Fridays Ltd Environmental Assessment Non Technical Summary Proposed Poultry Redevelopment at Tolehurst Farm, Cranbrook Road

FRIDAYS LTD

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

PROPOSED POULTRY REDEVELOPMENT

TOLEHURST FARM, CRANBROOK ROAD, KNOXBRIDGE, CRANBROOK, TN17 2BP

Prepared By:-

BRIAN BARROW BSc (Hons) MRICS Managing Director Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd Old Market Office 10 Risbygate Street Bury St Edmunds Suffolk, IP33 3AA

Tel: 01284 753271 Email: [email protected]

February 2019

Non Technical Summary 1. INTRODUCTION

This non technical summary document has been produced to summarise the issues, mitigation measures and effects relating to the proposed erection of 2 poultry buildings at Tolehurst Farm.

In terms of effects these have been graded as follows:-

None The development will not produce any effects beyond those which may be experienced within the current farming regime.

Low There will be an effect, this will be localised and will not impact on environmental and other features to their detriment when relating to existing uses (e.g. distance too far).

Medium There will be an effect which will impact on environmental features, but not significantly.

High A significant effect.

2. BACKGROUND

There are currently 2 poultry rearing sheds housing 13,500 birds each. In addition there are 96,000 laying birds housed in 2 buildings to the south of the site built 4 years ago.

In addition to the above production buildings there are two dwellings owned by the company and occupied by Fridays employees.

The site has an access from the East linking to the public highway.

3. THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission was obtained to construct two new poultry sheds to replace seven laying sheds. The sheds have since been constructed and are operational (Phase 1).

The proposal for Phase 2 is to demolish the existing rearing sheds to the north of the site which have a total floor area of 1,302 m² and erect 2 new rearing houses, each 120 m x 26.66 m which will have a total floor area of 6,398.4 m².

The new rearing buildings can be used to rear birds for three laying systems, Colony, Barn and RSPCA Assured Free Range. The number of birds to be housed in the sheds depends on the system used and will range from 138,864 to 322,560 birds.

Non Technical Summary

The scheme has been designed to take into account the potential environmental effects. The following elements form part of the Environmental Impact Assessment:-

Landscape Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Airborne Pollution, Including Odours and noise Ecological Impact Dirty and Clean Water Disposal Highways Archaeology

The impacts related to these issues are summarised in the following section.

Non Technical Summary 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The main impacts of the development is summarised as follows:-

4.1 CLEAN/DIRTY WATER AND FLOOD RISK

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Pollution from dirty A total containment system is None – All dirty water and water run off proposed for collecting dirty water potentially contaminated rain from washing down. Disposal off water will be collected. site will be in accordance with Codes of Practice. Disposal of litter Used as organic fertiliser or sent None/Low –Poultry manure to anaerobic digester (AD) plant. reduces the need for non organic Sheeted lorries or trailers will be fertiliser and disposal is covered used. by Codes of Good Practice and Nitrate Regulations. Likely reduction of imported organic manures. AD plants are specifically designed to take manure. Clean water disposed System to be installed None/Low. Water will be incorporating water attenuation released at the current rate. Flood Risk Zone 1 Low – the land is in a low risk flood area

4.2 HIGHWAYS

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Volume of traffic in The site already has agricultural Low – similar traffic. relation to dwellings traffic associated with its present use. Volume of traffic in The site is an existing poultry Low – The number of proposed relation to road unit. Traffic movement’s to the vehicles are low and of identical network proposed new rearing sheds will type to historical use. be low. Access point Site access already used for None/low– road network able to access by the business by take additional traffic. agricultural and other vehicles

Non Technical Summary 4.3 ODOURS, DUST AND NOISE

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Odours Modern purpose designed Low, odour model plume shows buildings with high velocity fan that it is below the threshold outlets. Dirty water containment stipulated by the Environment system. Manure will be removed Agency. offsite. Distance from dwellings. Dust Existing landscaping Low – Distances significant, better location than the existing sheds. Noise New modern fans and insulation Low – Noise ratings of fans low replacing poor quality existing in relation to typical rural noises. buildings. Delivery and collection lorries have higher noise reading however this is short lived and distances are significant. Pests Full pest control programme to be None – Pests create problems to implemented. Careful use of operation, and it is in the chemicals to avoid damage to interest of operators to control wildlife. anyway.

4.4 LANDSCAPE

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Visual impact of Limited visibility into site, sited Low. buildings within established poultry farm. Existing well established landscaping. Visual Impact from There are is a nearby footpath. Low. footpath However there is very limited The unit is in the vicinity of visibility into the site. existing agricultural and similar development

Non Technical Summary

4.5 ECOLOGY

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Land use/ecology Agricultural land in arable use Low with low ecological value. Ammonia New housing with high speed, Low – no material changes high level ventilation. predicted from the current permitted levels.

4.6 ARCHAEOLOGY

Issue Mitigation Measures Effect Assuming Mitigation

Impact on Very little archaeological potential. None archaeological In vicinity of well preserved remains Roman road but this will not be directly impacted upon by proposed development.

5. ALTERNATIVES

The only alternatives are different layouts on the site or a different site on the farm, which were looked at. There are no alternative layouts or sites that would be better than the proposed given the well enclosed site.

6. CONSTRUCTION

There will be minimal disruption during construction of the unit.

This will take approximately 12 months and individual tasks will be over relatively short periods and will not have any significant environmental effects.

Non Technical Summary 7. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is to redevelop a poultry unit. The proposal will meet increasing welfare and environmental considerations including adhering to Best Available Techniques (BAT) as required by the Environment Agency. It is supported in policy terms.

The proposal makes best use of available sites. The design takes into account operational requirements and potential environmental effects.

From the information appraised through the Environmental Impact Assessment it is clear that the proposed development will have a low overall impact on the environment taking into account the mitigation measures proposed.

Non Technical Summary

C H A R T E R E D S U R V E Y O R S & P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T A N T S

THE OLD MARKET OFFICE – 10 RISBYGATE STREET – BURY ST EDMUNDS – SUFFOLK – IP33 3AA

Environmental Statement for:

PROPOSED POULTRY REDEVELOPMENT at TOLEHURST POULTRY FARM

Report prepared for:

FRIDAYS LTD

February 2019

NAME OF ORGANISATION

Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd – known as Acorus (Registered number 04514547)

OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATION

Acorus Rural Property Services Limited are a privately owned firm of Chartered Surveyors and Planning Consultants specialising in Rural Development.

Acorus has four offices nationwide of which the South and South East office operates from The Old Market Office, 10 Risbygate Street, Bury St Edmunds.

CONTACTS

Mr Brian R Barrow BSc (HONS) MRICS Managing Director Acorus Rural Property Services Limited The Old Market Office 10 Risbygate Street Bury St Edmunds IP33 3AA

Office: 01284 753271 Fax: 01284 748750 Mobile: 07774 972627

Email: [email protected]

Louise Gregory Rural Planning Consultant Acorus Rural Property Services Limited The Old Market Office 10 Risbygate Street Bury St Edmunds IP33 3AA

Office: 01284 753271 Fax: 01284 748750

Email: [email protected]

CONTENTS

SECTION TOPIC

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of report 1.2 Scope of report 1.3 Initial consultation

2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 Existing Site 3.2 Current Production 3.3 Current Condition 3.4 Supply Chain

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.5 Site Topography 3.6 Local Landscape 3.7 Land Grading 3.8 Present Cropping 3.9 Flood Risk

NEARBY BUILDINGS AND DWELLINGS

3.10 Surrounding properties and uses (1KM radius) 3.11 Surrounding towns and villages

ACCESS & ROAD NETWORK

3.12 Road network 3.13 Access 3.14 Footpaths

ECOLOGY

3.15 On site ecology (Phase 1 survey) 3.16 Local ecology (2KM radius) 3.17 Other designations (2KM radius)

PLANNING ADVISE & HISTORY

3.18 Planning history 3.19 Present applications in the locality 3.20 Planning policy

4 DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

4.1 Description of the proposed rearing enterprise 4.2 Layout of the site 4.3 Building construction 4.4 Husbandry and equipment 4.5 Labour 4.6 Litter

5 ITEMS TO BE ASSESSED

6 WATER DISPOSAL

6.1 Background 6.2 Clean Water 6.3 Dirty Water 6.4 Maintenance 6.5 Summary

7 FLOOD RISK

8 AIRBOURNE POLLUTION

8.1 Odours 8.2 Dust concentrations and emissions 8.3 Flies 8.4 Vermin 8.5 Noise

9 ECOLOGY

9.1 On and off site 9.2 Arboricultural Implications

10 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC STATEMENT

10.1 Road network 10.2 Site access 10.3 Traffic movements 10.4 Mitigation 10.5 Impact 10.6 Impact on footpaths

11 LANDSCAPE IMPACT

12 PREVIOUS LAND USE/CONTAMINATION

13 ARCHAEOLOGY

14 ALTERNATIVES

15 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

16 CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 SCOPING OPINION

APPENDIX 2 NATIONAL CHARACTER AREA

APPENDIX 3 PHASE 1 ECOLOGY SURVEY

APPENDIX 4 PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT

APPENDIX 5 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 6 ODOUR ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 7 AMMONIA ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 8 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 9 ARCHAEOLOGY REPORT

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Fridays Ltd has asked Acorus Rural Property Services to collate an Environmental Statement to be used in conjunction with his proposed planning application to erect new poultry buildings at Tolehurst Poultry Farm.

The report has been collated by B R Barrow BSc (Hons) MRICS and draws on technical information supplied by:

John Bailey - Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd James Hodson - Eco Check Consultancy Steve Smith and Phil Edgington – AS Modelling and Data Graham Hinton - Cedar Land Management Graham Fuller – Fridays Limited

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the report

Acorus was requested by Fridays Ltd to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment, which would identify the environmental effects of a proposed poultry unit upgrade involving the replacement of 2 poultry rearing sheds with 2 larger ones.

The report is intended to:-

1. Establish existing conditions on the site and surrounding area. 2. Identify and assess the environmental impact of the proposed rearing sheds. 3. Identify any measures necessary to mitigate adverse effects if appropriate.

1.2 Scope of the report

The report has been written as an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

This development is a Schedule 1 development by virtue of being an installation for the rearing of poultry with more than 60,000 places for hens.

1.3 Initial consultation

A scoping opinion was sought by Mr Brian Barrow of Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, which is contained at Appendix 1. This was for a larger scheme for which phase 1 is now complete.

This statement has taken account of the initial scoping and the discussions during the phase 1 process.

2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

Tolehurst Farm was built as a free range unit in the 1980’s. At that time free range units were small in scale in terms of shed size, although this farm contained a number of sheds.

Planning permission was granted on 20 September 2013 for the replacement of 7 existing poultry buildings with 2 new poultry buildings, together with associated landscaping and amendments to access (ref: 13/01965/FULMJ/TA1) – Phase 1.

This proposal is for the demolition of two additional rearing buildings to the north of the site which are small and in a poor state of repair and erect 2 larger modern sheds constructed to latest industry standards sited further away from residential properties – Phase 2.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Existing Site

There are currently 2 poultry rearing sheds housing 13,500 birds. In addition there are 96,000 laying birds housed in 2 buildings to the south of the site (Phase 1 now complete).

In addition to the above production buildings there are two dwellings owned by the company and occupied by Fridays employees.

The site has an access from the East linking to the public highway.

The existing sheds are as follows:-

Shed Bird No. System Type Dimensions No. (metres) H x L x W

1 6750 Rearing Roof inlet side 4.5 x 43 x 14 exhaust 2 6750 Rearing Side inlet roof exhaust 4.5 x 50 x 14

3 64,000 Free range High Speed Fans 6 x 260 x 20.5

4 32,000 Free range High Speed Fans 6 x 136 x 20.5

Photograph – Existing Rearing Sheds

3.2 Current Production

The current site at Tolehurst Farm forms one of several owned by Fridays Ltd. It involves both laying hens producing eggs and the rearing of hens to stock laying units.

The laying sheds were replaced approximately 4 years ago. The hens have access to grass at the rate of 1 hectare per 2,000 birds.

The rearing sheds are circa 40 years old and house birds inside only to produce point of lay pullets, which are moved to laying units either on site, or on other farms owned.

3.3 Current Condition

The site is only part operational, the standard of construction on the rearing sheds is no longer suitable for modern day requirements with one partly collapsed.

The small scale of the sheds makes repair and the installation of modern equipment uneconomic, and this means the birds per shed/flock are limited.

3.4 Supply Chain

The pullets reared on the farm will be utilised by Fridays across their farms in the South East of England.

The eggs produced on the farm from phase 1 are currently supplied to Fridays own packing station, which supplies major supermarkets.

Physical Characteristics

3.5 Site topography

The proposed site lies at co-ordinates 578499, 139963 or National Grid Reference TQ 785 399.

A site check of the holding against data provided by the Multi‐Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Interactive Map shows the soilscape of the site and land designations to be as follows:

Soilscape (England)

Main Surface Natural Natural Characteristic Semi- Reference Name Main Land Cover Texture Drainage Type Fertility natural Habitats Class ARABLE, LOAMY SOILS WITH WET ACID MEADOWS NATURALLY GRASSLAND 22 NATURALLY HIGH LOAMY LOW AND PASTURES AND WET AND GROUNDWATER WOODLAND WOODLAND WIDE RANGE OF PASTURE AND SLIGHTLY ACID LOAMY SLIGHTLY MODERATE GENERALLY ARABLE AND 8 AND CLAYEY SOILS WITH LOAMY IMPEDED TO HIGH BROADLEAVED AND GRASSLAND IMPEDED DRAINAGE DRAINAGE MIXED WOODLAND TYPES SLOWLY PERMEABLE GRASSLAND SEASONALLY WET LOWLAND SEASONALLY IMPEDED AND ARABLE 18 SLIGHTLY ACID BUT BASE- LOAMY MODERATE WET PASTURES AND DRAINAGE SOME RICH LOAMY AND CLAYEY WOODLANDS WOODLAND SOILS

3.6 Local landscape

A 2KM search was undertaken from the site for relevant local landscape designations as maintained from DEFRA databases.

DESIGNATION/ DISTANCE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION NOT SEARCHED PRESENT PRESENT Ancient woodland X AONB X Community Forests X National Parks X Nitrate Sensitive Areas X Nitrate Vulnerable Zones X Registered Common Land X Registered Parks & Gardens X National Character Areas X Green Belt X

Breakdown of features found: Ancient Woodland (England) Grid Reference Wood Name Theme ID Theme Name tq786394 BREWERS WOOD 1450958 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq778387 HILLY AND FRIEZLEY WOOD 1451053 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq800408 DUCK PIT WOOD 1450263 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq795388 NUT WOOD 1450875 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq770388 CATSTAIL WOOD 1450579 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq802392 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1450216 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq796403 GRAND SHORE WOOD 1450456 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq778391 NICHOLS WOOD 1450564 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq803400 1450798 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq782379 1451060 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq780380 1450970 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND

tq801418 MAPLEHURST FARM WOOD 1122449 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq800390 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1450562 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq786392 BREWERS WOOD 1450957 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq793398 1450235 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq769383 COUCHMANS WOOD 1451002 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq779386 HILLY AND FRIEZLEY WOOD 1450960 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq778390 NICHOLS WOOD 1450563 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq776381 HILLY AND FRIEZLEY WOOD 1451054 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq793402 GRAND SHORE WOOD 1450252 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq785379 1450872 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq797395 FOXEARTH WOOD 1450551 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq798402 BIRCH WOOD 1450406 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq781379 1450971 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND

tq774392 POND WOOD 1450959 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq798400 ELEVEN ACRE WOOD 1450444 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq783395 BREWERS WOOD 1450223 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq804403 1450797 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq803395 SEVEN PIT WOOD 1451000 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq787396 SAUNDERS WOOD 1450552 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq803399 VINCENT WOOD 1450538 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq778379 BREACH WOOD 1450175 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq766402 BOWLING ALLEY WOOD 1450452 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq800404 1450796 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

tq768398 ROCK WOOD 1450423 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq804394 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1450800 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq792397 REEVES WOOD 1450955 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq795386 NUT WOOD 1450876 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq780386 HILLY AND FRIEZLEY WOOD 1451055 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq772388 CATSTAIL WOOD 1450440 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq784402 TOLLHURST WOOD 1450249 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq781393 BREWERS WOOD 1450956 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq775390 POND WOOD 1451052 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq800388 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1450561 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND

tq803405 1451016 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq779419 GOOSEBERRY WOOD 1120253 ANCIENT REPLANTED WOODLAND tq802387 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1450437 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq799394 1450799 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND tq791396 REEVES WOOD 1450954 ANCIENT & SEMI-NATURAL WOODLAND

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (England) NVZ TYPE NVZ AREA

Registered Parks and Gardens (England) Legacy UID Name Grade Reference Scale of capture Date of registration

2311 HARTRIDGE HOUSE II 1001289 1:10000 Tue, 14 Dec 1993 00:00:00 UTC

National Character Areas (England) Referenc Name Hotlink e LOW HTTP://WWW.NATURALENGLAND.ORG.UK/OURWORK/LANDSCAPE/ENGLANDS/CHARACTER/AREAS/LOW_ 121 WEAL WEALD.ASPX D HIGH HTTP://WWW.NATURALENGLAND.ORG.UK/OURWORK/LANDSCAPE/ENGLANDS/CHARACTER/AREAS/HIGH_ 122 WEAL WEALD.ASPX D

Further information regarding the National Character Areas can be found in Appendix 2.

3.7 Land grading

Land is graded as grade 3 land, and is thought likely to be of average agricultural quality.

3.8 Present cropping

The land is all under grass and grazed by the hens.

3.9 Flood Risk

The Environments Agency Flood Map shows the property to be outside of the flood risk zone.

3.10 Surrounding properties and uses

There are three farms in the vicinity of the site –

Paley Farm 808 m West Roack Farm 725 m East Saunders Farm 898 m SE

There are 3 dwellings less than 400 m away on the Northern side –

Tolehurst cottage Ian Cottage Gordon Cottages

There are various residential Dwellings more than 400 m but less than 1 km away –

Well House 141 m N Bumbles 492 m NE Various un-named dwellings 505 m NE Grandshore Place 776 m E Rose Cottage 669 m SE Thrift Cottages 595 m N Paley Mill 820 m W Hill view 938 m W Paley Farm 1 km W Amber Down Farm 992 m SW Rockmount 747 m SE Hockdene 914 m SE Foxgloves 972 m SE

The land surrounding the site seems to be mainly agricultural, with a large area of mixed woodland to the southern and eastern sides.

3.11 Surrounding towns and villages

The village of Knoxbridge is 0.7 km to the north, Cranbrook Common is 1.4 km to the south, and the village of Frittenden is 2.8 km to the north east.

Access and Road Network

3.12 Road network

The site has good access being adjacent to the main A229 road, which leads to Maidstone and the M20 motorway.

3.13 Access

There is existing access onto the site via a tarmac track which is shared for the first part by a plant nursery, with tarmac tracks leading to all the poultry sheds. Visibility splays at the entrance are good onto an A class road.

Photograph – Existing Site Access

Typical internal road

3.14 Footpaths

There is one public footpath running along the western boundary, another approx. 0.2 km from the southern boundary, and another along the eastern boundary. There is also a footpath approx. 0.4 km to the north of the site.

Ecology and Protected Sites

3.15 On site ecology (Phase 1 survey)

A Phase 1 habitat survey has been undertaken by Eco Check Consultancy Ltd. The initial survey results obtained are found in the report at Appendix 3.

3.16 Local ecology (2KM radius)

A search of local ecological sites was undertaken and this identified the following:

SITE SEARCHED FOR SITES FOUND SITES NOT FOUND National Nature Reserves X Local Nature Reserves X

Sites of Special Scientific Interest X (5KM) Special Areas of Conservation X Special Protection Areas X AONB X Scheduled Monument X RAMSAR Sites (10 KM search) X

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Reference Name Citation

1000110 RIVER BEULT 1005993

1000323 SISSINGHURST PARK WOOD 1001255

1000302 MARDEN MEADOWS 1000226

Scheduled Monuments (England) Legacy Scale of Reference Name Easting Northing Date UID Capture MEDIEVAL MOATED SITE, Fri, 13 Jul 1990 12720 1013122 1:10000 577832.534455 141352.188172 LOVEHURST MANOR 00:00:00 UTC MOOT MOUND 400M WEST OF Fri, 9 Oct 1981 12842 1013147 1:10000 578428.87454 140675.818509 KNOX BRIDGE 00:00:00 UTC

3.17 Other designations (2 KM radius)

No other designations were identified within a 2KM radius of the subject site.

Planning Advice and History

3.18 Planning history

A search of the Local Authority database of planning applications found no recent applications associated with the site.

3.19 Present applications in the locality

An online planning search has been undertaken and there are no current planning applications within the immediate locality which would impact on the proposed development were identified.

3.20 Planning policy and other legislation

National policy

National planning policy is contained within the NPPF as follows:-

“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support, strong vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

Paragraph 10 states that “So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).

Section 6 is entitled Building a Strong, Competitive Economy and Paragraph 83 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy states:

“Planning policies and decisions should enable:-

a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings; b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses…..”

In considering suitable locations for development the document indicates that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.

Environmental issues are of major concern with all forms of development. Agricultural development which is deemed significant, such as the additional poultry housing proposed, has the potential to have an impact on the environment.

Hence major development of this type were included within the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulation 1988. Environmental issues tend to be site specific in relation to the importance of such issues as landscape impact, ecological issues, effect on water sources, highways and other important issues.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 details further issues to be considered. The above policy and regulations have been used as a basis for the preparation of this report with the major issues given the appropriate weight in initial consultations, and addresses accordingly.

Local policy

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

POLICY EN1

All proposals for development within the Plan area will be required to satisfy all of the following criteria:

1 The nature and intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with neighbouring uses and would not cause significant harm to the amenities or character of the area in terms of noise, vibration, smell, safety or health impacts, or excessive traffic generation;

2 The proposal would not cause significant harm to the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, and would provide adequate residential amenities for future occupiers of the development, when assessed in terms of daylight, sunlight and privacy;

3 The design of the proposal, encompassing scale, layout and orientation of buildings, site coverage by buildings, external appearance, roofscape, materials and landscaping, would respect the context of the site and take

account of the efficient use of energy;

4 The proposal would not result in the loss of significant buildings, related spaces, trees, shrubs, hedges, or other features important to the character of the built up area or landscape;

5 There would be no significant adverse effect on any features of nature conservation importance which could not be prevented by conditions or agreements;

6 The design, layout and landscaping of all development should take account of the security of people and property and incorporate measures to reduce or eliminate crime; and

7 The design of public spaces and pedestrian routes to all new development proposals should provide safe and easy access for people with disabilities and people with particular access requirements.

POLICY EN25

Outside of the Limits to Built Development, as defined on the Proposals Map, all proposals for development will be required to satisfy all of the following criteria:

1 The proposal would have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality;

2 The development proposal would have no detrimental impact on the landscape setting of settlements;

3 The development proposal would not result in unsympathetic change to the character of a rural lane which is of landscape, amenity, nature conservation, or historic or archaeological importance;

4 Where built development is proposed, there would be no existing building or structure suitable for conversion or re-use to provide the required facilities. Any new buildings should, where practicable, be located adjacent to existing buildings or be well screened by existing vegetation; and

5 Where an extension or alteration to an existing building is proposed, it would respect local building styles and materials, have no significant adverse impact on the form, appearance or setting of the building, and would respect the architectural and historic integrity of any adjoining building or group of buildings of which it forms part.

4. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

4.1 Description of the proposed rearing and laying sheds

Planning permission was obtained to construct two new poultry sheds to replace seven laying sheds. The sheds have since been constructed and are operational (Phase 1).

4.1.1 Proposed management Cycle

Birds will be placed in the sheds as day old chicks as at present. They will be grown on and removed from the site at 17 weeks (point of lay). The system is a multi tier system with belt cleaning equipment removing the manure twice weekly. When rearing in an aviary format, there will also be litter removed at the end of the rearing cycle.

After the removal of all the birds from the shed, the remaining litter will be loaded into trailers, covered and removed from the site. It will be disposed of by spreading on fields, thus utilising its fertilising and soil improvement characteristics or will be removed to an Anaerobic Digester Plant. No manure will be stored on site nor will it be disposed of on land grazed by hens.

The whole shed and equipment will be power washed, disinfected and then dried out before the cycle starts again.

4.2 Layout of the site

The site will be laid out as shown on the Site Plan at Appendix 4.

4.3 Building construction

The new buildings will be of typical, modern, steel clearspan construction comprising:-

4.3.1 Materials

Each building will comprise of pre-cast concrete panel walls supported on strip foundations with an internal concrete floor poured over a continuous Damp Proof Membrane. The insulated side walls will be clad in stained timber and the insulated roof will be green steel sheeting.

The pitch of the roof will be 15º. The height to the eaves will be 3.6 metres with a height to ridge circa 7.3 metres.

4.3.2 Insulation

The shed roofs will be insulated with 200 mm fibreglass and the walls with 100 mm to achieve a U-value not less than 0.4 W/m² ºC thus eliminating condensation on the inner linings and minimising solar heat gain.

4.3.3 Floor

The sheds will be erected with a smooth and easily washable concrete floor on a continuous damp proof membrane. The dwarf walls will be reinforced on a poured concrete foundation and contain all dirty water and prevent the ingress of ground water.

4.3.4 Ventilation

The ventilation for the proposed new rearing houses will be as follows:-

- The ventilation system will consist of a computer controlled mechanical ventilation system.

- There will be air inlets on the side.

- There will be a number of 920 mm diameter air extraction chimneys on the roofs of the new sheds.

In the event of a failure in the mains electricity supply or an equipment breakdown, an alarm system linked to a generator will operate, allowing ventilation to continue.

4.4 Husbandry & Equipment

4.4.1 Stocking Rates

The stocking rates in these sheds can range from between 20 kg/m² to 40 kg/m².

4.4.2 Drinkers

The drinkers will be nipple drinkers with drink cups with rows running parallel to the long axis of each house.

The reason for choosing nipple drinkers with drink cups is not only for ease of management, coupled with good bird performance and maximum hygiene, but also to keep the moisture content of the litter as low as is practicable. A dry litter is a less odorous one and it is necessary to ensure that the risks of odours are minimised.

4.4.3 Feed

The feed will be blown from bulk feed lorries into the bulk bins. A centreless auger will convey feed to chain feeders.

The feed will be supplied by Fridays Feed Mill. It will be composed of high-quality raw materials, and be nutritionally tailored to the requirements of the different birds. It will contain enzymes that enhance the digestion of the cereal components of the feed. As a result of the improved digestion, the amount of water drunk by the birds is reduced, and this in turn leads to a lower moisture content of the litter. Consequently the risks of odours are reduced by this drier litter.

4.4.4 Heating

The rearing buildings will require heating to ensure the day old chicks are kept warm until they are able to keep themselves warm at around 5 weeks of age.

4.4.5 Water

Water for the site will be obtained from the mains supply. A back up storage tank will be installed above ground to be used in case of a problem with the mains supply.

4.4.6 Mortalities

These are removed from the houses daily and incinerated on site within the existing licensed APHA incinerator.

4.4.7 Pest Control (Rodents and Flies)

Rats can be attracted to poultry units, but are rarely a problem on well managed modern rearing and free range units because:-

- Modern building construction does not allow rats to enter the building easily, where as older sheds are more difficult to control, particularly timber.

- Bait points are provided at regular intervals replaced monthly which will control any rats that do appear.

Flies are not a problem with belt cleaned sheds as this is removed regularly twice per week.

4.5 Labour

There will be a farm manager and two stockmen employed by the unit plus part time labour to cover for holidays and sickness. The current rearing facility has one worker.

4.6 Manure

4.6.1 Removal

The litter will be taken by tractor and trailer (sheeted) to be used as an agricultural fertiliser or delivered to an anaerobic digester plant.

4.6.2 Quantities

Each 1,000 pullets will produce approximately 5.3 tonnes of manure per 17 week cycle.

Depending on the system operated will depend on the amount of manure produced, 123,000 pullets will produce approximately 652 tonnes per cycle and 322,650 pullets will produce approximately 1,711 tonnes per cycle.

5. ITEMS TO BE ASSESSED

Reference to the initial scoping opinion received from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, for the phase 1 application and the background data collected during the Environmental Impact Assessment process has identified the following issues.

Clean and dirty water disposal and how this is handled particularly at the end of the cycle

The risk of airborne pollution in relation to odours, dust and noise

The effect on the landscape of the relocated sheds

The impact on the highways network from the increased numbers

The impact on ecology

The impact on archaeology

These aspects are assessed in the following sections with the technical information at various appendices.

6. DIRTY WATER DISPOSAL

6.1 Background

Permission is being sought for the erection of two new poultry rearing sheds running approx. west to east with a service/working yard at the western end and a clean access yard at the eastern end. The houses will each measure 120 m long x 26.66 m wide with a 10 m grass strip between them. There is virtually no slope on the site from north to south and a slope of about 0.8 m from west to east indicating that a minimum of site levelling will be required. At the same time 2 rather smaller sheds will be removed on the farm. Such a planning application requires the submission of a surface drainage system to the latest SUDS standards. This ensures that heavy and extreme rainfall on “hard” concrete and roof areas is “contained” within the site and so cannot directly cause issues on lower land by adding to surface water flooding or causing ditches to overflow. Our understanding is that we need to demonstrate that the new drainage system will meet today’s SUDS standards, but not the present buildings and yards.

Each batch of poultry will be in the houses for about 17 weeks before both houses are cleared and cleaned out. About 50% of the litter is removed by conveyors weekly into sealed trailers just outside the sheds with no pollution issues. The remaining 50% will be removed by “Bobcats” loading trailers standing on the service yard just outside the doors at the western end when the immediate yard will be dirty for 2-3 days.

The new houses will have gutters and downpipes feeding into stone drains containing a perforated plastic drain running to an attenuation basin/pond at the eastern end with an outfall to the ditch on the southern side via a much smaller flow regulating pipe. These drains will also take rainwater from the yards including the service yard, other than at the cleaning out time, and the access yard all of the time.

The site at a level of about 30 m is within Flood Zone 1 therefore flood risk is not considered to be an issue.

Roof and Hard Areas

2 New houses each 120 m long x 26.66 m wide = 6,398 m2 Control/Link building = 45 m2 Amenity Building = 216 m2 Service yard at western end 63 m x 10 m wide = 630 m2 Access at eastern end approx. 63 m by mean 10 m wide = 630 m2 ______Total 7,919 m2

Two old houses being removed together covering about 1,302 m2.

Soil Type

There are two different soil types in this immediate area. The first is Shabbington series which is developed on river terrace material which is commonly adjacent to, or just above, river floodplains. This soil type occurs immediately north of the farmstead at this site. The top 25 cm is sandy loam which is usually slightly stony. Below 25 cm the soil is slightly stony sandy clay loam and this soil texture continues normally to at least 120 cm depth. However, due to its position low on the floodplain the soil is grey and mottled below only 25 cm, becoming even greyer with ochreous mottles below around 55 cm. Winter flooding is a problem in some locations. Clay is normally found below 4 to 8 metres depth but with a layer of gravel in between. Although this soil type is easily cultivated, the presence of a high water table limits cropping on most fields. Conversely, where highly efficient field drainage has been installed this land has occasionally been used to grow fruit trees and hops.

The other local soil type to the south of the farmstead on slightly higher ground is mapped as the Curtisden soil series. The much more silty parent material is derived from local Ashdown Beds. The upper 45 cm is slightly stony silt loam or silty clay loam which is slightly mottled below 20 cm. There is usually a band of heavier silty clay loam around 30 cm thick in the subsoil which then becomes lighter at silt loam to 100 cm. Below 75 cm the soil is light grey in colour and mottled. Although this soil type is on somewhat higher ground than the Shabbington soil type cropping range remains limited by wetness because of the band of silty clay loam within the subsoil. Cereals and grassland are the most common crops with autumn drilling of cereals dominant. Because the topsoil contains a large amount of silt and fine sand it is susceptible to capping and formation of plough pans, especially where topsoil organic matter content is low. A lot of woodland has traditionally been established on this soil type in this part of Kent.

The site is described by www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes as Soilscape 22: Loamy soils with naturally high water table. Slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage.

Approx. Position of Tolehurst Farm

The site goes on to describe the “Soils are mostly drained. Shallow groundwater and marginal ditches to most fields”

Hence the land is only suitable, as now, for a surface ditch drainage system.

6.2 Clean Water

6.2.1 Site Drainage

Greenfield site drainage figures obtained from www.uksuds.com for these new buildings give runoff rates for the proposed site as follows:-

Estimated Site Discharge IH124 results Q bar 3.53 1 in 1 year 3.25 l/sec. 1 in 30 years 5.5 l/sec. 1 in 100 years 12.21 l/sec.

The subsoil is a clayey soil with impeded drainage relying upon the adjacent ditches backed up by the extended balancing or attenuation pond/basin. Considering a site figure (see below) of 2 litres per second per ha over the extra 7,919 m2 of hard area this gives an added site drainage figure of 1.6 litres/second i.e. less than all the figures above. (On previous, usually smaller jobs, I have been encouraged to limit the flow to 1 l/sec/ha. but this is difficult on farms without the risk of frequent pipe blockages. I have in general agreed with the EA on a design flow of 2 litres/ha/sec. This gives a slightly

larger and thereby more manageable discharge pipe diameter and is also suggested in the SUDS information).

6.2.2 Rainfall

Rainfall on a “hard” roof area flashes off the surface in to a ditch at an alarming rate compared to a land drainage system typically considered to deliver 2.0 litres/sec/ha. The aim is to buffer rainfall and only allow it to drain in to a ditch or stream at the same rate as an agricultural drainage system permits. The drainage design needs to allow for rainfall on the new house roofs and immediate service yard areas to match 1 in 100 year figures plus in this case 30% (Ref. Kent CC SUDS summary) for global warming over the lifespan of the houses believed to be less than 50 years. Having been a poultry farm for many years the other houses and access roads/pads are already in place. The likely volumes are:-

Storm * Depth of Total Volume **Volume Restricted Storage Duration Rainfall mm of Rainfall allowing an discharge Volume m3 extra 30% 2.0 l/sec required on area of for global m3 m3 7,919 m2 warming m3 5 mins 14.1 112 145 1 144 15 mins 25.5 202 263 2 261 30 mins 33.5 265 345 4 341 1 hour 41.9 332 431 7 424 3 hours 55.5 439 571 22 549 4 hours 59.0 467 607 29 578 6 hours 64.4 510 663 43 620 12 hours 74.5 590 767 86 681 24 hours 85.5 677 880 173 707 36 hours 92.6 733 953 259 694 48 hours 97.8 772 1,003 347 657 72 hours 105.5 835 1,086 518 568 96 hours 113.4 898 1,167 691 476 8 days 143.7 1,137 1,479 1,555 Nil 25 days 222.0 1,758 2,285 4,859 Nil *Met. Office Data. ** Kent CC SUDS.

Some drainage to the ditch at the low rate is occurring all of the time during times of rainfall. The most challenging period for storage is between 12-36 hours requiring about 707 m3 of buffer capacity in the attenuation pond sited at the eastern end. After just over 4 days the extra buffer storage capacity should be empty even after this intense rainfall.

these exceptional conditions. We must ensure this does not mean it will come out of manholes or drains on the site.

6.2.3 Sizing the Attenuation Basin

This can be any shape to suit the farm but as a long narrow rectangle spanning the building width this could measure:-

Size at surface 60 m x 14.0 =840 m2 1 m depth Side walls 1 in 1.0 slope Base area 58 m x 12m = 696 m2

Capacity 768 m3

This will also allow for rainfall on the attenuation pond itself. Being long and narrow, spanning the width of the buildings, this will allow the large diameter drainage pipes to readily run straight into the attenuation basin. It is not really a pond as for the majority of the time (95% plus) in the normal sense of the meaning. The basin will more resemble a grassed depression. It will be sited at the eastern end of the buildings (see map below).

The 2 litres/sec. flow into the ditch equates to a 75 mm pipe with a fall of 1 in 150. (See chart below). I have adjusted the slope to more accurately match the flow required. The pipe will be in use all of the time for the site drainage with staff working from the service area and so any blockage should be readily spotted.

The www.uksuds.com site for storage volume suggests a buffer storage figure of 624 m3 using similar but not identical assumptions. (See summary report within the appendices).

6.2.4 Eaves Filler Drains

There will be 4 drains altogether under the eaves. Pipes laid in a stone trench with a 1 in 200 fall will deliver up to:-

65 mm 1.3 litres/sec (4.7 cu. metres/hour) 75 mm 1.7 litres/sec (6.3 cu. metres/hour) 85 mm 2.25 litres/sec. (8.10 cu. metres/hour) 100 mm 3.2 litres/sec. (11.5 cu. metres/hour) 115 mm 4.5 litres/sec (16.2 cu. metres/hour) 135 mm 6.8 litres/sec (24.4 cu. metres/hour) 155 mm 9.5 litres/sec (34.2 cu. metres/hour) 180 mm 16 litres/sec (57.6 cu. metres/hour) 210 mm 22 litres/sec. (79.2 cu. metres/hour) 250 mm 31 litres/sec. (111.6 cu. metres/hour) 300 m 50 litres/sec. ( 180 cu. metres/hour)

350 mm 76 litres/sec ( 274 cu. metres/hour)

Ref. Polypipe flow chart Restricted and open inlet –corrugated plastic pipes

The design need is to cope with the 30 minute storm of rain 1 in 100 years.

The houses measure 120 m long x 26.66 m = 3,199 m2. Each drain will therefore need to serve ½ the roof area 1,600 m2 plus ¼ of the service yards at each end 2 x 630/4 = 315 m2 giving a total of 1,915 m2. The water flows and therefore the pipe sizes necessary are as follows:-

Storm Intensity Volume Volume Discharge Volume Discharge Volume Duration mm/hr of runoff allowing an through surplus if through surplus if (Depth of m3 extra 30% 250 mm any 300 mm any Water mm) on roof for global pipe over m3 pipe over m3 area warming this period this period 1,915 m2 m3 250 mm m3 300 mm 15 mins 102 48.8 63.5 27.9 35.6 45 18.5 (25.5mm) 30 mins 67 64.1 83.4 55.8 27.6 90 Nil (33.5mm) 1 hour 41.9 80.3 104.3 111.6 Nil 180 Nil (41.9mm)

A 300 mm pipe is required for each drain as shown above, a 250 mm pipe is well short of capacity. However the is ample scope to take in water from the amenity and control/link buildings. In addition there is some void capacity within the stone drains. These will measure 120 m long x 400 mm wide x 750 mm deep. With an estimated 30% void capacity this adds a further 11 cu. metres of temporary storage capacity per drain.

The pipe could be graduated i.e. the first 1/3rd 210 mm, the second 250 mm and the final 1/3rd 300 mm. These will then run directly in to the attenuation basin/pond and finally the water will the water will reach the ditch.

6.2.5 Hydrobrake

A purpose built and sized hydrobrake would further minimise the chance of a blockage (e.g. Ref Hydro International www.hydrointernational.biz.) The intake pipes would need to be sized and specified at the design and manufacturing stage together with the required outflow of 2.0 litres/sec. Basically a hydrobrake consists of an inlet, an outlet and a baffled “volute” through which water is introduced tangentially. The outlet opening is 3-6 times greater than for conventional flow thus reducing the chance of blockages. This is not considered necessary for a scheme of this size with staff working on the site each day.

6.3 Dirty Water

6.3.1 Cleaning Out and Washing Down Inside the Houses

Approx. 50% of the manure is removed weekly using conveyors in to sealed trailers standing just outside the shed. There are no pollution issues with these. The other 50% is removed at the end of each batch by Bobcats via the doors at the western end into trailers standing on the service yard immediately outside the houses. The yard is therefore partly fouled for 2-3 days every 16 weeks.

Much of the final cleaning down between batches is a “dry operation” using compressed air. The final clean down uses pressure washers with the water draining to specialist dirty water tanks. These will also take rainwater from the service yard at the western end when it is dirty and the vehicles are being loaded. With these measures in place all the foul water can be disposed of safely.

The dirty water tank(s) should each hold 20 m3, being the maximum daily volume of pressure washing water when washing down the houses. The water will run into a series of drains within the houses and a sealed collection pipe running between the houses to 2 tanks, one at each end. With a level site this gives a greater fall on the pipework and so less chance of blockages occurring with water inevitably containing some solids. The concrete service yard will be slightly dished to 2 drains and these will house diverter valves to direct the water when dirty into the tank and when clean into the clean water system. There are likely to be two pumps, each operating 2 pressure washing lances with individual lances delivering about 15 litres per minute. They may run for 70% of the full working day and so the total volume of water used in an 8 hour day will be approx. 20 cu. metres. The tanks therefore each need to hold a minimum of 20 m3. In practice because of the warm temperature of the concrete floor inside the houses some of this water evaporates. Considering 25 mm of heavy rainfall during the working day on the yard measuring 630 m2 this would add a further 15.75 m3. Being completely in charge of the operation i.e. using their own staff the farm can if necessary empty the tanks during the day should we get heavy rainfall without the capital cost of “oversizing” the tanks. The tank will be emptied at the end of each working day in case heavy rainfall occurs overnight.

6.3 Maintenance

The drainage system is solely on land owned by the farm; hence there will be no delays or permissions needed to attend to any issues.

There are no pumps to go wrong or fail. The dirty service yard drains and water separation valves are only used and reset at the end of the cleaning out period i.e. every 16 weeks. For 15 weeks or so over a batch the western service yard is clean and the yard rainwater runs in to the clean water system. This is standard practice on these types of poultry unit. The access yard at the eastern end will be clean the whole of the time.

The ventilation system has air inlets under the eaves and high speed exhaust fans in the ridge which also carry away any dust from within the building. In practice no dust settles on the roofs necessitating washing them down and the potential blockage of the stone eaves drains. There is really very little to go wrong.

The inlets within the attenuation basin will be checked by the farm manager to ensure grass has not grown over the opening when each batch of poultry is due to leave the farm i.e. 3-4 times a year. With the basin/pond in a prominent position any blockages, no matter how unlikely, would be quickly spotted. A small block of concrete around each pipe, say 1 m across, would help to stop grass growing over the openings and also prevent any erosion. The small diameter outlet pipe (75 mm) is far more likely to block. This needs to be surrounded by 500 mm of concrete to minimise the ingress of grass and be subject to regular checking but working on a daily basis from the service yard any difficulties should be quickly spotted.

Over a course of some years it is possible for grass to encroach into and over the stone drains under each building eaves. These will be inspected annually to see if there is an issue. Small tussocks of grass can be removed by hand but any larger scale ingress will be sprayed off with Glyphosate, a translocated contact herbicide, leaving no residue within the drains to pass finally into the attenuation basin and so the ditch. It is approved for aquatic use. This kills all the plant tissue including the roots.

The whole site between and around the buildings will be strimmed and mown chiefly to maintain the appearance but also to minimise the habitat for vermin.

6.4 Summary

The need to match the pipe sizes to the 30 minute storm 1 in 100 years plus a global warming figure means that much larger than normal pipes need to be used. The site currently drains to ditches. If the pipes are installed and the attenuation basin/pond installed the system complies with all the Codes of Practice and given good management the chances of any pollution occurring or flooding downstream as a result of the development are minimal.

7. FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

A Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared and is contained at Appendix 5.

8. AIRBOURNE POLLUTION

8.1 Odours

8.1.1 Litter Moisture/Odourants

Research evidence suggests that odour emissions increase at the time of the growing period when litter moisture is also rapidly increasing or at high levels. It is known that when litter moistures exceeds 40% there is a progressive decline in the friability of the litter as the moisture increases.

When the litter moisture reaches about 46% the litter becomes capped, i.e. a crust forms, often on top of more friable litter under it. Excreta and moisture accumulate on the capped litter with the result that the activity of the aerobic bacteria that break down the excreta and allow moisture to be absorbed is reduced. There is a shift to an aerobic breakdown with the consequence that the release of volatile odorants is increased. It is therefore desirable to put strenuous efforts into management practices and building design that lead to low litter moisture levels. It is often the older buildings with less efficient ventilation and insulation that lead to odour problems. Odour emissions will be less and performance, welfare and profitability enhanced.

These problems can be avoided and are certainly not anticipated at the application site with the new more efficient sheds. The former MAFF booklet POULTRY LITTER MANAGEMENT (Ref: PD 1739) outlined the factors involved and how to avoid problems with litter quality.

Most poultry odours are believed to travel either absorbed into dust particulars or in solution within small water droplets. Ammonia is very soluble and can be carried outside the house within water droplets. It is likely to be further diluted by water in the outside atmosphere and is soon dissipated.

Protection of Water, Soil and Air - A Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Farmers, Growers and Land Managers

The revised Code of Practice was issued by DEFRA in 2009. It describes the main causes of air pollution from different agricultural activities and provides a practical guide to help farmers and growers avoid causing air pollution from odours, ammonia, smoke and green house gases.

In the case of a poultry unit, the most important factors relating to potential air pollution are ammonia and odours and the terms of the code will be strictly adhered to in the management practices used on the proposed site. Paragraphs 322 outlines the importance of Best Available Techniques and paragraphs 325 - 328 Deep Litter Poultry Systems.

8.1.2 Odour Model

AS Modelling and Data were commissioned to undertake an odour model for the existing and the redeveloped unit (see Appendix 6). This report takes into account replacement of the rearing units as well as the already completed phase 1.

Section 5 deals with the results from both scenarios.

The model shown will be a minor increase in odour under the new proposals due to an increase in the number of birds on site. The increase is however not predicted to exceed the Environment Agency guidelines.

In terms of the current situation the operators are not aware of any previous problems with odours from the site.

8.2 Dust concentrations and emissions

Within a poultry building, the main sources of dust are the birds, their food and the floor litter. Measurements of dust concentrations have been found to be variable, depending on the number and age of the birds as well as the level of activity within the buildings. The particle size of dust is variable too. In general terms, particles smaller than 2 microns (2 um) account for around 70% of the number of particles, but only 5% of the mass. Similarly, particles greater than 5 microns (5 um) account for under 10% of the number, but between 40 and 90% of the dust mass.

The particles of dust inside the building are emitted to the atmosphere via the ventilation system. The amounts of dust emitted are influenced by the level at which the ventilation system is operating. In hot summer weather, for example, the ventilation system will be opening at high rate.

The larger dust particulars (5 microns/5 um and over) found within the building either tend to fail to migrate to the ventilation fans, or are expelled from the building and immediately deposited to the ground. The unit employs ridge ventilation so there will not be any large concentrations of deposited dust on the ground outside, therefore creating few deposits entering the water course via land or French drains. Regular ammonium testing of the swale pond is carried out and all data recorded.

Once released to the atmosphere the dusts will be carried on the wind, with deposition continuing under the natural turbulent flow of the air. With increasing distance from the source there will come a point where the concentration of dust particles which originate from poultry buildings fall into a level below air quality guide-line values as laid down by the EU and eventually be indistinguishable from normal background dust levels.

Evidence indicates that annual average concentrations of poultry dust are not expected at distances exceeding 100 m from the source. Thus, only properties situated very close to a poultry building are in danger of exceeding either the EU and UK regulations on dust concentrations in air, or the tolerance threshold values for dust deposition.

When examining the above factors it can be seen that dust should cause no problems to nearby protected dwellings, because receptor properties are located sufficient distances away from the proposed unit. The proposal also puts the rearing sheds further away from dwellings than at present.

8.3 Flies

The new sheds will work mainly on a belt clearing system which means most of the manure is removed on a regular basis i.e. twice weekly. They therefore have no time to become a breeding ground for flies. The manure on the floor would be limited to a 17 week cycle with full removal of manure which also limits breeding opportunities. This is also kept dry and is not a good breeding ground for flies.

8.4 Vermin

Routine baiting and a well constructed site will ensure that there will be no risk of the rearing site becoming a breeding ground for rats or mice. The existing unit already has in place a routine baiting arrangement and this will continue with the expanded unit.

8.5 Noise

There are a number of sources of noise in a poultry unit, including ventilation fans, lorries and other vehicles. The new sheds will have significantly improved ventilation fans, which are contained within cowls directed upwards. The location, age and condition will all be marked improvements on the existing.

In addition the noise of feed being blown into the bulk bins might occasionally be heard. The noise of lorries and other vehicles may be heard in the vicinity, however this will be no different to the current scenario which has not understood to have caused any problems and again new bins and augers will be less problematic than the aged existing ones.

These noises will not be unusual in an agricultural area where grain stores and the livestock units use similar equipment and will last approximately 1 hour.

9. ECOLOGY

9.1 On and off site

Poultry units can have an impact on ecology in three ways, namely:- a) The site of the new buildings removing habitat, especially any elements constructed on previously undeveloped land. b) The impact on species that might use the site temporarily or immediate surrounding area. c) The impact of emission on sites of ecological interest further afield, principally ammonia.

In terms of a) and b) a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and assessment has been undertaken and is contained at Appendix 3.

In terms of c) Fridays have provided a report which is at Appendix 7. This was prepared for the variation to the IPPC permit. It concludes there will not be a material change in conditions from the current permit for the site.

9.2 Arboricultural Implications

These are dealt with in the ecology report.

10. HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC STATEMENT

10.1 Road network

The site has good access being adjacent to the main A229 road, which leads to Maidstone and the M20 motorway.

10.2 Site access

10.3 Traffic movements

Traffic movements for poultry are relatively easy to establish due to the regular cycles. The two sheds will operate with different ages with shed 2 approximately 8 weeks behind shed 1.

The table below summarises the approx. monthly vehicle numbers to and from the unit (all loads assumed to be full loads) if the unit was operating at maximum capacity from day old chicks to depopulation at point of lay (17 weeks). The actual monthly figures will vary depending on the system but also the age gap between sheds 1 and 2 but the total within the year would be the same.

Proposed Traffic Movements

MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chicks In 3 3 3 3 3 3 Feed delivery 1 7 9 6 4 1 7 9 6 4 1 7 Pullets Removed 16 16 16 16 16 * Manure removal 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 (belt clean) Manure removal (floor) 4 4 4 4 4 Dirty Water – cleaning 3 3 3 3 3

• * this shows the second year • Floor removal of litter only applicable if aviary system is adopted for the batch of hens produced

In addition there will be 3 stockpersons visiting the unit (current unit has one stockperson).

It can be seen from the table that generally the predicted amount of traffic movements is low.

The variety of vehicle types, loads and therefore starting points/destinations will mean that movements will be distributed fairly quickly on leaving the unit onto which the farm track accesses. Given this is an agricultural area, where peaks and troughs in farm vehicle and other movements are common, it is considered that the change in movements will have little environmental effect.

10.4 Mitigation

There is no requirement for any mitigation, noting the use of the existing site access and the vehicle types will be very similar to existing.

10.5 Impact

The impact on traffic use will be low given the low level of vehicles and the fact the farm already is in operation.

10.6 Impact on footpaths

Footpaths will not be affected traffic wise.

11. LANDSCAPE IMPACT

A Landscape Assessment has been undertaken which is included at Appendix 8.

12. PREVIOUS LAND USE/CONTAMINATION

The existing units were built and managed by Fridays as poultry units. The land was bare agricultural land before. There are no contamination issues envisaged.

13. ARCHAEOLOGY

An archaeology report was prepared for Phase 1 and is at Appendix 9. Nothing is believed to have changed in the interim period.

14. ALTERNATIVES

The main alternatives are different sites for the proposed buildings. It is not considered, given the scale of the proposed buildings, there are sites any better than those proposed.

It is also necessary to keep them separate and away from the laying sheds and associated grazing areas.

15. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

The construction of the unit will involve the following phases:- a) Preparation.

b) Existing concrete pads will be removed and concrete crushed for use as a base for new concrete. c) Levelling of new sites and adding base. d) Erection of frame and installation of services. The frame will be all pre designed and the erection process will take a matter of a few days. e) Concreting and building works.

f) Demolition of the existing sheds - these are of simple timber construction so demolition of the frame is straightforward and would not cause significant impact noise wise.

In total construction is expected to take approximately 12 months.

During construction there will be increased vehicle movements, but these will last for only a short period whilst materials are being delivered. Given the existing access and road network this will not cause any impact of concern other than earth moving equipment, but this is of a relatively short duration at the early stage of the construction process..

All framework and equipment will be delivered ready to fit so there will therefore be no concern noise wise at building works phase.

16. CONCLUSIONS

The background investigations and scoping opinion identified a number of aspects which may give rise to environmental effects of the development. The proposal consists of 2 poultry rearing sheds and the conclusions on the various aspects are as follows:-

Clean, Dirty Water and Flood Risk

Tanks will be installed to take dirty water from within the sheds during clean out and from the outside yard area when sheds are being emptied and vehicles loaded.

A clean water system involving a balancing pond is proposed to take roof water and yard water outside of the cleaning out period prior to draining to ditch. With these measures in place all water can be disposed of safely.

The site is within Flood Zone 1 therefore flood risk is not considered to be an issue.

Airborne Pollution

The issue of odours, dust and noise have been investigated including the involvement of Agromet specialists. These conclude that levels will be below Environment Agency guidelines.

Landscape Impact

The Landscape Assessment concludes that on completion of the development, the overall impact of the development is likely to be neutral due to the limited visibility of the site. No landscape mitigation is considered necessary.

Highways

The proposal makes use of an existing access and internal farm road network. Vehicle types will be as existing with some increase due to numbers.

Ecology

The impact on ecology is very low as concluded in the ecologist's report. In terms of deposition, the ammonia model does not predict any material changes from the current permitted levels.

Appendix 1

Scoping Opinion

Appendix 2

National Character Area

NCA 122: High Weald

Key Facts & Data

T his document provides a correspond to national data. If summary of environmental data you have any questions about collected for the NCA. It is the Key Facts and Data, please intended to help guide anyone contact: making decisions that may [email protected] affect the local environment. .uk. Your feedback will help The information contained here shape the content of the full is collated from the best NCA profiles, which will be available national datasets. It is published from September recognised local information 2012 onwards. may provide additional detail and that this will not always

www.naturalengland.org.uk Map of High Weald NCA Total Area: 174,885 ha

The above map is provided from the Countryside Character Area description pending completion of NCA maps. It is recognised that the content of this map may now be out of date in some cases and is included for general reference only. New maps will include updated content and be provided within the full NCA profiles, due to be completed by 2013 1. Landscape and Nature Conservation Designations The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty covers an area of 135,863 ha (78% of the NCA).

Information on the High Weald AONB is available at:  http://www.highweald.org/

Source: Natural England (2011)

1.1 Designated nature conservation sites The NCA includes the following statutory nature conservation designations:

Tier Designation Designated Area in Proportion Site(s) NCA of NCA International Ramsar Pevensey 35 ha <1% Levels European Special Ashdown 3,198 2% Protection Area Forest SPA ha (SPA) Special Area of Ashdown 2,868 2% Conservation Forest SAC, ha (SAC) Hasting Cliffs SAC National National Nature n/a 0 ha 0% Reserve (NNR) National Site of Special A total of 59 5,416 3% Scientific sites wholly or ha Interest (SSSI) partly within the NCA Source: Natural England (2011)

Please Note: (i) Designated areas may overlap (ii) all figures are cut to Mean High Water Line, designations that span coastal areas/views below this line will not be included.

There are 268 Local sites in the High Weald NCA covering 11,260 ha which is 6.5 % of the NCA.

Source: Natural England (2011)

 Details of individual Sites of Special Scientific Interest can be searched at: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm  Details of Local Nature Reserves (LNR) can be searched http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_search.asp  Maps showing locations of Statutory sites can be found at http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic/ -select ‘Rural Designations Statutory’

1.1.1 Condition of designated sites

SSSI Condition Category Area in NCA Percentage of NCA SSSI Resource Unfavourable declining 33 ha <1% Favourable 1,264 ha 23% Unfavourable no change 28 ha <1% Unfavourable recovering 4,092 ha 76%

Source: Natural England (March 2011)

 Details of SSSI condition can be searched at: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/reportIndex.cf m

2. Landform, Geology & Soils

2.1 Elevation The NCA reaches a maximum height of 241m at Crowborough Beacon in East Sussex. The lowest point is sea level.

Source:Natural England 2011

2.2 Landform & Process Although not exceeding 241m, the High Weald is a hilly country of ridges and valleys. Numerous major ridges run mainly east to west. These major ridges are deeply dissected by many tributaries of rivers which rise in the High Weald producing a network of small, steep sided ridges and valleys (gills).

Source: High Weald Countryside Character Area description

2.3 Bedrock Geology The Weald is a geologically complex anticline, a folded dome where the oldest rocks are exposed at the centre as the top has been worn down by erosion. These oldest rocks, the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Beds, are only exposed at the surface in the Crowhurst area. Overlying these are Lower Cretaceous sands, soft sandstones and clays out to the edge of the High Weald.

Source:High Weald Natural Area Profile, High Weald Countryside Character Area Description, British Geological Survey maps

2.4 Superficial Deposits Superficial deposits cover only a small percentage (7%) of the NCA. Of these, the majority are clays, silt and sands which follow river courses.

Source :High Weald Natural Area Profile, High Weald Countryside Character Area Description, British Geological Survey maps

2.5 Designated Geological Sites

Designation Number of Sites

Geological Site of Special Scientific Interest 17 (SSSI) Mixed Interest SSSIs 3

There are 38 Local Geological Sites within the NCA.

Source: Natural England (2011)

 Details of individual Sites of Special Scientific Interest can be searched at http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm

2.6 Soils and Agricultural Land Classification

The area is dominated by both sandy and heavy clay soils. Slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage cover the majority of the NCA.

Source:Countryside Character Area description, Natural England 2011

The main grades of agricultural land in the NCA are broken down as follows (as a proportion of total land area):

Agricultural Land Area in NCA Proportion of Classification NCA Grade 1 145 ha <1% Grade 2 1,293 ha <1% Grade 3 109,701 ha 63% Grade 4 38,047 ha 22% Grade 5 n/a 0% Non-agricultural 17,925 ha 10% Urban 7,771 ha 4%

Source: Natural England (2010) 3. Key Water Bodies & Catchments 3.1 Major Rivers/Canals The following major rivers/canals (by length) have been identified in this NCA.

River Name Length in NCA

Medway 30km Rother 28km Ouse 18km Tillingham 16km Dudwell 13km Brede 10km Cuckmere 7km Arun 6km Eden 5km

Source: Natural England (2010)

Please Note: other significant rivers (by volume) may also occur. These are not listed where the length within the NCA is short.

The High Weald is a source of a number of major rivers in the South East and has dendritic drainage pattern with numerous small streams forming the headwaters of the main rivers. The area also contains several reservoirs including Weir Wood, Ardingly, Bewl Water and Darwell.

Source: Natural England (2010)

3.2 Water Quality The total area of Nitrate Vulnerable Zone is 100,205 ha – 57% of the High Weald NCA.

Source: Natural England (2010)

3.3 Protected Areas  to be completed in consultation with the Environment Agency (full document only).

3.4 Water Framework Directive  to be completed in consultation with the Environment Agency (full document only).

4. Trees and Woodlands 4.1 Total Woodland Cover The NCA contains 41,442 ha of woodland (24% of the total area), of which 30,234 ha is ancient woodland.

Source: Natural England (2010)

4.2 Distribution and size of woodland and trees in the landscape The High Weald has the greatest amount of ancient woodland in any AONB, representing 7% of all ancient woodland in England. The character of the woodland within the High Weald is dominated by numerous small woods and sinuous gills, interconnected by narrow shaws.

Source:The cultural heritage of woodlands in the South East, 2007

4.3 Woodland Types A statistical breakdown of the area and type of woodland found across the NCA is detailed below.

Area and proportion of different woodland types in the NCA (over 2 ha)

Woodland Type Area in NCA Proportion of NCA Broadleaved 22,044 ha 13% Coniferous 5,374 ha 3%

Mixed 4,036 ha 2% Shrub / young trees 2,503 ha 1% Felled/land for prepared 3,260 ha 2% planting Source: Natural England (2010)

Area and proportion of Ancient Woodland and Planted Ancient Woodland within the NCA

Woodland Type Area in NCA Proportion of NCA Ancient semi-natural woodland 20,663 ha 12% Ancient re-planted woodland 8,719 ha 5% (PAWS) Source: Natural England (2004) 5. Boundary Features & Patterns 5.1 Boundary Features Fields are bounded by shaws (narrow bands of ancient woodland), woodlands and hedgerows.

Source: High Weald Countryside Character Area Description

5.2 Field Patterns Small, irregular, organic shaped fields. The landscape is essentially medieval with field patterns derived from post-Saxon/early medieval cultivation of small parcels of land from more extensive areas of woodland; commonly referred to as 'assarting'. The resultant character of the area is one of fields within woodland, with associated dispersed and isolated settlement.

Source: High Weald Countryside Character Area Description 6. Agriculture The following data has been taken from the Agricultural Census linked to this NCA.

6.1 Farm Type The pastoral character of the area is supported by the figure for grazing livestock farms (697, 2009) in comparison with cereals (210, 2009) and horticulture (201, 2009). Those classed as 'other' accounted for 763 holdings.