• RSPB submits robust objection to industrial pig unit

    30th March 2012 | News | Claire
  • Firstly, I note the comments of EDDC’s landscape architect, Neil Blackmore who states that the revised landscaping does not address the issue of views from the footpath across Venn Ottery Common and fails to address the impact of the access track. 

    I make the following observations on the letter submitted by Gavin Bloomfield of the RSPB.

    –      that due to the combined floorspace of the proposed two buildings, that this meets the criteria for a Schedule 2 development – Intensive livestock installation, as well as a Schedule 3 criteria – European designated sites that are likely to be affected by development.

    –      The RSPB advises that an Environmental Impact Assessment is required as a result.  I support this request, given the sensitivity of the surrounding heathland.

    –      The proposal breaches the upper critical load range for nitrogen deposition, despite mitigation measures put in place by the applicant. 

    –      Ambient nitrogen levels are already likely to be compromising the rare and vulnerable protected wildlife of the heathlands, so any increase in nitrogen deposition from the proposal would risk exacerbating the situation.

    –      That any suggestion of reducing ammonia emissions by 50 per cent through a combination of design and diet modification is an unenforceable measure, so cannot be relied upon.

    –      That the proposal therefore, would have a significant effect on the Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area

    –      Given this likely significant effect EDDC is required to make an assessment under Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations.  But the applicant has not provided the necessary information to enable EDDC to do this.

    –      However, in the absence of this information, given the likely significant impact on the Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area the proposal could only be granted consent if it was in the imperative overriding public interest. 

    –      The proposal does not meet this test, so therefore, EDDC cannot grant consent.

    Clearly, the principle of this development is unacceptable and I trust that it will now be REFUSED.