Local issue – seems I was right (1)

Mark 5 Comments

I have objected to the proposal to build 10 large broiler units on open farmland a few miles from where I live (see here and here).

I see that another local person has very recently seen large numbers of Lapwing and Golden Plover on the proposed site.  This alone shows that more data are needed, I would suggest proper counts through the winter.

The comment, by S Groocock, is as follows:

‘I was at the proposed site this afternoon [Friday 27 October] from 1:15pm until 2:00pm and saw a large flock of lapwings, a large flock of golden plover and a slightly smaller group of gulls settled together on the area of the proposed buildings and feeding. They rose a couple of times only to settle again in the same spot and were still there when I left.‘

Well done S Groocock!

You may have noticed that this blog has a (1) – there will be a (2) when East Northants Council post the relevant information.

 

 

[registration_form]

5 Replies to “Local issue – seems I was right (1)”

  1. Should leave the site alone the smell will be sicking let the lapwings and other wild live there in peace

  2. Dear Mark
    Whilst I am not familiar with the location I am inclined to agree from the evidence you present, the project looks likely to cause unacceptable harm to the immediate environment. I am struggling however to see anywhere within your blog to your objection, or reference to the rearing sheds on the grounds of animal welfare (the broilers). I would suggest the rearing of circa 5.6m table chickens per annum from this unit alone, in conditions that place this type of meat production at the forefront of industrialised farming in the UK should be great be given due weight in any objection you lodge. The welfare of animals should not be something to cherrypick in terms of what you seek to protect…

    Regards

    Rob

    1. Rob – thank you for your comment.

      I agree about the welfare implications of the rearing sheds. And others, notably PETA and Animal Aid have objected on those grounds (and I would expect them to do so).

      However, by understanding is that the planning authority will take no formal notice of this aspect because it is not covered by planning regulations and therefore if they rejected the application on such grounds they would be subject to a costly appeal which would be certain to succeed. That’s my understanding of how the system works. If we don#t like it we should change the system.

      1. The planning system has been deliberately made ‘development friendly’ by the Coalition Government (remember them?) For one thing, the applicant may always appeal upon refusal, but objectors cannot upon approval.

        The assumption is always FOR the development and developers use the monstrous costs of legal action as a weapon, both against objectors AND Local Planning Authorities (who are quite strapped for cash, these days).

        There are so many injustices in the current ‘almost-free-for-all’, that they are difficult to list… and there are also so many instances of moral corruption in local government:-( (I have personally suffered many)

        Here are references to the list of ‘material planning considerations’:

        http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/686895/Material-Planning-Considerations.pdf

        https://www.planningportal.co.uk/faqs/faq/4/what_are_material_considerations

        The issue of animal welfare is not a matter for planning, but a matter of LAW if the application is approved.

        See here for an example of what can happen when a similar planning objection (for a pig factory in Foston, Derbyshire) is made on ethical grounds:

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/18/soil-association-libel-pig-farm?INTCMP=SRCH

        That was way-back in 2011. The application was withdrawn and then re-submitted in 2014, but then REFUSED… The applicant appealed…

        Here is some of the story, and why it was eventually APPROVED:-(

        Even the Environment Agency could not stop it:-( There was a very large petition against it, organised by Compassion in World Farming and The Soil Association, but the factory farmers and the build-at-all-costs-brigade won in the end, regardless of animal welfare considerations:-(

Comments are closed.