more landfill sites in the UK.

4.2 Municipal Landfill Site Reference: Lole, M.J. (2005) Nuisance flies and landfill activities: an investigation at a West Midlands landfill site. 23: 420 – 428 Waste Management & Research online.

Introduction A large municipal landfill site, owned by a City Authority, was located within the boundaries of a second Local Authority. The Environmental Health Dept of this second authority began to receive complaints from local residents about flies causing a nuisance in domestic premises. The residents suspected that the cause of the

problem was mass breeding of flies at the landfill site, some of which then dispersed in significant numbers into properties surrounding the site. Properties up to 5 miles away claimed to be affected. A dispute arose between the two authorities. The City Authority did not accept that its site was producing excessive numbers of flies. The Local Authority believed that it was, and that this was responsible for causing a nuisance in properties within its jurisdiction.

Fig. 4 Typical landfill operation

The fly nuisance problem occurring in the locality was severe enough for the local media, and eventually the BBC, to take an interest. The subsequent publicity prompted the two authorities into action and joint funding was provided for some investigational work by a third party.

Requirements The brief given to the investigating consultants required the following: 1. Confirmation of the fly species causing complaints from local residents 2. An assessment of the severity of the problem in premises at different geographical locations. 3. An assessment of the nuisance flies population on the landfill site, including species composition and numbers present. 4. An assessment of the potential of flies to disperse from the landfill site. 5. Recommendations for the resolution of the dispute.

Methods Sticky traps situated in premises were used to sample the flies present. Twenty premises, ranging from houses to a factory canteen, a hotel and the clubhouse of a golf club, took part; all had previously complained about nuisance flies. The premises were between 250m and 2500m from the centre of the landfill site. Traps, consisting of a white styrene sheet 30 cm x 20 cm coated on one side with non-drying glue, were placed in areas within premises which property-owners considered to be most prone to fly activity. Monitoring took place between late May and late September in 2003, with traps being replaced at approximately weekly intervals. Trap catches were assessed for number and species of potential nuisance fly present.

Sticky traps were also used to monitor the fly population at the landfill site. In this instance, they were attached to plywood rectangles mounted on wooden posts and were placed close to the working areas of the site. Again, monitoring took place

between May and September, with trap catches being identified and counted at weekly intervals.

The size of the fly population at the landfill site and the potential of flies generated at the site to disperse into neighbouring properties were investigated using a mark- release-recapture technique. It had been quickly established that the main cause of the problem in the locality was the common house fly, Musca domestica, so this species was used for the work. Common house flies were mass-reared so that 50,000 pupae were available. These were taken to the landfill site and placed in shallow trays where they were covered in sand admixed with a blue oil-based dye. The ptilinum (an air-sac used to aid emergence from the puparium) of an adult fly emerging from the pupae becomes coated with dye during emergence. Once emergence is complete the ptilinum is withdrawn into the head of the fly and it is not redeployed. The fly therefore carries a permanent marking within its head. Captured, marked flies can be identified if the head is crushed with an implement carrying a small amount of solvent (in this case acetone). The solvent instantly turns blue if the fly was marked but remains clear if the fly was not one of the self-marked individuals. The size of a fly population can be estimated by releasing a known number of marked individuals of the same species into the area that contains that population. After a short period in which the flies can mingle, samples are taken and the proportion of marked individuals in the mixed population determined. As the number of marked individuals that was released is known, the size of the original wild population can be calculated by a simple mathematical formula. Self-marked flies can also be used to investigate the dispersal of flies from the point of release. In this case, where flies were released on the landfill site, individuals caught up to 3 weeks after the release date, on sticky traps in premises up to 2500m from the site, were checked for the presence of dye. Marked flies must have originated from the site, indicating the timing, direction and distance of dispersal.

Results Trapping flies in the premises of complainants showed that 95.6% of individuals involved in nuisance complaints were common house flies, Musca domestica. It also became evident that the closer a trap site was to the landfill site the higher the catch of M. domestica was likely to be. This provided some circumstantial evidence that the landfill site was making a significant contribution to nuisance fly problems in its vicinity. Trapping flies on the landfill site also confirmed the importance of common house fly at the site. This species comprised 61.9% of all flies trapped on the site. Most of the remainder consisted of two families of flies associated with grazing land rather than waste. Comparing the mean number of common house flies caught on sticky traps at the landfill site in question with the mean numbers caught simultaneously at four other sites showed the catches at the suspect site to be substantially higher (a mean of 24.6 flies/trap/week) than at any of the others (4.1, 0.6, 0.3 and 0.2 flies/trap/week respectively). When 50,000 common houseflies were released on the landfill site and the population was subsequently re-sampled, the marked flies were found to comprise about 8% of the population. The ratio of marked flies to unmarked flies was therefore about 1:11, indicating that the population of common house flies at the site at the time the marked flies were released was in excess of 500,000. This is a substantial population, and, as subsequent work at other sites has indicated, well in excess of what might be expected at such a site. Of the 50,000 marked common house flies released at the site, 12 were recaptured on sticky traps in premises neighbouring the site over a period of 8 days. Most were recaptured in a premises within 250m of the site but two individuals were recaptured

1200m and 1600m away respectively. This indicated that flies originating at the site did have the potential to disperse into premises up to 1600m away, albeit in relatively small numbers.

Conclusions  Common house fly was overwhelmingly the cause of the nuisance complaints from householders and business owners.  Common house fly was present in large numbers (>500,000 individuals) at the landfill site and so was probably breeding there.  Proximity to the landfill site increased the probability of significant numbers of nuisance flies being present in buildings.  Nuisance flies in buildings more than 1600m from the site may not have been associated with the site.  There were more common house flies at the landfill site in question than at similar sites elsewhere.

Outcomes As a result of the investigations, the authority owning the site accepted the fact that the site was making a significant contribution to the number of complaints of fly nuisance in the locality. The problem was then taken seriously, and steps were taken to improve the management of the waste so that the breeding of common house flies at the site was reduced. A permanent monitoring scheme was set up so that managers had a record of changes in fly populations at the site and could react to these.

The problem was resolved when the City Authority changed its method of transporting municipal waste to the site. At the time the problems were occurring the waste was being compacted into compressed cubical bales, with sides of approximately 2m, at transfer stations. These bales were then put onto lorries for transport to the site. At the site the bales were stacked to await covering with soil. To prevent flies having access to the compressed waste hessian sacking was draped over the stacks. However, this sacking was easily damaged or displaced by winds and as a result flies usually had easy access to the material, which provided an effective breeding site. When the City Authority stopped baling its waste and delivered it loose to the site instead, the waste was tipped, bulldozed into position, compacted and then covered with a thin layer of soil. This change resulted in flies having minimal access to deposited waste for breeding purposes and as a consequence populations of common house fly at the site fell almost immediately (as confirmed by the sticky-trap monitoring system).

The number of nuisance complaints from neighbouring premises also fell at this time. Fly populations at the site have now been monitored for 6 years and have remained low, with no recurrence of the problem.

4.3 Energy from Waste Power Plant (ADAS UK Ltd) Introduction A sophisticated plant, built to produce electricity from the burning of pulverised municipal waste, became the subject of nuisance complaints during the commissioning process. The plant was designed to accept several thousand tonnes of municipal waste weekly. This waste was delivered to large reception bunkers, where it would normally remain for a maximum of 3 days before being shredded and burned. Difficulties arising during the commissioning of the plant resulted in the

longer-term storage of waste in the reception bunkers. Complaints about flies began to be received after waste had been kept on site for about 4 weeks. The Environment Agency issued notices regarding mitigation of the nuisance.

Consultants were therefore employed to visit and assess the site, to confirm that flies were breeding there, to confirm the identity of the flies involved in local nuisance complaints and to make recommendations that would result in improved fly management at the site.

Requirements 1. Independent assessment of the potential for fly breeding at the site. 2. Confirmation of the identity of any flies present at the site. 3. Confirmation of the identity of flies involved in nuisance complaints. 4. Recommendations for action to mitigate the potential for problems in the future.

Methods An experienced entomologist visited the site to assess the potential for fly breeding to occur there. Sticky traps were used to sample the fly population present at the site. Sticky traps were also used to sample the flies present in the complainants‟ premises. A report was issued that identified where the problem was occurring and which made recommendations for future management of any fly nuisance.

Results At the time of the entomologist‟s visit some municipal solid waste had been present in the reception bunker for more than 6 weeks and it was clear that active breeding was occurring in this waste. The species involved (confirmed by the sticky trapping) were mainly common house flies (Musca domestica) and black dump flies (Hydrotaea aenescens). There was also evidence of some breeding in a pit used to store shredded waste immediately prior to burning, but nowhere else at the site appeared to have the potential to act as a source of fly breeding. The flies that were the cause of the complaints from nearby premises were confirmed as common house flies. It was possible that these originated from the EfW plant although this was not directly confirmed.

Conclusions It was likely, from observations made and the trapping of flies,that during the delayed commissioning of the plant the Energy from Waste site had been acting as the source of the local nuisance fly problem at the time of the complaints being made. The plant was not designed for the long-term storage of waste, which was where the root of the problem lay. In the normal course of events, when municipal waste would be delivered to site and burned to provide energy within 3 days, there seemed to be little potential for fly breeding to occur on site and therefore a small risk of fly nuisance arising locally.

It was therefore necessary to devise a plan to guide actions when breakdowns resulted in the accumulation of unburned waste at the site.

Outcomes A permanent fly monitoring system was set up at the site to give managers advanced warning if and when populations began to rise. The use of insecticides at the plant would be guided by the outcome of the fly monitoring.

If maintenance was planned at the site, delivery of waste was to be halted in sufficient time to ensure that any waste in the reception bunkers would be processed and burned rather than remaining to act as a source of fly breeding. If a breakdown occurred at the plant which lasted for more than 14 days then all waste present in the reception bunker at that time was to be removed to landfill.

To date, fly nuisance problems have not recurred at the site.

4.4 Fly nuisance from an intensive poultry unit (ADAS UK Ltd) Introduction A large egg production unit was the alleged cause of fly nuisance complaints in a village, particularly at two residential properties and a public house with restaurant that were within 200 metres of the unit. The public house had been forced to stop serving food and close its garden seating because of the large numbers of flies present.

Fig. 5 Modern deep pit poultry houses

The Environmental Health Officers covering the area had been unable to confirm the source of the nuisance problem. Consultants were employed by the Local Authority to visit and assess the area, to identify areas where flies were breeding, to confirm the identity of the flies involved in local nuisance complaints and to make recommendations that would result in improved fly management in the district.

Requirements 1 Independent assessment of the potential for fly breeding at sites within the district. 2 Confirmation of the identity of any flies found at these sites. 3 Confirmation of the identity of flies involved in nuisance complaints. 4 Recommendations for action to mitigate the potential for problems in the future.

Methods An experienced entomologist visited the area to assess the potential for fly breeding to occur there. Sticky traps were used to sample the fly populations at complainant‟s premises and the egg production unit. A report was issued that identified where the problem was occurring and which made recommendations for future management of any fly nuisance.

Results At the time of the entomologist‟s visit a significant number of flies were collected from the main complainant‟s premises and the egg production unit and these were identified under laboratory conditions. The flies found at the two adjacent residential properties were largely found to be species associated with aquatic environments. One of these properties had a very large pond in the garden and the same species were collected from trees around this pond. The flies at the public house and associated restaurant were found to be the same species as that found at the egg production unit although the unit was found to be compliant with Best Practice and the numbers of flies found there were minimal and at levels unlikely to cause a nuisance locally. Examination of the public house revealed that poor kitchen practice was at the root of the problem. The large wheelie bins at the rear of the kitchen and adjacent to the garden were found to have a layer of rotting food approximately 10 cms. deep which was a writhing mass of fly larvae and pupae. The adjacent ditch had been used to dump used oil from their deep fat fryers and fly larvae were also found to be present in this ditch.

Conclusions From observations made and the trapping of flies in a variety of circumstances it was obvious that the nuisance flies were not coming from the egg production unit as first thought and that the nuisance was emanating from the complainant‟s properties. This highlights the significance of obtaining formal identification of the flies causing the nuisance. This can often point the investigator in the direction of the source, as the species will often develop in a typical and quite specific environment. It is often difficult to identify a single source of fly nuisance in a rural environment. There may be many sources producing small but significant numbers of the same species of fly. By working together with a specialist consultant it is possible to achieve a solution that is acceptable to all parties without having to resort to legislative procedures.

Outcomes The domestic premises were fitted with fly screening on the windows and doors and the conifers where flies had been found to be resting were cut back. A contractor was engaged to regularly clean the bins at the public house/restaurant and the staff given additional hygiene training. Fly nuisance problems have not recurred in the area.

4.5 Nuisance insects associated with sewage treatment works

Sewage flies are associated with the bio-filter type treatment process used at sewage treatment works in the purification of waste water before discharge to the receiving water course.

On occasion fly numbers can be numerous and can be the cause of nuisance to local residents and businesses at different times of the year. However the nuisance caused by these flies can be minimised by the use of appropriate control methods either individually or combined. Innovative thought is often required.

The problem of nuisance insects associated with sewage treatment works has been the subject of a separate study ‘Insect Nuisance Associated with Sewage Treatment Works’ 2006, produced by the Central Science Laboratory on behalf of Defra and a number of case studies are detailed in that publication.

A Draft Annex to the OFWAT Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance at Sewage Treatment Works covering Nuisance Insects and based on this report is currently undergoing a consultation process. For that reason only a small amount of time was spent in talking to specialist scientists who are employed by water companies to deal with these problems.

Three water companies were contacted to discuss how they dealt with problems associated with nuisance insects and their most significant cases are summarised below:

Case 1: Sylvicola fenestralis and Chironomidae mixed population Sylvicola fenestralis is a fly that is dominant during late spring/ early summer, whilst Chironomidae are dominant during the summer period. The customer experienced nuisance in the house (S. fenestralis) and in the garden (Chironomidae). The main control method recommended was special netting installed across the surface of the bio-filter. A film develops upon the netting which impedes fly emergence and reproduction, but the film takes up to 6 months to fully develop. To manage the nuisance during the maturation period the bio-filters were treated with a larvicide to reduce the number of emerging adults and the domestic property misted with an approved public health product by specialist contractors. Two years after installation of the netting there has been no further recurrence of the nuisance.

Case 2: Psychoda sp (the Owl Midge) Numbers of Psychoda sp are generally higher during May – October. As they are very weak fliers they are not normally associated with nuisance unless numbers are very high and the neighbour very close. In the 1980s an Abatement Notice was issued on a works with high levels of Psychoda sp in response to complaints to a single neighbour. The sensitivity of the treatment processes precluded the use of fly netting over the surface of the bed or the use of the larvicide product. A novel use of the fly netting was therefore devised. The product was installed vertically to provide a physical barrier behind which the fly was retained. This novel application proved to be very successful in retaining this type of fly.

Case 3: Not a Sewage Fly In this case a neighbour to the sewage treatment works complained of fly nuisance. The neighbour had collected a sample of flies which were the source of the nuisance. The sewage works, tanks and all aspects of the treatment process were inspected to determine if similar flies were present on the sewage works. Flies found at the sewage treatment works were significantly smaller than the flies produced by the

householder as the cause of the nuisance. Since no comparable flies were found at the sewage treatment works the samples were sent to a qualified public health entomologist for identification. It was confirmed that the flies from the sewage treatment works were species of filter flies (Psychoda spp.) whereas the flies causing the nuisance were not known to be associated with sewage treatment works being mainly two species of cluster flies (Pollenia rudis – common cluster fly and Musca autumnalis – autumn cluster fly).

5 Conclusions

Over the last three years insect nuisance complaints were received by nearly two thirds of the authorities interviewed with poultry houses or farms being the most common cause of complaints. Sewage treatment works, animal housing, manure/silage storage areas and landfill site/refuse tips each accounted for at least 10% of the complaints.

Flies were the most common nuisance and were the cause of all complaints about poultry houses or farms and the primary complaint about all other premises listed in Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

Just over one fifth of the authorities that received insect nuisance complaints went on to issue an Abatement Notice and these were all associated with fly nuisance.

The teams within the authorities that deal with insect nuisance cases vary considerably in size and are made up of either Pest Control or Environmental Health Officers with the appropriate professional training but no training specific to insects.

Overall, there is a pattern of lack of formal internal procedure or protocol to address statutory nuisance from an insect perspective or the need to create one. Where procedures are in place these are largely based on either the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Defra guidelines in Section 101 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Whilst some authorities feel that these general guidelines are sufficient for their needs or do not have enough complaints to warrant anything else, those authorities that have had to deal with fly nuisance would appreciate more guidance.

Concerns were raised by EHPs regarding the lack of training, see comments at 3.3.1 and also the lack of guidance that is specific to insects, particularly in relation to poultry houses and flies – what constitutes a problem, how to locate the source, a protocol that can be issued to premises and how to treat the problem (including environmentally friendly methods). To address this we have identified a number of documents that should assist, see 3.4.1 and Appendices, 3, 4 and 5.

Local Authorities realised the importance of identifying insects to species in order to determine the best treatment and to substantiate the case, and site visits to determine the extent and source of the problem, particularly if there was a likelihood that they were going to prosecute. Identification would initially be carried out using internal expertise or identification guides and pest control books, but in cases where this is insufficient the services of a pest control contractor or pesticide company may be sought. In some cases initial assessment of the complaint over the telephone or complainants being asked to monitor and keep records of the nuisance over a period of time was felt to negate the need for a site visit.

Where in-house knowledge is insufficient, authorities will look to pest control or pesticide companies or the Defra website for advice, they will liaise with other authorities on cross boarder issues and many belong to local groups to share best practice as well as making use of the resources available on EHC.net.

Where available, the technical literature to send out to complainants is generally nuisance or insect specific rather than being specific to nuisance insects. Whilst some authorities feel the their low level of complaints does not warrant the need for literature, there were requests for information detailing insect identification and what to do next, what constitutes a nuisance and the identification and lifecycle of flies.

6 Suggestions

The gap analysis discussed at section 3.4.3 revealed a lack of available information covering specific identification of nuisance flies and technical guidance on how to conduct an effective investigation which will result in a solution to the problem without having to resort to the issuing of an Abatement Notice which will often be appealed at considerable cost in time and money to both the business owner and Local Authority.

6.1 Identification of nuisance insects Whilst it has been recognised that the majority of nuisance insects can be readily identified without specialist knowledge and dealt with effectively, the formal identification of flies to species is an essential part of investigating these often difficult cases. Correct and speedy identification of the species underpins the whole investigative process in such cases.

It is suggested that where in-house expertise is not available to identify the flies to species level, that expert identification is sought at the earliest opportunity so that time is not wasted in assessing unlikely sources of the nuisance.

6.2 How to conduct an effective investigation into insect nuisance In order to ensure that effective investigation of nuisance insect problems is carried out by all local authority EHPs the following guide (Fig. 6) has been drawn up using the experience of those EHPs who have had to deal with cases which have resulted in court cases, and specialist entomologists from ADAS who have acted as expert witnesses in such cases.

It is suggested that these guidelines are made available to EHPs on the CIEH EHCnet.

6.3 Technical guidance concerning Best Practicable Means As previously stated the predominant cause of nuisance insect complaints that have been investigated by EHPs and have been the subject of Abatement Orders have been associated with egg production units. Specific guidance on how to deal with these premises was requested. There are fundamentally two types of units in the UK and deep pit production has been the predominant cause of complaint.

At Appendix 5 is a document that has been compiled by ADAS specialist entomologists as a guide to Best Practicable Means (BPM) for use in deep pit poultry units and has been tested as such in a number of nuisance insect court cases. It should be stressed that these are simply guidelines and would need to be adapted for individual premises depending on the systems in place. A document which has been adapted for use in free range egg production units is also appended although this has not been used in cases of litigation.

It is suggested that these documents can be used by EHPs to help them to assess if an egg producer is using BPM and to advise the producer if it is felt that there are areas of their fly control programme that could be improved.

Also included for completeness at Appendix 4 is the draft Code of Practice for manure management that is undergoing refinement through the EHCnet and the National Farmer‟s Union. Although manure spreading to agricultural land is not directly covered by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 it is often thought by EHPs and local residents to be a contributory factor. The document is given to egg producers as a guide when manure from their units is to be spread to land.

RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT Fig 6 Investigation of RECORD DETAILS nuisance insect problems VISIT PROPERTY (particularly flies) COLLECT REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE

PROPERLY IDENTIFY SPECIES

DEPT. SKILLS PROFESSIONAL

GENUINE PROBLEM NOT A PROBLEM INSECT VISIT LOCAL PROPERTIES PPPPROPERTIESPROPERTI EXPLAIN WHY IDENTIFYES EXTENT OF PROBLEM IN THE AREA PROVIDE ADVICE ON CONTROL/HYGIENE

PROPERLY IDENTIFY SPECIES

USE LITERATURE TO IDENTIFY LIKELY BREEDING MEDIUM OF SPECIES

IDENTIFY LIKELY BREEDING SITES WITHIN 2KM OF COMPLAINT

VISIT ALL POTENTIAL SOURCES

DISCUSS REASON FOR VISIT WITH MANAGER

LOOK FOR ADULT INSECTS AND BREEDING SITES

IF NOT FOUND IF FOUND RECORD FINDINGS FOR ALERT MANAGER – MAY NEED FUTURE REFERENCE ASSISTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL TO CONFIRM FINDINGS AND ADVISE

AGREE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLAN NOT AGREED

CONFIRM IN WRITING

MONITOR PREMISES FOR NO FURTHER INSTIGATION AND PROBLEMS/COMPLAINTS EFFECTIVENESS OF AGREED PLAN NO FURTHER ACTION ISSUE ABATEMENT NOTICE TAKING 37 NON-COMPLIANCE EXPERT ADVICE

List of figures/tables

Fig.1 Average numbers of nuisance insects‟ complaints recorded per county per year. p.11 Fig.2 Numbers of complaints received according to type of premises (alleged source) p.12 Fig.3 Types of nuisance insects recorded p.15 Fig.4 Typical landfill operation p.26 Fig.5 Modern Deep pit poultry houses p.30 Fig.6 Investigation of nuisance insect problems p.36

Table 1 Sources of advice used by EHPs p.17

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by Defra. We would like to thank the Temple Group and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology for their expert advice throughout the project.

Appendix 1

Defra - Insect Survey 2009

Good morning/afternoon, my name is xxx from England Marketing. We are carrying out some research on behalf of Defra - We are talking to local authorities to understand the extent to which statutory nuisance from insects is a problem , how they are currently dealt with and whether there is a need to establish some further guidelines for dealing with them. Are you the person that would deal with this type of complaint? Section 101 of the clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduces statutory nuisance from insects: '(FA) any insects emanating from relevant industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health and or nuisance

If I could first ask about the areas you cover

Q1 How many people within your authority are responsible for statutory nuisance from insects cases? 1...... 2...... 3...... 4...... 5...... If more than one -how is the work divided - by area / speciality?

Q2 What specific training have you had for dealing with insect nuisance?

Q3 Do you work and/or co-operate with other local authorities on nuisance insects? Yes ...... No ......

Q4 Are you already or do you expect to become a Unitary Authority? Yes ...... Go to Question 5 No...... Go to Question 6

Q5 Will this affect the way you work (i.e. will you still be in the same role?) Yes ...... No ...... Comments

Ad hoc insect nuisance cases Q6 Has your authority dealt with any insect nuisance complaints within the last 3 years? Yes ...... Go to Question 7 No...... Go to Question 10

Q7 What types of premises have the compliant(s) been about? (Rank if more than one mentioned i.e. 1 = most number of complaints from) Poultry houses / farms...... Sewage treatment works ...... Animal housing ...... Manure / silage storage areas ...... Stagnant ditches and drains ...... Landfill sites / refuse tips ...... Waste transfer premises...... The commercial parts of mixed commercial / residential blocks of buildings...... Trade or business premises ...... Slaughterhouses...... Used car tyre recycling businesses ...... Other......

Q8 Which type of insects were involved? (Rank if more than one mentioned i.e. 1 = most number of complaints from) Flies ...... Midges ......

Mosquito ...... Flea...... Aphid ...... Wasp/hornet ...... Termite ...... Woodworm ...... Cockroach ...... Bedbug ...... Weevil...... Harlequin ladybird...... Other......

Q9 Did you look for any information on the nuisance? Yes (where from?) ...... No ......

Where from? - (Intranet, Internet, publications) - Did you find what you needed?

Q10 Do you have an internal protocol /procedure in place to deal with such cases? Yes ...... Go to Question 12 No...... Go to Question 11

Q11 Is this something you feel you will need to develop? Yes (see below)...... Go to Question 14 No...... Go to Question 14 Do you envisage needing help? What? Where will you look for guidance?

Q12 What is this based on? Act guidelines? Has it been modified internally? (Can we have copies?)

Q13 Is this sufficient or do you see the need for further guidelines? By type of insect and / or type of premises?

Q14 Do you always carry out a site visit? Yes ...... No ...... Comments

Q15 Do you have any technical literature that you send out to complainants? (Where have these come from - in-house or else where - can we have copies? If No - would some be useful to you? ) Yes ...... No ...... Comments

Q16 If Q6 = YES - Has your authority issued any Abatement Notices concerning nuisance insects in the last 3 years? Yes ...... No ......

Q17 Did / would you consult a specialist before issuing an Abatement Notice to advise on content? Yes ...... No ...... Comments

Q18 Did / would you have a meeting with business owner and specialists on both sides (if involved) in order to try to reach an agreed approach to the problem before issuing a Notice? Probe – What measures (if any) were prescribed? How successful were they? What (if any) lessons were learned? Yes ...... No ...... Comments

Q19 Who identified / would identify the species involved?

Q20 If Q16 = Yes - Did the business appeal? Yes ...... Go to Question 21 No...... Go to Question 22

Q21 What was the result of the appeal?

Planning process Q22 Does your authority consider nuisance insects during the planning process? Yes ...... No ......

Q23 Have you ever refused planning permission because of the threat of nuisance insects? Yes ...... Go to Question 24 No...... Go to Question 26

Q24 Did the applicants appeal Yes ...... No ......

Q25 What was the result of the appeal?

Q26 Thank you - that is the end of my questions unless you have got anything else you would like to add?

Demographics Q27 Type of authority County Council ...... District council ...... Borough council...... Metropolitan district ...... Unitary ...... Q28 Area England ...... Wales ......

Appendix 2 Defra Guidance to statutory nuisance from insects

1 This guidance covers sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which amend sections 79, 80 and 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to extend the statutory nuisance regime to include two new statutory nuisances: • statutory nuisance from insects; and • statutory nuisance from artificial light. 2 This guidance is aimed at local authorities, particularly Environmental Health Practitioners who enforce nuisance legislation. It may also be useful to other agencies.

Central Principles 3 These changes extend the duty on local authorities to check their areas periodically for existing and potential statutory nuisances so as now to include such nuisances arising from insects and from artificial lighting. Local authorities must take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of such nuisances. Once satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or may occur or recur, local authorities must issue an abatement notice (in accordance with section 80(1) and (2) of the 1990 Act) against, in the first instance, the person responsible for the nuisance or, where that person cannot be found or the nuisance has not yet occurred, the owner or occupier of the premises from which it emanates, requiring that the nuisance cease or be abated within a set timescale. (Where a nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character, the abatement notice must be served on the owner of the premises.) 4 It also becomes possible for persons aggrieved by these new statutory nuisances to take private proceedings in respect of them in the magistrates‟ court by way of section 82 of the 1990 Act. 5 The appeals procedure is as for the other statutory nuisances. An appeal against an abatement notice can be made to the Magistrates‟ Courts. As grounds for appeal, the claim of „best practicable means‟ can be used against an abatement notice, or subsequently as a defence against liability for conviction for breaching or failing to comply with an abatement notice, for nuisances on industrial, trade or business premises. In the case of artificial light nuisance, this defence of „best practicable means‟ also applies to all such lighting used for the outdoor illumination of „relevant‟ sports (please see the proposed list under the healthy living and sports section). (In the case of smoke nuisance, it applies to any premises, but only where the smoke is emitted from a chimney.) 6 The defence of „reasonable excuse‟ or breaching or failing to comply with an abatement notice remains available to all. 7 A statutory nuisance may also be capable of being a nuisance at common law (and, where reliance is on the „nuisance‟ limb, must also be a nuisance at common law), in which case an operator may be the subject of proceedings in tort by persons aggrieved by a common law nuisance even if the operator can rely on the defence of „best practicable means‟ against action for statutory nuisance.

Section 101 8 Section 101 adds to the descriptions of statutory nuisances listed in section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: ‘(fa) any insects emanating from relevant industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance’. 9 This provision does not apply to insects from domestic premises or to insects listed in Schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, unless they are included in that Schedule solely to prevent their trade or sale. 10 This measure is intended to provide local authorities with a remedy to nuisances from insect infestations (whether naturally occurring or caused by human activities) on

„relevant‟ industrial, trade or business premises. However, it is not meant to be used against most naturally occurring concentrations of insects on open land or in ways that would adversely affect biodiversity. Accordingly, subsection (5) inserts two new subsections (7C) and (7D) into section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which exclude from the definition of „relevant‟ industrial, trade and business premises: (a) land used as arable, grazing, meadow or pasture land (but not structures placed on the land), (b) land used as osier land, reed beds, or woodland, (c) land used for market gardens, nursery grounds or orchards, (d) land forming part of an agricultural unit (but not covered by (a) to (c)) and which is of a description specified in regulations, (e) land included in a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and land covered by, and the waters of, rivers, watercourses (except sewers and drains), lakes and ponds. 11 Land which falls under (d) above is described by regulations. These regulations prescribe the descriptions of land under s.79(7C)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (introduced by s.101(5) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005), that form part of an agricultural unit and which are (in addition to the types of land already listed at s.79(7C) (a)-(c)) to be exempt from „relevant industrial etc. premises‟ from which the new statutory nuisance from insects (s.79(1)(fa) Environmental Protection Act 1990) is capable of emanating. Certain types of land are exempted from being capable of statutory nuisance from insects in order to safeguard endangered species, and protect biodiversity.

Section 102 12 Section 102 adds to the descriptions of statutory nuisances listed in section 79(1) of the 1990 Act ‘(fb) artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’. 13 However, this does not include artificial light emitted from the following premises. These are premises used for transport purposes and other premises where high levels of light are required for safety and security reasons, i.e.: • Airports • Harbours • Railway premises • Tramway premises • Bus stations and associated facilities • Public service vehicle operating centres • Goods vehicle operating centres • Lighthouses • Prisons • Premises occupied for Defence purposes Guidance on using the new powers General Assessing complaints of nuisance 17 Statutory nuisance from insects and statutory nuisance from artificial light from premises follow the same regime as for other statutory nuisances. That is, it is initially for an Environmental Health Practitioner to assess on the evidence available whether or not a statutory nuisance exists, or may occur or recur, on a case-by-case basis. Not least because it will depend on their effects, there are no objective and set levels of insect infestation or artificial light above which a statutory nuisance is or may be caused, and below which it is not. 18 „Nuisance‟ is not defined in statute, but is rather based on the common law concept of what is to be regarded as an unreasonable interference with someone‟s use of their own property; alternatively, a statutory nuisance may be something that is „prejudicial to health‟ of other people; ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists, should an appeal be made against an abatement notice within the 21 day period from its being issued, or should an individual take a private action through the

local magistrates‟ court under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (or, possibly, as a defence to prosecution for failure to observe an abatement notice). As for all statutory nuisances, when assessing a case of potential statutory nuisance the Environmental Health Practitioner should take account of a range of factors including: • Duration • Frequency • Impact – i.e. material interference with use of property or personal well-being; actually or likely to be adverse to health • Local environment • Motive – i.e. unreasonable behaviour or normal user • Sensitivity of the plaintiff – statutory nuisance relies on the concept of the average person, and is not designed to take account of unusual sensibilities 19 For statutory artificial light nuisance, technical parameters on obtrusive lighting, formulated by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and Institution of Lighting Engineers from research into individual sensitivity to light, may help inform consideration of the level of sensitivity that might be considered that of the „average person‟. 20 Enforcement should be reasonable and proportionate. If, however, the Environmental Health Practitioner is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or may occur or recur, an abatement order must be issued requiring that the nuisance cease or be abated within a set timescale.

Statutory Nuisance and Planning 21 Prevention is better than cure, and it is preferable to address potential statutory nuisances at the planning stage. 22 The Courts have ruled that lighting itself is not „development‟. However, planning permission is required for lighting if it alters the material appearance of a building. It has been possible since 1997 for local authorities to consider lighting as part of the planning process for new buildings, both residential and commercial. Local authorities can decide to regulate lighting under planning permission, and set planning obligations for lighting to prevent light pollution. In these circumstances, new lighting must adhere to the original planning permission of the building. These conditions cannot be applied retrospectively and can only be applied to buildings built after 1997. 23 However, the existence of planning permission does not mean that a statutory nuisance cannot then exist. Circumstances and local environments change. Statutory nuisance can occur whether or not planning permission is in place either expressly or implicitly permitting lighting.

Recording complaints 24 Complaints should be logged and recorded, as for any other complaint of statutory nuisance. It is highly likely that in future the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and / or Defra will contact local authorities to request statistics so that the scale and nature of insect nuisance and light nuisance can be assessed and monitored in order to provide an evidence base for future policy development. 25 Logging and recording information, including geo-coding, may also assist local authorities to map and monitor statutory nuisances to inform their approach to meeting their duties.

Insects Likely sources of insect nuisance 26 It is expected that the following sources will generate most complaints of insect nuisance:

• Poultry houses / farms (buildings on agricultural land are not exempt from statutory nuisance from insects, even though the land surrounding them may be) • Sewage treatment works • Manure / silage storage areas • Animal housing • Stagnant ditches and drains (i.e. containing putrid and anoxic water) (provided they are on relevant industrial etc. premises) • Landfill sites / refuse tips • Waste transfer premises • The commercial parts of mixed commercial / residential blocks of buildings (i.e. excluding the residential premises contained therein) • Trade or business premises (e.g. contaminated goods, kitchen areas) • Slaughterhouses • Used car tyre recycling businesses 27 Local authorities have a duty, however, to take reasonable steps, where practicable, to investigate any complaints of insect nuisance. 28 It is probable that complaints will be received about insects from domestic premises. As indicated above, insects emanating from domestic premises are not covered by this extension of the statutory nuisance regime. Any problems caused by insects from domestic premises may, however, be capable of being dealt with under section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 – „any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance‟. 29 This limb might be appropriate if, for example, the state of a domestic dwelling was such that it encouraged an infestation of insects that constituted a nuisance to neighbouring dwellings.

Assessing complaints of insect nuisance 30 Ascertaining the source of insect nuisance can sometimes be a difficult and lengthy process, as premises which have high levels of insect infestation may be mistaken for the source when they might themselves also be sufferers. There may be a temptation for some people to ascribe insect nuisance to businesses by virtue of them being likely sources. A participatory approach to determining the source is likely to help satisfactory outcomes. 31 Proper management and treatment programmes should be able to minimise most insect nuisance cases that arise. Noticing infestations in their early stages is important, to try and keep on top of the insect nuisance.

Insect Nuisance 32 The vast majority of insect species do not cause a nuisance, but are essential components of biodiversity and maintain ecosystems through pollination, soil maintenance and other functions. 33 There are also a number of insect species which can cause nuisance in sufficient quantities, or seasonally. Some may also pose a public health risk, although they may not be regarded as a public health pest in terms of environmental legislation, or a risk in animal husbandry. Such insects include mosquitoes (Culicidae), house flies (Musca domestica Linnaeus), lesser house flies (Fannia canicularis (Linnaeus)), etc. 34 There is a difference between insects arising from an activity on a business, trade or industrial premises, and natural occurrence of insect populations. It is not the intention for this measure to cause environmental damage to the ecosystem or biodiversity. 35 It should not be assumed that killing insects is necessarily the most appropriate way to cease or abate a nuisance.

One of the intentions behind the measure to introduce insect statutory nuisance is to capture statutory insect nuisance caused as a result of activity on premises, where control through the existing limb of „any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to

health or a nuisance‟ would not be appropriate. Another intention is to control statutory insect nuisance at source, where such control will not cause unacceptable damage to the environment or biodiversity. If activity and conditions attract or provide breeding conditions for insects to such an extent that they constitute a statutory nuisance, then it is the activity and conditions which the Environmental Health Practitioner should address. 36 Environmental consequences – indirect as well as cumulative – of remedial action must be considered, such as the effects of insecticides, if used, on the environment, nature, bodies of water, etc. Insecticides should therefore be chosen with care and regard for the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme in their use. 37 An abatement notice once issued may be „simple‟ and require abatement within a specified timescale. It may, but does not have to, specify works or other steps necessary to abate the nuisance or restrict its occurrence or recurrence. Example of insect nuisance – species of house fly (Musca domestica Linnaeus). Lesser house fly (Fannia canicularis (Linnaeus)), blow flies (Calliphora spp and Lucilia spp). 38 Houseflies can be classed as public health pests or pests of animal husbandry. They are associated with conditions that exist in rotting, fermenting, or at least moist organic matter, preferably of a high protein content, such as those that could be present at a sewage works (though they are also a natural part of the biological process and may indicate good quality effluent and process if found on a filter works at a sewage treatment works). Houseflies are frequently found in association with man, either indoors or taking advantage of other human activities, as do many other species of insect. 39 Houseflies and other pests which occur in significant numbers to cause a pest problem are almost certainly being attracted to the site because of a breakdown in standards of hygiene. Occasionally, the problem may be localised, i.e. blow flies (Calliphora spp and Lucilia spp) may be attracted by a dead bird or rodent, or due to external causes, such as a nearby farm or cattle in an adjacent field. Thus the most important aspect of fly control is to trace the cause of the problem and correct it. Only then can preventative measures be undertaken. 40 Houseflies are significant vectors of disease. They can transmit intestinal worms, dysentery, gastro-enteritis, typhoid, cholera and tuberculosis. The larvae are capable of developing intestinally if ingested. They can contaminate foodstuffs, though this would usually occur only where there are poor hygiene standards. As they will feed indiscriminately on faecal matter and human food, their status as a vector is well noted. 41 There are no objective levels at which a statutory nuisance exists or may be caused. In general, in domestic premises, it is likely that the threshold will be very low and control actions might be taken in cases of few house flies. As a guideline, an occupier will normally experience some irritation if there are five or more „flying‟ house flies present in any one room at any one time on three successive days. If house flies are monitored with baited traps, sticky ribbons, or spot cards a collection of more than 25 in any 48-hour period may indicate grounds for distress. 42 The complaint threshold density of houseflies at waste management sites may be 150 individuals per flypaper per 30 minutes. 43 However, as stated earlier, there are no objective levels for statutory nuisance. It does not, therefore, necessarily follow that fewer than five house flies in a room in a house, or 150 house flies per flypaper per 30 minutes at waste management sites, do not constitute a statutory nuisance, or that five or 150 necessarily do. Just as noise nuisance is not a matter of decibel levels, insect nuisance is not a matter of numbers of insects. Impact may also depend on, e.g., size of room, number of people / premises affected etc. House flies do not damage property. 44 Both house flies (Musca domestica) and lesser house flies (Fannia canicularis) occur throughout the UK. Both houseflies and lesser houseflies are common in homes, barns, stables, and poultry houses in spring, summer and autumn. 45 Lesser house fly larvae typically consume decaying organic matter and excrement, but have been known to develop in the intestinal tract of man and animals. In some areas, lesser house fly larvae are the predominant maggots found in chicken manure.

46 Adults may live as long as two months. Populations flourish during cool seasons, particularly spring, early summer, and late autumn. Peak numbers usually occur by July, after which dry, hot weather and parasitism causes populations to subside until autumn. 47 Prevention: Physical prevention is preferred to pesticide usage. It may be preferable to control / reduce harbourage and breeding material than to treat an infestation once it is established. Currently in the UK natural predation of house flies in poultry houses is based on indigenous species, such as the Carcinops beetle (though it may not be sufficient alone). Larvicides are also generally used, although adulticides should be the last line of defence. Elsewhere in Europe and America, poultry farmers are using specially bred parasitic wasps and predator flies as a control method. 48 Premises need to adopt an integrated approach to house fly control which includes building design, effective management and systematic monitoring of house fly populations. 49 For example, integrated fly control programmes for poultry houses tend to be based on (i) selective application of insecticides against the adult; (ii) early introduction of insecticide control measures in early spring before house flies appear, repeated as needed throughout the warm months, and (iii) leaving manure undisturbed throughout the warm months when house fly breeding may occur, removing it just once in early spring before house flies appear. Engaging the farmer in discussion about management practices that could be adopted may support satisfactory outcomes. There may, for example, be times when manure may be removed in the autumn for land spreading, or twice a year. 50 Ordinarily, house fly control from 1 to 2 km around sensitive sites will prevent ingress into a sensitive area (containing dwellings, for example). In cases where no local breeding area can be identified, adult house flies may be flying long distances (i.e. several miles) from infestation sources of, for example, refuse tips or animal houses. Good sanitation, and elimination of breeding areas, are necessary for good management. Chemical treatment is the last line of defence. 51 Spot cards can be used as a diagnostic tool. These are 3-inch by 5-inch white index cards which are attached to a house-fly resting surface. A minimum of five cards should be placed in a suspect animal facility and left in place for seven days. As a guide, a count of 100 or more faecal or vomit spots per card per week may be taken to indicate a high level of house fly activity and a need for control (although this is not to say that a count of, say, 99 would not indicate a high level of house fly activity and a need for control). 52 Physical prevention methods: • Food and materials on which the house flies can lay their eggs should be removed, destroyed as a breeding medium, or isolated from the egg laying adult house fly. • Wet manure should be removed at least twice weekly if necessary to break the breeding cycle. • Wet straw should not pile up in or near buildings and, as one of the best fly breeding materials, is not recommended as bedding. • Spilled feed should not be allowed to accumulate, and should be cleaned up at least twice a week. • Windows and doors can be proofed with fly screens of approximately 1.5 mm mesh. • Fly traps may be useful in some house fly control programmes if enough traps are used, placed correctly, and used both indoors and outdoors. House flies are attracted to white surfaces and baits that give off odours. Lesser house flies are shyer of traps. • Dustbins, wheelie-bins, paladins and skips should have tight-fitting lids and be cleaned regularly. Dry and wet rubbish should be placed in plastic rubbish bags and sealed up. All waste receptacles should be located as far from building entrances as possible. • For control at waste disposal sites, refuse should be deposited onto the same area as inorganic wastes to reduce the capacity of breeding resources, or covered with soil or other inorganic wastes of around 15 cm consistent thickness. 53 Electronic fly killers which can attract insects to an electrified grid by using an ultra- violet light source are not generally effective against houseflies. House flies are not particularly attracted to them and, although they may kill the occasional one, they cannot cope with large numbers. If they are used, one trap should be placed for every 30 feet of

wall inside buildings, but not placed over or within five feet of food preparation areas. Recommended placement areas outdoors include near building entrances, in alleyways, beneath trees, and around animal sleeping areas and manure piles. 54 Eradication – chemical: Chemical treatment should be considered as a last resort, as it may only be treating the insects in the vicinity at the time of treatment and not the source, although most pesticides do have a residual effect and may work on particular species throughout their lifecycle. Given the considerable link to water at sewage treatment works for example, management of insects may be more beneficial than treatment, by reducing the need for pesticide usage. The use of pesticides near water bodies is one of the most risky and heavily controlled areas of pesticide use, and the potential for pesticide use on linear water bodies that drain into rivers and streams must be minimised. Removal of breeding material and habitats can keep insects under control or at bay. • For adult control, conventional knockdown or residual treatments will kill the majority of adult flies in spite of the development of high resistance levels in a number of housefly populations. • Residual insecticides applied to the house flies‟ favoured resting areas will control landing flies in some situations, although they should not generally be applied to breeding areas, as insecticide breakdown can be rapid and resistance may be encouraged. • In poultry houses, the use of mists, fogs or baits may be necessary for house fly control. Treatment in poultry stations should be carried out by a qualified pest controller. Insecticides to control maggots should not be applied to manure, which should be kept dry and removed only during the winter. When flies are a major pest in commercial egg production facilities, they can be controlled by applying adulticides, or larvicides, to suppress adult densities directly or indirectly. Residual wall sprays can be applied where the flies congregate. Resistance can develop more rapidly in house fly populations on farms on a continuous insecticide regime using a single chemical than on farms in which insecticides are alternated. Residual insecticides may be applied to favoured resting areas for house flies. Breeding areas should be avoided as spray targets as, where the insecticide breaks down in an area where eggs are developing, it may encourage increased resistance in the house fly population. • Outdoors, house fly control can include the use of chemical treatments in the bottom of skips, and treatment of vertical walls adjacent to skips and other breeding sites, with microencapsulated or wettable powder formulation, and the use of fly baits near adult feeding sources. In areas like rubbish tips treatment should always be carried out by a pest control specialist. • Indoors, house fly control can include automatic misters, fly paper, electrocuting and baited traps that can be used in milking parlours and other areas of low fly numbers.

Example of insect nuisance – fruit flies (Drosophila spp) 55 Fruit flies compromise several species of the genus Drosophila (family Drosophilidae). They are increasingly associated with commercial composting activities and vegetable producers, wholesalers, and packers who store waste and / or reject produce in the open, as they are attracted to ripened or fermenting fruit and vegetables. Dwellings that report high infestations are increasingly found near these commercial undertakings. Fruit flies can be a problem year-round in domestic kitchens. They can contaminate foodstuffs, but usually only where there are poor hygiene standards or exposed, ripe fruit. They do not carry disease or cause structural damage to buildings. The sheer numbers that congregate can create a nuisance. As a guideline, an occupier will normally experience some distress if there are 50 or more „flying‟ fruit flies present in any one room at any one time on three successive days. 56 Detecting domestic breeding areas for fruit flies involves finding the source(s) of attraction and breeding, which can require much thought and persistence. Potential breeding sites which are inaccessible (e.g., waste-disposals and drains) can be

inspected by taping a clear plastic food storage bag over the opening overnight. If flies are breeding in these areas, the adults will emerge and be caught in the bag. 57 Prevention: The best way to prevent problems with fruit flies is to eliminate sources of attraction. Produce which has ripened should be covered rather than discarded in the open. A single rotting potato or onion can breed thousands of fruit flies, as can a waste or recycling bin which is not emptied or cleaned. 58 Where regular spillages of fruit juice or pulp inside buildings attract fruit flies, windows and doors should be equipped with tight-fitting (16 mesh) screens to help prevent adult fruit flies from entering from outdoors. All spillages and accumulations of fruit and vegetable juice and pulp should still be cleaned up regularly and thoroughly. 59 Eradication: Once a structure is infested with fruit flies, all potential breeding areas must be located and eliminated. Unless the breeding sites are removed or cleaned, the problem will continue no matter how often insecticides are applied to control the adults. Once the source is eliminated the flies will try to find new potential breeding substrates, usually out of doors. Only if the source has been eliminated and flies given time to disperse should an aerosol insecticide be used to kill remaining flies. Example of insect nuisance – cockroaches (Periplaneta americana (Linnaeus), Blattella germanica (Linnaeus), Blatta orientalis (Linnaeus)) 60 Cockroaches pose a public health risk. Cockroaches can also cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, e.g., asthmatics, house dust mite allergen sufferers, and individuals exposed to infestations for long periods of time. Perhaps the most important effect that cockroaches have on humans is allergies. Their presence may cause an occupier distress. They can contaminate a range of stored food products. 61 There are three main pest species: the American (Periplaneta americana), German (Blattella germanica) and Oriental (Blatta orientalis) Cockroaches. The German and Oriental species are common in the UK. Cockroaches are highly adaptable and extremely mobile, moving into new buildings via sewer pipes, ducts etc. The Oriental cockroach is the most common and largest of the two. It can climb rough surfaces such as brickwork and will congregate around water sources. The German cockroach is smaller, but is able to climb vertical smooth surfaces. They do not cause structural damage. 62 One way to confirm an infestation is by using a sticky trap. These can be purchased from a pest control contractor. 63 Prevention: Good standards of hygiene alone cannot prevent a cockroach invasion or combat an existing infestation, but are a necessary component of any control strategy. Since most buildings cannot be instantly cooled or heated to the temperatures required to kill cockroaches (7oC or 46oC), and vacuuming them up may not appeal, the use of insecticidal bait gels, fumigants and sprays are at present the most common method employed to control cockroaches. 64 Prevention involves proofing. Cockroaches are nocturnal and they prefer warm dark spaces. Any cracks in walls, floors and ceilings or inaccessible void between and behind equipment should be eliminated. 65 Eradication: It is a legal requirement that any signs of cockroaches in a food business are controlled. Various insecticides can be used to control cockroaches. These are dangerous chemicals and must be applied only by a competent professional pest control operator. 66 The use of insecticidal bait gels and fumigating sprays is the most common method employed to control cockroaches. Increased public concerns regarding the safety of synthetic pesticides and their effect upon human health and the environment, together with the increasing problem of cockroach resistance to insecticides, have resulted in a demand for effective, environmentally positive methods of control.

Example of insect nuisance – moth flies or sewage filter flies (Psychoda spp and Tinearia alternata (Say) 67 Sewage filter flies (principally Psychoda albipennis Zetterstedt, but also some other species of Psychoda and Tinearia alternata (Say)) belong to the family Psychodidae,

commonly known as moth flies. They like moist, organic or septic systems for egg laying, and are common in the vicinity of sewage works. The larvae are often considered beneficial as an essential part of the cycle that breaks down waste into water-soluble compounds. Because they tend to live in protected places, clouds of flies might be the first sign of infestation. They do not bite or sting, but can be a nuisance, flying in the eyes, mouth and nostrils of people. Because of their points of origin, they can carry disease, although actual transmission is extremely unlikely. They do not pose a contamination risk to food. There are no objective levels at which sewage filter flies do or may cause a statutory nuisance. As a general guideline, they might cause an occupier distress if 50 or more „flying‟ sewage filter flies are present in a room on three successive days, though obviously this indication will vary and depend on such factors as room size etc. Sewage filter flies have a relatively slow breeding cycle with about eight generations a-year. Most infestations take place during the summer months as the adults emerge. 68 Control of sewage filter flies requires locating and eliminating larval breeding sites, which may be difficult and require perseverance. One way to check potential individual breeding sites is to cover the entrance with plastic film taped to the floor or fixture. If sewage filter flies are breeding there, they will accumulate beneath the film within a day or two. 69 One way of eliminating sewage filter flies is to clean the breeding place to remove organic matter. For example, a slow-moving drain can be cleaned with a stiff brush or other tool. Drains that cannot be scrubbed can be rinsed with water under high pressure, sterilised with boiling water, or treated with a bacterial agent to biodegrade the organic matter. 70 Household insecticides can be used to control adult sewage filter flies, but the effects will be very temporary unless the source of the larvae is also removed. 71 It is recommended that operators of sewage treatment works should have systems in place for treating beds with a larvicide where there is a risk of, or a measurable, nuisance, and checking for high concentrations of sewage filter flies. The timing and dosing of the filter beds is critical to effectiveness, and must be carefully managed to prevent the release of chemicals into waterways or an effect on the balance of organisms in the ecosystem. In some cases it may be best to limit treatment to knock down or surface treatments. Insects emanating from filter beds are a source of food for various wild bird and bat species, which in turn as act as a natural means of pest control. Treatment at filter beds could be so effective that these species lose a useful source of food supply.

Example of insect nuisance – mosquitoes (Culicidae) 72 There are about 30 species of mosquito (family Culicidae) in the UK, occupying aquatic habits such as coastal salt waters, brackish inland waters, stagnant pools and water-filled hollows (including in trees and logs). There are four stages of life, eggs laid on water which hatch within a few hours; larva and pupa that are free swimming in water and must come to the surface to breath; and the winged adult. 73 The British climate is not currently suited to the transmission of tropical diseases, and low fevers which can be caused by mosquitoes in Southern and Central Europe have not been detected here. Malaria is the only human infection known to have been transmitted in this country by two species of mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles but it is extremely unlikely. 74 British mosquitoes can have a nuisance value. Their bites can cause severe skin eruption and localised pain, and severe infestations can cause much distress which is a valid reason for mosquito control. There are no objective levels at which a statutory nuisance may or does exist. As a general guideline, an occupier might feel irritation if five or more „flying‟ mosquitoes are present in a room for three successive days. They do not damage property or pose a contamination risk to foodstuffs. 75 Prevention: Mosquito control should be aimed at both the larval and adult stages of life cycle, although as mosquitoes do not normally rest in buildings, control of adults can be impractical.

76 Larval control can be achieved through eliminating or changing the characteristics of larval sites, which might need to be achieved piecemeal and over a period of years. 77 Man-made containers of water such as old car tyres, empty pots, open sewers and drains containing putrid and anoxic water should, as far as is practicable, be drained and kept empty. Water can be channelled to increase flow. Cesspools, septic tanks and drains should be sealed. Rainwater butts and tanks should have close-fitting lids. Rivers, watercourses (other than those mentioned above), lakes and ponds are excluded from the nuisance definition and should not be drained. 78 Insecticides, repellents, vapourising mats, mosquito coils and fly screens may offer some personal protection from adult mosquitoes. 79 Eradication: Light oil or lecithin can be applied to water to reduce the surface tension and prevent larvae from obtaining oxygen. Such agents spread readily over large areas. The technique should not be used where rivers, watercourses (other than open sewers and drains containing putrid and anoxic water), lakes or ponds may be affected. The Environment Agency should be consulted before use, as should the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Agency if there is a Special Site of Scientific Interest in the local vicinity. The technique will also affect non-target species of insect living in the water body, many of which are the natural predators of the mosquito larvae. The removal of the more long-lived predators of the mosquitoes may result in an increased problem as the mosquitoes would be able to respond quickly to take advantage of the predator-free environment. Agents need to be appropriately approved as biocides. 80 Larvae can be attacked by applying formulations to larval sites which produce a crystal which breaks down into stomach poison. 81 Adult mosquitoes can be eliminated using „knock-down‟ agents or residual insecticides.

Environmental impact 82 Insects rarely cause a significant health risk, and health risks where they do or may exist, are often associated with human habitation and waste, so significant damage to the environment should not be necessary. Environmental management should be the first option. 83 Any mitigating treatment should take account of factors including impact on health and well being; impact on the target and non-target species; impact on the environment including ground and water source contamination; cost; and efficacy.

Appendix 3

Breakdown of useful web pages by type and content

Pest Control Companies

Arkay Hygeine http://www.arkayltd.co.uk/pages/info_about_flying_insects/detailed_fly_info_files/hou se_fly_detailed_info.htm Type of information: Distribution, Life cycle, Identification, Nuisance potential (Damage), Management/Control Agropharm Ltd. http://www.agropharm.co.uk/uk/bug_view.asp?bug_id=4 Type of information: Identification, Life cycle (brief), Nuisance Potential, Management/Control Pied Piper Pest Control http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th6a.htm Type of information: Life cycle, Identification, Nuisance potential (Damage/Economic Injury Level), Management/Control AG Pest Management http://www.agpestmanagement.co.uk/House_Fly.html Type of information: Distribution, „Other facts‟, Control

Local Authorities

Chichester District Council http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8205 (Includes common & lesser houseflies, autumn fly & cluster fly) Type of information: Life Cycle, Management/Control Torfaen County Borough http://www.torfaen.gov.uk/EnvironmentAndPlanning/AnimalAndPestControl/PublicPro tectionPestControl/Publications/FlyLifeCycle.pdf Type of information: Life cycle, Identification, Salford City Council http://www.salford.gov.uk/insect9houseflies.pdf (Includes common & lesser houseflies) Type of information: Distribution, Life cycle, Identification, Nuisance potential (Significance), Management/Control Winchester City Council http://www.winchester.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A781AFA5 (Includes common & lesser houseflies, autumn fly & cluster fly) Type of information: Life Cycle, Management/Control (similar information to Chichester District Council and information is replicated on other council sites (e.g. Kennet District Council)

Lisburn City Council http://www.lisburncity.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-departments/environmental- services/environmental-health/pest-control/flies/ (Includes common housefly, bluebottle & cluster fly) Type of information: Identification, Nuisance potential, Management/Control

Appendix 3a – Typical LA web based fact sheet for houseflies

Regulatory Services – Pest Control Service Advice Sheet No 9: Houseflies There are three main types of flies that affect domestic properties. This advice sheet aims to provide you with information on the following: 1. A description of the most common flies 2. The preferred habitat, life cycle and causes of flies 3. What can be done to prevent and treat for flies?

1. A description of the most common flies A Common Housefly The Common Housefly and the Lesser Housefly both range between 6 and 8mm long. The Common Housefly has dark longitudinal stripes and a central dark band. When resting, wings are spread. The Lesser Housefly has 3 longitudinal stripes, with a yellow patch at the base of the abdomen. The wings are folded back when resting. 2. The preferred habitat, life cycle and causes of flies Common Houseflies are ubiquitous insects, with a flight range of approximately 5 miles. When indoors, they are highly active. They generally begin to appear in late May, and reach a population peak during August and September, with breeding generally ceasing in October. After this period, flies can “over-winter” as adults or pupae. However, in warmer areas houseflies can remain active and reproduce throughout the year. Females will begin producing eggs 48 hours after they have emerged as an adult. During her adult life, approximately 1-3 months, she is capable of producing 4-5 batches of 100-150 eggs. These hatch within 48 hours into smooth, white legless maggot larvae and after 3 moults mature into pupae. Approximately 3-4 weeks after this they develop into adult flies. Lesser Houseflies can often be found in poultry houses. Their flight pattern is erratic, and they are often seen flying in large numbers around indoor light fittings. The Lesser Housefly generally appears in March, slightly earlier than the Common Housefly due to their increased resistance to colder temperatures. They are prevalent from April to October, and survive the winter in the form of pupae, although as with the Common Housefly if temperatures allow they can be active throughout the winter period. Lesser Houseflies breed prolifically in poultry manure, but will also breed in other moist decaying matter. Egg laying begins after the adult female is 10 days old, with maggots hatching within 24-48hours. Larval development takes approximately 8-10 days, with development from egg to adult taking about 3 weeks. Flies can sometimes travel long distances during which they can transmit intestinal worms (or worm eggs) and are potential vectors of diseases such as dysentery, gastroenteritis, typhoid, cholera and tuberculosis. They will frequent and feed indiscriminately on any liquefiable solid food. 3. What can be done to prevent and treat for flies? Flies can breed rapidly and have high levels of mobility. To break the lifecycle, control measures need to target the larval and adult flies. Satisfactory hygiene levels are required. Domestic refuse must be stored in sealed containers. Fly screens, air curtains, bead screens, or self-closing doors equipped with rubber flaps should be used where possible to prevent entry into properties. Insecticides should be used to complement good hygiene REMEMBER: The Pest Control section can offer advice on dealing with and preventing infestations of flies.

Appendix 3b – Typical LA web based fact sheet for bed bugs

Advice to householders - Bed Bugs

1.1. Advice to Householders Characteristics

Adults are 5mm long, reddish brown in colour, becoming purple after feeding, well developed antennae prominent simple eyes and clawed feet enabling it to climb rough surfaces, and have a flattened oval shape.

Behaviour

Bed bugs can't fly they must either crawl or be transported in either clothing, luggage, books, furniture etc. They can survive for many months without feeding and are widely distributed throughout the world. They will invade any household however they are more likely to occur in premises with a low standard of hygiene and overcrowding.

Bedbugs can be transported on clothing, but more often in luggage, books etc where harbourage is possible. The increase in foreign travel and sleepovers has helped the bedbug to spread.

The bedbugs tend to hide away in cracks and crevices coming out at night and they tend to feed on their hosts just before dawn. They like a warm environment which encourages breeding throughout the year. In unheated rooms it is unlikely that a second generation will be produced during autumn/winter.

Pigeon bugs and Martin bugs react in a similar way to the bed bugs feeding on birds in their nests, however if the nests are in houses, under eaves in lofts etc, they will feed on humans once the nests have been abandoned.

Bedbugs are not regarded as disease carriers, but their blood feeding can cause severe irritation in some people resulting in loss of sleep, lack of energy and listlessness particularly in children.

The bite often gives rise to a hard whitish swelling which distinguishes it from the flea bite which leaves a red spot. Bedbug excrement gives a characteristic speckled appearance to their harbourages, whilst their 'stink' glands confer a very distinctive and unpleasant almond like smell on infested rooms.

The finding of eggs, bugs, or egg cases as well as the excrement will indicate their presence

Significance

Bedbugs are becoming an increasing problem due to the following factors:- modern building techniques which allow easy access between properties; the increased use of central heating which allows them to breed all year round and increased sale of second-hand furniture.

Life Cycle

After mating the female will lay 2-3 eggs every day for the rest of her life which may be up to 6 months. Eggs will hatch at 200C after about ten days. The Nymph will go through five stages before becoming an Adult. It takes about six weeks to complete the five nymph stages. 1.2. Control Hygiene/management:- high standards of hygiene are unlikely to be an adequate control on their own however they will help to monitor the infestation and to show the location of harbourages. If you suspect a bedbug infestation, a close inspection of the mattress particularly around the seams and the back of the headboard should reveal their presence. The use of a pyrethroid-based aerosol sprayed lightly round the room in accordance with the label instructions, may help as the bugs will be displaced from their hiding places.

Insecticidal :- To eradicate the infestation it will be necessary to treat the premises thoroughly with suitable insecticides, including the beds, other furniture and harbourages in the fabric of infested rooms. A professional pest control officer should be employed to carry out this work as it does require a professional approach. 1.3. Before Treatment Please ensure the following actions are carried out prior to spraying  All floors and upholstered furniture should be thoroughly vacuumed to remove any debris, eggs, pupae etc. Attention should be given to known harbourages such as bedrooms and other sleeping areas. (The vacuum bag must then be disposed of in a plastic bag in an outside waste bin).

 Hard floor surfaces should be swept and washed or vacuumed.

 Wardrobes, drawers etc should be emptied and the contents along with all bed linen and clothing washed on the hottest wash possible. (NB These should be placed in bin bags in the affected room before being carried to the washing area so bed bugs do not fall off during transit).

 All articles should be removed from the floor so that as much of the area can be treated.

 Where possible beds and other known harbourages should be completely dismantled to allow them to be thoroughly treated.

 It is advised that all children, pets and other people are NOT present during treatment. Fish can be susceptible to insecticides so it is advisable that

aquariums are removed or covered. Any open food should also be covered or removed.

1.4. After treatment It is advised that people and pets keep out of the property until the insecticide has dried, which can take a few hours. If it is not possible to stop out of the house, you should, as far as possible, stay out of the affected room(s).

Do not vacuum for at least 10 days following treatment as this will reduce the effectiveness of the insecticide. Bed bugs may be seen for a number of days after treatment, due to eggs hatching. These bed bugs will then die once they come into contact with the insecticide.

If you have a problem with bed bugs, and wish the Council to carry out treatment, please contact Environmental Health Department. An appointment will be made for an initial inspection to assess the size of the infestation, followed by a further two appointments (approximately 2 weeks apart) where treatment will be carried out.

Appendix 3c – Typical LA web based fact sheet for wasps

This leaflet is one of a series produced by the Council to give information about common domestic pests, including how to identify the pest and how it may be eradicated. Description Wasps have black and yellow bands and a narrow waist in the middle of the body. They vary in size from the workers which are about 15 mm long to the queen which is 20 mm long. They have two pairs of wings which lock together. The needle-like sting is possessed only by females and is concealed near the tip of the abdomen. Several species of wasp exist in the UK but the most abundant and widely distributed are the: • Common wasp • German wasp. Some common non-stinging insects are frequently mistaken for wasps which include hover flies and the giant wood wasp. Life Cycle The queen wasp emerges from the nest in the autumn, and after mating selects a suitable site for hibernation. Late the following spring the hibernation ends and the surviving queens select a nest site. The nest is usually located in the ground or in the cavities in trees, walls or buildings. Frequently this is the roof space of a house. The nest is built up from wood pulp which is moulded into the outer shell of the nest and contains many internal chambers. The queen lays an egg in each of the chambers and these hatch into larvae which are fed by the queen on dead insects. When fully grown the larvae pupate and from the pupae workers emerge. These workers assist in rearing new larvae and the new queens. Towards the end of the summer the queen lays a number of eggs which produce male wasps and these mate with the new queens. As the weather becomes colder, in the autumn, all the wasps die except the new queens which fly away to find hibernation sites. Old nests are not recolonised the following year, although a new nest may be established next to an existing nest. Therefore, it is not necessary to remove an old nest. Where the nest is in a warm place, such as next to a central heating pipe, the nest may remain active well into the start of winter. Significance of wasp stings The pain of a wasp sting is caused by a toxic fluid which is injected through the needle like sting. Individuals react differently to stings; some people hardly react, whilst others suffer considerable pain and swelling. Unfortunately none of the well known remedies give much relief although some specific remedies are available from chemists. If you are especially sensitive to wasp stings you should always seek immediate help from a doctor if you are stung. Control It may be necessary to treat wasp nests which pose a particular danger to you or your family. Unless such a danger exists, the nests are best left undisturbed. Where necessary, you can treat wasp nests yourself - although extreme care should obviously be taken in doing so. This can be done through the application of insecticidal dust at the entrance to the nest (preferably after dusk when the wasps have returned to the nest and are less active). Wasps will carry the insecticide into the nest, spreading it to other wasps in the colony. Insecticidal dust is available from most DIY stores and garden centres. You should make sure that the product you buy is specifically intended for wasps and the directions on the product label must be followed carefully. As old nests are not recolonised, treated nests need not be

removed. Foraging wasps can be killed using an insecticidal spray designed for flying insects. Such sprays are available from chemists, hardware shops and garden centres. Again, care should be taken when using such sprays and the instructions on the package should always be followed carefully. The Borough Council provides a service for the treatment of premises infested with wasps. (Note: A charge is made for this service.) If you would like to use our pest control service please contact the Environmental Health & Licensing Division or visit our website to complete the online pest control form and we will contact you to arrange a convenient appointment. Further information about wasps and other pests can be found on our website.

Appendix 3d – Typical LA web based fact sheet for cockroaches

This leaflet is one of a series produced by the Council to give information about domestic pests, including how to identify the pest and how it may be eradicated.

Cockroaches There are more than 4,000 species of cockroach. The cockroach prefers warm, humid and dark conditions and is usually found in the tropics or other regions with mild climates. In the UK only a few species have become adapted to living in houses. Cockroaches are omnivorous and will eat plant and animal material, including food, paper, clothing, books and dead insects. The most commonly found species in this country are: • Oriental Cockroach (Blatta orientalis) • German Cockroach (Blattella germanica)

Description The Oriental cockroach is the most common species found in the UK. They are dark brown (almost black). An adult male is 20-24mm long and the female larger at 32mm long. They take between 6 months and 2 years to reach maturity. The female deposits an egg case containing 16-18 eggs from which soft white nymphs emerge. These harden and turn brown in colour when exposed to the air. The nymphs, which emerge from the eggs are like small versions of the adults. As the nymph grows the outer surface of its body is shed. This moulting will occur 7-10 times before adult size is reached. Oriental cockroaches are poor climbers on smooth surfaces and are tolerant towards the cold as they are often found outside buildings. Development is affected by the availability of food, humidity, temperature and day length. The German cockroach is smaller in size (13-16mm) and light brown. It is a good climber even on smooth surfaces. It matures much more quickly and the number of eggs in an egg case averages 30-40. Because of its size it is often carried unknowingly into homes in bags and boxes.

Significance Cockroaches foul their environment with droppings, castings and regurgitated food. They taint materials with their characteristic smell and the air may contain fragments of faeces and exoskeletons. As well as the unpleasant smell, cockroaches are a source of allergens which can lead to allergic illnesses such as dermatitis, rhinitis, bronchitis and asthma. They damage and contaminate food products and other items, such as those made of paper, and can mechanically transmit pathogenic organisms such as salmonella, E.coli, Staphylococcus and Shigella, which can cause dysentery and gastroenteritis.

Control Eradication of cockroaches can be difficult and should be carried out by a professional pest control operative. They are difficult to treat because their hiding places are often difficult to reach with insecticides. Due to the efficiency of the breeding process and the large number of eggs produced, cockroaches are difficult to eliminate and a comprehensive eradication programme is essential. The first step is to monitor the extent of the infestation. Inspections should be carried out at night, when the cockroaches are most active, using a torch with a red filter which cockroaches do not respond to. Aerosols may help in flushing out the insects from their harbourages. Sticky traps can also be used in areas where the cockroaches may pass, such as behind and underneath equipment and in ducts, trunking and roof spaces. As cockroaches become trapped they emit pheromones that attract more cockroaches.

Advice for householders on how to identify and eradicate pests. In addition to chemical control methods it is important to remove as much food and water residues as possible and to proof and reduce areas that are difficult to access. Checks should also be made to ensure that insects or egg cases are not being introduced by incoming goods or via the drains. Good hygiene is essential in preventing an infestation. Cockroaches must be deprived of food, water and shelter. • Wash up promptly and store food stored in sealed containers. • Keep surfaces clean and clear of debris. • Keep rubbish in lidded containers and carefully seal when disposed of. • Repair any leaking pipes and remove moisture or water sources. • Remove clutter where cockroaches might live and repair any holes and cracks in the structure of the building. • Remove loose paint and wallpaper. Cockroaches are nocturnal and live in large groups, so a householder may be unaware of an infestation. If one cockroach is seen, it is almost certain there will be plenty of others. When cockroaches infest a building containing more than one dwelling, the whole building must be treated to be effective.

Pest Control Services The Borough Council does not provide a service for the treatment of premises infested with cockroaches. Further pest information can be found on our website

Appendix 4 Local Authorities Draft Code of Practice for the use of Poultry Manure (Working Document)

INTRODUCTION

The formulation of this Code of Practice (COP) has been prompted by the recurring problem of fly infestation associated with the use of poultry manure within a number of local authority areas. The intention of the COP is to provide a consistent approach to the way in which the participating local authorities will deal with problems associated with the use of poultry manure and the manner in which they will expect it to be used.

The primary goal of the COP is to address the issue of fly infestation and to prevent problems before they occur by working in partnership with those involved, rather than to take enforcement action against individuals after the event. It will also deal with the issue of odour control where possible.

It is hoped that the COP will be of benefit to all parties who are involved in the use of poultry manure including:  producers who need to ensure that their product is of good quality and poses the minimum risk of causing a problem when used.  transporters who need to ensure that manure is transported and deposited in a responsible manner for use.  users who must ensure that manure is stored and used in such a way as to minimise the potential for problems to be caused, and  the general public who are affected when fly infestations occur.

The participating Local Authorities would like to work with the various groups involved to prevent the recurrence of what is a significant issue causing both nuisance and potential health risks to large numbers of people.

While maintaining the desire to work with those people involved in the production and use of poultry manure, the participating Local Authorities will consider a failure to follow the COP as evidence in any enforcement action.

It is the common intent of the Local Authorities participating in this COP to take robust enforcement action against any company or individual who is identified as having caused infestations of flies to any location within their respective areas of authority.

In order to address all aspects of the use of poultry manure the COP is divided into sections, each of which is focused on a particular element of the use/disposal of poultry manure.

Producers

It is important if fly problems are to be prevented that manure supplied is of the best possible quality in terms of fly and maggot infestation, It is also important that manure supplied is capable of being stored in such a way as to prevent it causing a problem with flies.  manure should be as dry as possible before it is allowed to be taken for use. This makes it difficult for flies to breed and also allows it to be stored in a manner which enables it to be covered more easily. A level of at least 50% dry matter is

desirable and 30% dry matter should be the minimum. Manure with a dry matter content below 30% should not be supplied unless satisfied that it will be used and incorporated immediately. If the manure is to be used on pasture or for top dressing a growing crop, it is essential that it is applied only in small droplets that will either dry out or be taken into the soil very quickly. If it cannot be used it must be stored within a manageable facility and not a field store.  regular inspections of poultry houses should be made to identify any infestations of maggots or flies at an early stage so that they can be treated as quickly as possible. A monitoring and treatment process should be implemented and good records maintained to show what has been done. Research of ADAS approved schemes suggests that one way of monitoring the level of fly and larval activity is to use a grid system. The use of ADAS endorsed schemes may be used to demonstrate „Best Practice‟. o a number of monitoring squares, (six for large houses) are marked out along the inside walls and the undersides of walkways. They should be 1 metre by 1 metre and marked out with white paint to form a border. A count of flies on the wall and ceiling squares should be made on a regular basis at all times and twice weekly during the summer months from the beginning of May until the end of September. o there should also be six designated areas where maggot activity is monitored. These should be approximately 0.5 metre square areas which are intrusively investigated. A rough guide to larval assessment is 0 = 0 larvae, 1 = 5% of manure covered by larvae, 2 = 10% of manure covered by larvae, 3 = 20% covered by larvae, 4 30% of manure covered by larvae, 5 = 40% of manure covered by larvae. Treatment of the manure should be triggered at index 3 and no manure should be taken from the house if two or more larvae are counted. o the use of sticky traps and indicator boards is also recommended and these should be monitored and changed regularly. o it is recommended that all staff receive suitable training to enable them to effectively monitor and treat any infestations.  manure should not be removed if it is infested with larvae and full treatment of any manure that routine inspection shows to be infested should be completed prior to its removal. This may take up to four weeks to be completely effective so forward planning is essential.

Transporters

When transporting poultry manure from its point of origin to the place where it is delivered, it is important that every care is taken to minimise the impact that it may have on residential areas during transit. It is important that the manure is not transported unless it is of sufficient quality. It is also important that when the manure is delivered to the end user it is done so in such a way as to enable it to be stored/covered if necessary at the end of each day. It is the responsibility of the haulier to ensure that:  manure which does not have a minimum content of 30% dry matter is only transported in suitable vehicles which are designed for the purpose.  trailers are not overloaded allowing manure to be spilled onto the highway.  trailers should be covered if practical, particularly if moving more than short distances or through residential areas.  manure is delivered in such a way as to enable it to be easily covered. Experience has shown that narrow rows or „windrows‟ of manure are more easily covered.  the recipients are aware of this COP and their responsibilities to observe it.

 that the recipient of the manure has made provision for covering the manure if necessary. The manure should then be covered at the end of each day of delivery.  delivery should only be made if the contractor is satisfied that the recipient is aware of the COP and their responsibilities under it. Delivery should not be made if the recipient is unable to ensure that the manure is adequately covered, should this be necessary, and should be returned to its point of origin or other suitable storage facility.

It is also important that care is taken to prevent mud being deposited on the highway as this can pose additional dangers to other road users. When necessary, signs should be posted to alert drivers that there may be mud on the roads and this should be cleared up as soon as possible. Depositing mud on the highway is a breach of the Highways Act 1980.

Storage

Recent experience has shown that the storage of manure is one of the most important factors in preventing fly infestations. It has been seen that even manure that is produced, transported and delivered in a dry, fly free state can in some cases become infested and cause problems. It is important when manure is delivered and is being stored without covering because it has been supplied in a fly free condition, that the pile is monitored by the recipient on a frequent basis at least three times per week to ensure that there is no fly activity. At the first sign of fly activity the manure should be covered. It is therefore essential that recipients of poultry manure have stocks of suitable sheeting material before receiving the manure so that it can used at very short notice. During the summer months from the beginning of May to the end of August recipients storing manure near to residential areas should consider covering the manure if storing for more than a few days, as the covering will also help to prevent any odour nuisance from occurring. While it is important that manure is stored in such a way as to prevent fly nuisance, care should also be taken to ensure that other codes of practice designed to protect land and watercourses are observed.

Although it may not be necessary to cover all piles of poultry manure, the potential for problems to occur is increased during the summer months from the beginning of May to the end of September. During this time users of poultry manure may wish to take a „safety first‟ approach when deciding whether a pile of poultry manure needs to be covered.

When storing poultry manure it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that:  any piles of manure that are not covered on delivery must be inspected frequently and at least three times per week for signs of fly infestation and a record kept of these checks for examination by the Local Authority. At the first sign of fly activity on or around the pile the manure must be covered immediately.  all stored manure that needs to be covered is covered at the end of each day of delivery to prevent flies migrating to or from the pile. This will serve to reduce the odour emitted during storage, prevent flies infesting the manure and raise the temperature inside the pile to a level which will kill any flies or larvae which are already inside. It will also help to prevent the potential for odour nuisance to any nearby residential premises.  the manure should be deposited between two pre-prepared earthen ditches or bunds in narrow rows or „windrows‟.

o the manure should then be tightly covered with polythene in such a way as to leave no gaps. Suitable polythene can be obtained from most agricultural suppliers. o the edges of the polythene should then be buried in the ditches by back filling to prevent flies escaping and to prevent the wind from removing the sheeting. Experience has shown that simply weighting down the sheeting is not effective and will not be considered satisfactory. The piles of manure should be checked every four days at the minimum by the recipient to ensure that there is no damage to the polythene. Damaged polythene will need to be replaced.  all poultry manure that needs to be covered in this way should remain covered for a minimum of ten days before it is used or until it is used to ensure that any flies or fly larvae are killed and the pile does not become more infested.  avoid putting storage piles next to dwellings, places of work, popular leisure areas etc.  manure should be stored on level ground to avoid run off.  do not store manure over field drains or within ten metres of a watercourse.

Spreading

The spreading of poultry manure has been associated with a number of fly infestations in recent years, even where it has been demonstrated that the manure used is free from infestation. It is recognised by independent entomologists that the odour given off during spreading can attract naturally occurring populations of flies and causes them to artificially concentrate and increase in numbers. When spreading poultry manure it is important that the following steps are taken:  manure should be incorporated by deep cultivation within 24 hours of spreading. This is in accordance with the DEFRA Air Code 1998 and will minimise odour emissions and prevent access by flies that may be in the area.  when spreading on pasture, only manure that is free from flies and larvae and of low odour should be used. Animals should not graze fields until the minimum time period recommended by ADAS has passed. Care should also be taken that other DEFRA Codes of Practice for protection of soil and water are followed and that manure is not over-applied. (Spreading of manure which has been delivered and stored before spreading will be deemed to be the responsibility of the farmer and not the producer.)  poultry manure should not be applied to ground that is waterlogged, flooded, frozen hard or snow covered, It should not be applied within ten metres of ponds or watercourses.  the spreading of manure on Bank Holidays and Sundays should be avoided.  operators should make every effort to remove mud and manure from the tractor and trailer/spreader wheels before driving on the highway.

Notification

The intention of the COP is to prevent as far as possible further incidents of fly infestation in the areas covered by the participating Local Authorities. The success of the COP needs to be monitored so that problems can be identified and alterations made if necessary. In order for this to be effective it is vital that the participating authorities know where and when poultry manure is to be stored and spread. The persons in the best position to provide the required information are the people transporting the manure and the people taking delivery of the manure. It is also important that producers keep records of where manure is being taken when it leaves

their farm which can be made available to Local Authorities upon request. When an order for poultry manure is placed for delivery within any of the participating authorities:  the transporter shall notify the relevant Local Authority Environmental Health Department by fax, phone or e-mail on a weekly basis of the locations, name of recipient and date of delivery of poultry manure from the previous week.  the Local Authority shall be notified at least 24 hours before the spreading of previously field stored manure takes place.  the producer shall keep records of the intended delivery address of the manure. These records shall be made available to Local Authorities for verification upon request.  notification should be in the form of e-mail or fax or telephone. The required e- mail addresses, fax and telephone numbers can found attached to this COP.  if the transporter does not know which Local Authority area the delivery address is in, the details can be sent to the relevant District Council and it will then be provided to the correct Local Authority.

Contact Details (local contact details to be inserted)

Note: The NFU supports good agricultural practice and the responsible handling of poultry manure and encourages farmers to work with local communities to achieve a sustainable countryside that improves the quality of life for everyone.

Appendix 4a

GOOD PRACTICE FLY MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY UNITS

General Measures

1. Proper sanitation is the key to fly control. Deny flies access to food, shelter and a place to lay their eggs.

2. Do not allow flies to come in contact with contaminated substances and thus contaminate themselves.

3. Although management of adult flies can provide temporary relief, the location and elimination of development sites for immature stages is the best method for long-term control.

4. If flies do enter structures, eliminate them with traps or other suitable methods as quickly as possible.

5. Food and materials on which the house flies can lay their eggs should be removed, destroyed as a breeding medium, or isolated from the egg laying adult house fly.

6. Windows and doors can be proofed with fly screens of approximately 1.5 mm mesh.

7. Follow the good practice guidance for manure producers.

Process Control

8. Wet manure should be removed at least twice weekly if necessary to break the breeding cycle.

9. Wet straw should not pile up in or near buildings and, as one of the best fly breeding materials, it is not recommended as bedding

10. Spilled feed should not be allowed to accumulate, and should be cleaned up at least twice a week.

11. Dustbins, wheelie-bins, paladins and skips should have tight-fitting lids and be cleaned regularly. Dry and wet rubbish should be placed in plastic rubbish bags and sealed up. All waste receptacles should be located as far from building entrances as possible.

12. Electronic fly killers that can attract insects to an electrified grid by using an ultra- violet light source are not generally effective against houseflies. House flies are not particularly attracted to them and, although they may kill the occasional one, they cannot cope with large numbers. If they are used, one trap should be placed for every 30 feet of wall inside buildings, but not placed over or within five feet of food preparation areas. Recommended placement areas outdoors include near building entrances, in alleyways, beneath trees, and around animal sleeping areas and manure piles.

13. Fly traps may be useful in some house fly control programmes if enough traps are used, placed correctly, and used both indoors and outdoors. House flies are attracted to white surfaces and baits that give off odours. Lesser house flies are shyer of traps.

14. Integrated fly control programmes for poultry houses tend to be based on (i) selective application of insecticides against the adult; (ii) early introduction of insecticide control measures in early spring before house flies appear, repeated as needed throughout the warm months, and (iii) effective manure management - both in respect of removal from the poultry houses, transport, storage and spreading on land.

Chemical Control

15. Chemical treatment should be considered as a last resort, as it may only be treating the insects in the vicinity at the time of treatment and not the source, although most pesticides do have a residual effect and may work on particular species throughout their lifecycle.

16. For adult control, conventional knockdown or residual treatments will kill the majority of adult flies in spite of the development of high resistance levels in a number of housefly populations.

17. Residual insecticides applied to the house flies' favoured resting areas will control landing flies in some situations, although they should not generally be applied to breeding areas, as insecticide breakdown can be rapid and resistance may be encouraged.

18. In poultry houses, the use of mists, fogs or baits may be necessary for house fly control. Insecticides to control maggots should not be applied to manure, which should be kept dry and removed only during the winter.

19. When flies are a major pest in commercial egg production facilities, applying adulticides, or larvicides, to suppress adult densities directly or indirectly, can control them.

20. Residual wall sprays can be applied where the flies congregate. Resistance can develop more rapidly in house fly populations on farms on a continuous insecticide regime using a single chemical than on farms in which insecticides are alternated. Residual insecticides may be applied to favoured resting areas for house flies. Breeding areas should be avoided as spray targets as, where the insecticide breaks down in an area where eggs are developing, it may encourage increased resistance in the house fly population.

21. Outdoors, house fly control can include the use of chemical treatments in the bottom of skips, and treatment of vertical walls adjacent to skips and other breeding sites, with microencapsulated or wettable powder formulation, and the use of fly baits near adult feeding sources.

22. Indoors, house fly control can include automatic misters, fly paper, electrocuting and baited traps that can be used in milking parlours and other areas of low fly numbers.

Appendix 5

ADAS PROGRAMME FOR MONITORING AND CONTROL OF FLIES IN DEEP PIT POULTRY HOUSES.

Monitoring Each manure pit and upper house should have at least 6 monitoring squares marked out along the inside walls and on the undersides of the walkways. The squares should be 1 metre by 1 metre and marked out with white paint. They should not be solid squares of paint but a border effect on the blocks, to ensure that no attractant/repellent effect influences the counts.

Six sites should be designated for examination of the manure for fly larvae. These should be clearly indicated on adjacent pillars and concentrated near the pit ends where fly breeding tends to be concentrated.

Twice-weekly counts of adult flies on the wall/ceiling square and larvae in 1 approximately /2 metre square marked areas should be carried out and recorded on the forms supplied.

A rough guide to the larval assessment is 0 ≡ 0 larvae, 1 ≡ 5% of manure covered by larvae, 2 ≡ 10%, 3 ≡ 20%, 4 ≡ 30%, 5 ≡ 40%.

CONTROL TREATMENTS

April - October Larvicide treatments should be carried out when the average count is 2. Spot treatments may be used if larvae are found in isolated areas e.g. sites of leakage. The width of peak to be treated should be assessed and amount of larvicide needed calculated using the manufacturer‟s label recommendations.

A targeted knock-down spray may be applied each week prior to treatment.

This should form the main thrust of any fly control campaign as larvicides will break the life cycle.

Adult fly baits on white (preferably) boards or A4 size sheets of cardboard should be hung throughout the pits. A large number (100 plus) of small cards (0.3 m square) are better than a smaller number of large boards. The bait should remain granular in appearance when the boards are dry. As the number of adult flies fall, less bait will be taken from the boards and, providing the granules remain clean and visible, they can remain toxic for up to 3 months, however their pheromone effect is reduced after only 2 weeks. There are some residual sprays which should not be used as resistance will quickly build up in the enclosed environment of an intensive egg production unit. These are clearly marked on the product label.

The use of these products should not be necessary over the winter months and limiting their use will help to reduce the risk of resistance build up, but the boards should be in place by the start of the warm weather in April. The products should be used cyclically with a change being put in place at the start of each fly season.

Hygiene must play a large part in control, and water leaks must be prevented. Eggs, dead birds, insecticide packets etc. should be removed immediately and disposed of accordingly.

Insecticides board should be checked regularly and replaced if they become dusty, dirty or ineffective because of lack of insecticide. Used boards should be removed from the houses and burnt.

Care should be taken at all times to ensure no insecticide is inadvertently applied to the manure as it can kill any beneficial insects that develop in the manure. These beetles (Carcinops pumilio – hister beetles – predators of fly eggs and early stage larvae, and Alphitobius diaperinus – litter beetles) help to aerate and dry the manure. Space-sprays should be used as an emergency action only.

The use of industrial sized sticky papers should be considered in areas where adult flies are known to congregate, such as the pit ends and around feeder hoppers. Proprietary fly traps may be useful outdoors.

November - March A few strategically placed bait boards and sticky traps should be sufficient over the winter months to control any adult flies which may emerge. Residual sprays may be also be used but should only be applied to clean areas or applied on cards. Summer treatments may be more usefully employed.

Weekly counts for adult and larvae presence must be carried out.

Hygienic must play a large part of control, and water leaks must be prevented. Eggs, dead and live birds, insecticide packets etc. should be removed immediately, or better still, not put in the pit in the first place. All ledges where muck collects should be scraped off weekly.

Sticky traps and insecticides board should be checked weekly and replaced if they become dusty, dirty or ineffective because of lack of insecticide. They should be removed from the houses and burnt.

Care should be taken at all times to ensure no insecticide is inadvertently applied to the manure. Space-sprays should be used as an emergency action only.

To ensure that system adherence is maintained by staff carrying out the monitoring and control it is recommended that the records be independently monitored by a specialist consultant at least 4 times between the months of April and October. These should take the form of „spot checks‟ (staff should not be told that the consultant will be visiting). The inspection should comprise examination of the records and checking on the standard of fly control at the time of the visit. It should be followed by a report to the manager in overall charge of the sites.

GOOD RECORD KEEPING is essential and forms the foundation of any form of pest control. If the person in charge of control is absent, a deputy will know exactly what has been done and how to continue the regime. Any queries concerning control can be quickly answered and trends marked and acted upon.

PROCEDURES TO BE ADOPTED AT MANURE CLEAN-OUT

1. Muck infested with fly larvae and/or fly pupae, should not be removed from the house, particularly during warm weather. If routine inspections indicate significant levels of maggots are present, the manure should be treated with larvicide at least four weeks prior to removal. This action will kill off early

stage larvae but not those in the later stages of development or the final (pupal) stage which will continue to develop into adult flies. The larvicide treatment must be supplemented therefore with the use of sticky traps, knock- downs and baits to „mop up‟ emerging adults.

2. Prior to the end doors being taken off for manure removal a full treatment with a knock-down spray should be applied if necessary in both the pit and the bird area to prevent adult fly emergence.

3. Some „old‟ manure should be left behind at cleaning if no flies are present to assist in the rapid-establishment of predacious beetle and mite populations. If no beetles are present in the house, complete clean-out should be followed by „seeding‟ with beetles from infested houses providing that there are no biosecurity risks on the site. Complete clean out and seeding with beetles should also be adopted if fly breeding is occurring in the pit.

4. As soon as fresh muck heaps begin to develop routine inspections should made at least twice per week. At the first sign of larval development the muck should receive a full treatment of larvicide in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. It is essential that the larvicide is applied at an early stage because the later stage larvae and pupae are not susceptible to the material.

5. The need for larvicide re-treatment and/or additional insecticide treatments will depend on the nature and extent of the individual problem. All treatments should be recorded on the appropriate form supplied.

Appendix 5a

Fly control in free range units

Nuisance insects (flies) have not been a significant issue, however a few complaints have been received since the introduction of the 2005 Act concerning Lesser Housefly allegedly emanating from free-range egg production units. Accordingly the BPM document has been adapted for use in free range egg production units

ADAS OUTLINE PROGRAMME FOR MONITORING AND CONTROL OF FLIES AT FREE-RANGE POULTRY HOUSES.

Free-range units of recent construction have slatted floors above a shallow manure pit. Inspection has revealed that at times adult flies can be seen resting on the manure beneath the slats and on the side walls and some fly larvae have been seen in the manure beneath the drinker lines whilst there can be little evidence of flies in the upper house.

Manure management Poultry droppings can be anything between 70 and 80% moisture content when they leave the birds. Ideally manure in the pits should be below 50% to minimise the potential for fly breeding. Heat from the birds and evaporation of water by the ventilation system should assist in this process. It is important that any ingress of water through faulty drainage, leaking pipe-work, drinkers etc is prevented.

A nipple drinker system, although compliant with the highest industry standards, can be vulnerable to dripping water into the pits beneath. When the birds use the drinker

lines at night as a roosting site it can cause the nipple drinkers to drip water into the manure.

One possible way to prevent any water drips from getting into the manure pit is to place guttering beneath the drinkers to catch any spillage. This should then be directed to a drainage point outside the building. Houses can be treated in this way as an insurance against water entering the pit from the drinkers, subject to agreement from the industry quality assurance schemes.

Monitoring It is suggested that each house should have at least 6 monitoring areas situated beneath the slats along the perimeter walls where any flies present are known to rest and 2 in each upper house. It is possible to view the side walls of the building through the slats with a torch without disturbing the resting flies. Six monitoring areas should be marked out along the inside of the pit walls. These should be one metre wide and as the depth of the manure will vary throughout the flock life, the numbers of flies seen up to 0.5metre above the level of the manure should be recorded.

Monitoring should be carried out using pull-down rolls of sticky fly papers, approx. 30cm wide. One of these should be placed on each side of the upper house. About 30cm of roll should be exposed and ripped off after each count and retained.

Six sites should be designated for sampling of the manure for fly larvae. These should be clearly indicated on the slats above and concentrated near the drinker areas where fly breeding tends to be concentrated.

Twice-weekly counts of adult flies on the sticky paper and manure samples from the marked areas, should be carried out and recorded on the forms supplied during the months April – October and in the two months following manure removal if it is outside this period. Monitoring should be routinely carried out once a fortnight between November and March.

A rough guide to the larval assessment is 0 ≡ 0 larvae, 1 ≡ 5% of manure covered by larvae, 2 ≡ 10%, 3 ≡ 20%, 4 ≡ 30%, 5 ≡ 40%.

Control Larvicide treatments should be carried out when the average count is 2. Spot treatments may be used if larvae are found in isolated areas e.g. sites of leakage.

The area to be treated should be assessed and amount of larvicide needed calculated using the manufacturer‟s recommendations. A targeted knock-down spray may be applied each week prior to treatment if necessary.

This should form the main thrust of your fly control campaign as larvicides will break the life cycle if used correctly.

Fly baits, on white (preferably) boards or A4 size sheets of cardboard should be hung throughout the pits in the areas where adult flies congregate. It is recommended that at least 12 cards be placed under the slats along the edges in each house. The amount of product to be used should be calculated according to the manufacturer‟s label instructions for the size of the buildings and distributed evenly on the cards. Some of the product can also usefully be painted on to the wires etc where flies have been seen to rest. The cards should be prepared and allowed to dry before installation.

Hygiene must play a large part in control, and water leaks must be prevented. Eggs, dead birds, insecticide packets etc. should be removed immediately and disposed of accordingly.

Insecticides board should be checked regularly and replaced if they become dusty, dirty or ineffective because of lack of insecticide. Used boards should be removed from the houses and burnt.

Manure treated with larvicide must not be spread within 4 weeks of the last application.

NOTE: Although there is no industry standard described for best practicable means at free range units, this system could reasonably be described as best practice.

7.3 Manure management

A draft code of Practice for the spreading of manure has been circulated to EHPs via their intranet, based on the experiences of a number of authorities when dealing with alleged nuisance associated with the spreading of manure. This document should be consulted when investigating a nuisance insect problem:-

Appendix 6

The Scottish Government Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008

INSECT NUISANCE PROVISIONS (Section 5)

Introduction

5.1 The new provisions for insect nuisance are included in section 109 of the 2008 Act. These controls are implemented by amendment of the 1990 Act. The provisions are as follows:-

109 Insect nuisance

(1) Section 79 (statutory nuisances and inspections) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43) (the "1990 Act") is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (fa), insert-

"(faa) any insects emanating from premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance;"

(3) After subsection (5A), insert-

"(5AA) Subsection (1)(faa) above does not apply to insects that are wild animals included in Schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69).

(5AB) For the purposes of subsection (1)(faa) above, "premises" does not include-

(a) a site of special scientific interest (within the meaning of section 3(6) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (asp 6));

(b) such other place (or type of place) as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.

(5AC) Before making regulations under subsection (5AB)(b) above, the Scottish Ministers must consult, in so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the persons mentioned in subsection (5AD) below.

(5AD) Those persons are-

(a) such associations of local authorities; and

(b) such other persons, as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate".

(4) In subsection (7), in the definition of "premises", after "land" insert "(subject to subsection (5AB) above)".

5.2 The purpose of this amendment is to allow nuisance action to be taken against any insect (other than those protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) emanating from any premises (including land). A list of the species within Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is contained within Appendix 11. It is unlikely that any of the insects included in the Schedule would occur in such locations and circumstances that would constitute a nuisance. The 2008 Act also excludes any site of special scientific interest 2 (within the meaning of section 3(6) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004) from these controls and makes provision for Scottish Ministers to exclude other premises by regulation.

5.3 By virtue of schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30), the term land includes land covered with water.

5.4 This provision is intended to provide local authorities with a remedy to nuisances from insects (whether naturally occurring or caused by human activities) it may be used where insects are prejudicial to the health of the occupiers of the premises but it is not meant to be used against most naturally occurring concentrations of insects on open land or in ways that would adversely affect biodiversity. The majority of insect species do not cause a nuisance, but are essential components of biodiversity and maintain ecosystems through pollination, soil maintenance and other functions.

Extent of Controls

5.5 What is an insect in terms of the 2008 Act? There is no formal definition in the Act. In the common use of the term 'insect', insects belong to the phylum Arthropoda that is divided into a number of classes. These include the:

 Crustacea (crabs, crayfish, prawns)

 Arachnida (spiders, mites, scorpions)

 Myriapoda (millipedes & centipedes)

 Insecta (insects)

Modern insect classification divides the Insecta into some 30 orders and some of the more common orders are:

 Dictyoptera - cockroaches

 Isoptera - termites

 Siphonaptera - fleas

 Diptera - flies and mosquitoes

 Coleoptera - beetles

 Hymenoptera - wasps, bees, ants, sawflies.

5.6 The provisions apply to all premises (both commercial and residential) but in proceedings for an offence relating to the breach of an abatement notice, it is a defence to prove that the best practicable means are being used to prevent or counteract the effects of the nuisance. The conditions that could be considered when evaluating whether best practicable means have been used are further discussed in Appendix 1.

Assessing Nuisance Complaints

5.7 One of the key issues in dealing with the new insect nuisance is identification of the person responsible for the nuisance on whom any abatement notice should be served. Section 80(2) of the 1990 Act provides that the abatement notice shall be served on the the person responsible for the nuisance, unless:

(a) the nuisance is the result of a structural defect in which case it should be served on the owner of the premises: or

(b) the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found or the nuisance has not yet occurred, in which case it should be served on the owner or occupier of the premises.

5.8 In the case of insects this raises a number of procedural problems. Ascertaining the source of insect nuisance can often be a difficult and lengthy process as flying insects can travel considerable distances. It may also be the case that premises that have high levels of insect infestation are not actually the source of the nuisance itself. Once the 'premises' has been identified, the local authority will have to give consideration as to whether or not a person responsible for the nuisance can also be identified.

5.9 However it should be remembered that the 1990 Act provides for the service of a notice in circumstances where a nuisance may not currently exist (or cannot be proved) but the conditions at a location indicate that a nuisance is likely to occur.

5.10 There are a number of insect species that can cause nuisance seasonally or when present in sufficient numbers. Some of the insects concerned may pose a public health risk due to the fact that they can carry infectious disease (i.e. vectors) but others may just present a nuisance. Examples of both include mosquitoes (Culicidae), house flies (Musca domestica), lesser house flies (Fannia canicularis), fruit flies (Drosophila spp), cockroaches (Periplaneta Americana, Blattella germanica, Blatta orientalis), moth flies or sewage filter flies (Psychoda spp and Tinearia alternata) and biting midges (Culicoides impunctatus).

5.11 The Scottish Government recommends that local authorities visit a potentially affected area as soon as possible after receiving a complaint of insect nuisance and suggests that this should be done at least within 5 working days of the complaint in order to establish the extent and degree of the alleged nuisance. There are five key steps in the assessment of an insect nuisance complaint as outlined in Figure 5.0 below.

FIGURE 5.0 - INVESTIGATION OF INSECT COMPLAINTS

5.12 The type of insect and the specific characteristics of the case will have a significant impact on how the statutory nuisance is determined - for example a complaint of insects that carry disease and pose a threat to public health may require to be assessed against a different threshold to a complaint based on nuisance alone. Nuisance controls were first introduced into the 1990 Act in England and Wales by the CNE Act. The guidance supporting the insect nuisance provisions introduced by the CNE Act includes some numerical guidance on fly nuisance and extracts have been included in the Technical Guidance in Appendix 1.

5.13 Proper management and treatment programmes should be able to minimize most insect nuisance cases that arise. Identification of infestations in their early stages and management of the habitats and conditions in which insects proliferate are important control measures. It should not be assumed that killing insects is necessarily the most appropriate way to prevent or abate a nuisance. Environmental consequences (indirect as well as cumulative) of remedial action must be considered, such as the effects of insecticides if used, on the environment, nature, bodies of water, etc. Insecticides should therefore be chosen with care and regard for the Defra Code of Practice for using Plant Protection Products (available at www.pesticides.gov.uk).

5.14 Appendix 1 to this guidance included further technical information on applicable controls and good practice for insect management.

5.15 There are a number of overlaps between the insect provisions and other legislative provisions of the 1990 Act or other regimes that should also be considered when dealing with insect nuisance:- a) Part 5 of the 2008 Act (when implemented) will allow local authorities to serve notice where any premises is infested, infected or contaminated and it is necessary to carry out steps to prevent spread of disease or contamination.

b) Poultry houses / animal husbandry units - this could be covered by the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) regulations 2000 ( PPC) if the farm is big enough. Alternatively section 79 (1)(a) (premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance) or section 79 (1)(f) any animal kept in such a condition as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance) may apply. c) Sewage treatment works - it is proposed to develop a new Sewerage Nuisance Code under the Water Services (Scotland) etc Act 2005. d) Manure / slurry storage areas - this could be covered by PPC if the farm is big enough otherwise section 79 (1)(a) or section 79 (1)(e) (any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance) may apply. e) Animal housing - this could be covered by PPC if the farm is big enough otherwise section 79 (1)(a) or section 79 (1)(f) (any animal kept in such a condition as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance) may apply. f) Stagnant ditches and drains (i.e. containing putrid and anoxic water) - the new water nuisance provisions may be applicable. g) Landfill sites / refuse tips - these should be covered either by PPC or by the waste management licensing provisions of Part II of the 1990 Act otherwise section 79 (1)(e) might have application. h) Waste transfer premises - these should be covered either by PPC or by the waste management licensing provisions of Part II of the 1990 Act otherwise section 79 (1)(e) might have application. i) Trade or business premises (e.g. contaminated goods, kitchen areas) - section 79 (1)(a) may apply otherwise health and safety or food safety legislation might have application. j) Slaughterhouses - section 79 (1)(a), health and safety or food safety legislation (including specific slaughterhouse hygiene requirements) may apply. k) Used car tyre recycling businesses - section 79 (1)(a), health and safety legislation or the waste management licensing provisions of Part II of the 1990 Act might have application.

Appendix 7 - Search of Defra webpage

Your query insect nuisance contracts found 50 documents. Insect Nuisance Associated with Sewage Treatment Works those with STW-derived fly problems, and those who responded to the surveys in the absence of problems. It would therefore seem necessary that legislation associated with insects as a statutory nuisance is clarified in such a way as to facilitate legal proceedings against nuisance sources when required. The response from PCOs was negative, in respect to whether STW- derived insects were treated, File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 28/07/2006, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance > odour > pdf, Document Size: 668 Kb Defra, UK Environmental Protection Local Environmental Quality O... Defra, UK - Environmental Protection - Local Environmental Quality - Odour and insect nuisance Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Main menu Global links Environmental protection You are here: Insects Section navigation ocal Environmental Quality: Odour and insect nuisance Insect nuisance associated with sewage treatment works This is the final report from a research File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 02/01/2009, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance > odour, Document Size: 13 Kb historical Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Main m... to assess the current level of information available for local authorities to aid their investigation and resolution of insect nuisance complaints under section 101 of the clean neighbourhoods and environment act 2005 and identify, if appropriate, the need for further practical guidance Dec 2008 An investigation to assess the current level of information available for local authorities to aid their File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 12/02/2009, Section: science > funding, Document Size: 31 Kb Statutory nuisance from insects and artificial light Page 23 23 Insects emanating from filter beds are a source of food for various wild bird and bat species, which in turn as act as a natural means of pest control. Treatment at filter beds could be so effective that these species lose a useful source of food supply. Example of insect nuisance Â mosquitoes (Culicidae) 72 There are about 30 species of mosquito (family Culicidae) in the UK, occupying File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 27/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 377 Kb DefraDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsMain menuGlobal linksYou are here:Section Defra, UK - Environmental Protection - Local Environmental Quality - Odour and insect nuisance Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Main menu Global links Environmental protection You are here: Odour Section navigation Local Environmental Quality: Odour and insect nuisance What is odour and insect nuisance? Odour and insect nuisance can have a detrimental affect File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 02/01/2009, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance >

odour, Document Size: 16 Kb Bill consultation document document. A High Court ruling on a case brought by the London Borough of Hounslow against Thames Water found that insect nuisance was not covered by the statutory nuisance regime. Local authorities already receive a number of complaints about both these forms of nuisance. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health published findings as long ago as 1993 that 80% of authorities received complaints File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 24/05/2005, Section: corporate > regulat > impact- assessment > pdf, Document Size: 239 Kb Noise and Nuisance Research Newsletter Page 12 Insects Defra wishes to consider and assess the potential for new and existing species of insect with the potential to cause statutory nuisance as a result of climate change. Defra wishes to undertake a qualitative assessment of the insect species likely to rise in prevalence over the coming years. Such evidence can then be used to inform policy and to develop robust mitigation strategies. File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 17/07/2008, Section: environment > noise > research > pdf, Document Size: 103 Kb Defra, UK Environmental Protection Local Environmental Quality O... Defra, UK - Environmental Protection - Local Environmental Quality - Odour and insect nuisance Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Main menu Global links Environmental protection You are here: Code of practice Section navigation ocal Environmental Quality: Odour and insect nuisance Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works Odour from the majority File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 02/01/2009, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance > odour, Document Size: 13 Kb DefraDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsMain menuGlobal linksYou are here:Section Defra, UK - Environmental Protection - Local Environmental Quality - Odour and insect nuisance Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Main menu Global links Environmental protection You are here: BATs Section navigation Local Environmental Quality: Odour and insect nuisance Best Available Technique for Odour Control at Sewage Treatment Works and Draft Best Available File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 02/01/2009, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance > odour, Document Size: 13 Kb DefraDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsMain menuGlobal linksScience You are here:Looking for...Useful linksAdditional resourcesSite navigation To Investigate The Potential For New And Existing Species Of Insect With The Potential To Cause Statutory Nuisance To Occur In The UK As A Result Of Current And Predicted Climate Change Aug 2008 Estimating Dose Response Relationships Between Noise Exposure And Human Health Impacts In The UK Aug 2008 Scrutiny Of River Basin Plans Aug 2008 A Study To Estimate The Amenity Values Of Local Environmental File Type: HTML, Last Modified Date: 04/01/2009, Section: science > funding, Document Size: 61 Kb Waste Notices Â· Abandoned Shopping and Luggage trolleys Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/legislation /cnea/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail 6000 London SW1A 2XX Tel: 08459 556000 You may also find it helpful to refer to existing information

File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 27/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 232 Kb Microsoft Word Wildlife Report Vol 9 No 3 Oct Dec 2007 web_2_.doc as recorded in OIE Wildlife Disease Reports. Press reports from August 2007 described widespread losses presumed to have been of myxomatosis in Central and Southern England. These caused public nuisance and concern when people saw affected animals in the open with typical skin lesions that often attracted flies. It is surmised that factors contributing to the incidents included higher than normal File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 04/03/2008, Section: vla > reports > docs, Document Size: 94 Kb Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works Page 11 10 1.4 What this Code of Practice applies to Type of nuisance This Code of Practice focuses on odour nuisance, although many of the general principles (and in particular the step-wise Good Practice Approach in Figure 1) can be applied to any other type of statutory nuisance, such as noise and insects#. Type of plant This Code of Practice applies to all sewage treatment works and File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 11/04/2006, Section: environment > localenv > nuisance > odour > pdf, Document Size: 465 Kb Nuisance and abandoned vehicles Abandoned Shopping and Luggage trolleys Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/legislation /cnea/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail 6000 London SW1A 2XX Tel: 08459 556000 You may also find it helpful to refer to existing information and File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 27/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 288 Kb Introduction to SOO expects the regulations to be in place during 2010-2015. 7.2 Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Plants 7.2.1 Nuisance caused by odour and insects from the majority of sewage treatment works is regulated by local authority Environmental Health Practitioners under the statutory nuisance provisions of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("EPA"). 7.2.2 Section 79 of EPA (as amended File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 02/07/2008, Section: environment > water > industry > review > pdf, Document Size: 494 Kb Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act Outline of Measures establishes the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) on a statutory basis. Miscellaneous Â· enables local authorities to recover the costs of dealing with abandoned shopping trolleys from their owners Â· extends the list of statutory nuisances to include light pollution and nuisance for insects Â· improves the contaminated land appeals process. File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 19/04/2005, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 17 Kb Abandoned trolleys Vehicles Â· Litter and Refuse Â· Defacement Removal Notices Â· Waste Â· Noise Â· Fixed Penalty Notices Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/legislation /cnea/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail 6000 London SW1A 2XX Tel: 08459 556000 File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 27/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 197 Kb

Noise Penalty Notices Â· Abandoned Shopping and Luggage trolleys Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/legislation /cnea/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail 6000 London SW1A 2XX Tel: 08459 556000 You may also find it helpful to refer to existing File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 27/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 187 Kb Litter and refuse Guidance on Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Removal Notices Â· Waste Â· Dog Control Orders Â· Noise Â· Fixed Penalty Notices Â· Abandoned Shopping and Luggage trolleys Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/ legislation/cnea/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail 6000 London SW1A 2XX File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 08/08/2007, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 805 Kb 20061 Notices to Juveniles Refuse Â· Defacement Removal Notices Â· Waste Â· Dog Control Orders Â· Noise Â· Fixed Penalty Notices Â· Abandoned Shopping and Luggage Trolleys Â· Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light All parts of the guidance can be downloaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/legislation/cne a/index.htm or alternatively further copies are available from: Defra Publications Admail File Type: Adobe PDF, Last Modified Date: 30/03/2006, Section: environment > localenv > legislation > cnea, Document Size: 134 Kb

References:

Bell, H. A. and Weaver, R.J. (2006) Insect Nuisance Associated with Sewage Treatment Works, Defra

Bonnefoy, X., Kampen, H. & Sweeney, K. (2008) Public Health Significance of Urban Pests. World Health Organisation, Europe.

Busvine, J.R. (1980) Insects and Hygiene: The biology and control of insect pests of medical and domestic importance, Third Edition, Chapman and Hall, London.

Defra. Guidance on Sections 101 to 103 of the Clean Air and Environment Act (2005) Defra Publications

Environmental Protection Act 1990 - The Statutory Nuisances (Insects) Regulations 2006

Hill, M., Baker, R., Broad, G., Chandler, P.J., Copp, G.H., Ellis, J., Jones, D., Hoyland, C., Laing, I., Longshaw, M., Moore, N., Parrott, D., Pearman, D., Preston, C., Smith, R.M. & Waters, R. (2005) Audit of non-native species in England. Research Report No. 662. English Nature, Peterborough.

Lole, M.J. (2005) Nuisance flies and landfill activities: an investigation at a West Midlands landfill site. 23: 420 – 428 Waste Management & Research online

Robinson, W.H. (2005) Urban insects and arachnids: a handbook of urban entomology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Roy, H.E., Beckmann, B.C., Comont, R.F., Hails, R.S., Harrington, R., Medlock, J., Purse, B., Shortall, C.R. (2009) An Investigation into the Potential for New and Existing Species of Insect with the Potential to Cause Statutory Nuisance to Occur in the UK as a Result of Current and Predicted Climate Change. Local Environment Protection, Defra

Warne and Oldroyd, H. 1964, The Natural History of Flies, Weinfield & Nicholson