certificate of lawfulness for existing use or development - green farm …_kenninghall... · farm,...

Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development - Green Farm, KenninghallCrown Chicken LimitedEnvironmental StatementNon-Technical Summary September 2014

Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development - Green Farm, Kenninghall Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary

Table of Contents

1 BACKGROUND 1

2 SITE LOCATION 3

3 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5

4 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 7

5 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? 10

1Background


1

1 BACKGROUND1.1 Crown Chicken Limited (“the Developer”) has

submitted to Breckland Council (“the Council”) an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) in relation to an existing feed mill at Green Farm, Kenninghall, Norfolk.

1.2 The CLEUD application is a legal process that seeks to regularise development and uses already existing at Green Farm. As part of this process an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken to assess the likely significant effects of the development on the environment.

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be carried out which identifies the likely significant environmental effects of the project, both positive and negative.

1.4 An Environmental Statement (ES) is then prepared that explains the findings of the EIA process. This is to make sure in this case that before a certificate is issued, the Local Planning Authority and its consultees has all the necessary available environmental information before them, and that the likely significant environmental effects have been assessed and the mitigation measures envisaged can be adequately controlled to remove, reduce or remedy the adverse effects identified.

1.5 This document provides a summary, in non-technical language, of the Environmental Statement, which accompanies the certificate application.

Public Consultation1.6 A copy of the Environmental Statement and

its technical appendices can be viewed at the offices of Breckland Council, at the address below, during their normal office hours.

1.7 Should members of the public wish to comment on the Environmental Statement, they should be made in writing to:

Breckland CouncilDevelopment ControlElizabeth HouseWalpole LokeDerehamNorfolkNR19 1EE

Legal Context1.8 Within England, EIA is regulated by the Town

and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 (“the EIA Regulations”). These seek to translate the requirements of the European Union Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (“the EIA Directive”).

1.9 The EIA Directive has been amended several times since its approval in 1985. The most recent, and most far reaching, amendments were made through Directive 2014/52/EU (“the amended EIA Directive”), which was approved in May 2014. Whilst these amendments will not

come into force in the UK until May 2017, it is best practice to take account of emerging law, particularly for long term projects. Therefore, this ES considers the requirements of the EIA Directive as currently in force and as amended, where assessment requirements have been made more stringent.

2Site Location


3

CLEUD Site Outlined in Red

2 SITE LOCATION2.1 The proposed development site is located to the

south of Heath Road in Kenninghall Civil Parish in Breckland District (grid reference TM043847). The area is relatively flat at approximately 41mAOD, gently rising to the south.

2.2 A small tree belt is located to the east of Edge Green Farm. Heath Road itself is bound by substantial hedgerows and mature trees that limit views across the proposed development site and surrounding fields. The access road to the proposed development site is curved and thus blocking views of the buildings.

2.3 To the east the proposed development site is bound by a substantial hedgerow with open fields beyond. To the south and west the site is bound by a small drainage ditch with views over open fields. Approximately 400m to the west is the small village of Kenninghall Heath. Kenninghall village is located approximately 500m to the north.

The Proposed Development

3


5

1

2c

2c 2c

4

8

8

10

2b 15 16

16

17

18 21

19

25

27

31

33

34

36 38

39 39

42 43

44

45

47

48

49

51

52

2a/6

1950s

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2009

2010-2014

3 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT3.1 The proposed development comprises a

number of alterations and extensions to the Green Farm mill complex. The majority of these occurred between 1980 and 2010 (21-38 and 40-44 on the plan opposite); the one exception being the workshops (15 on the plan opposite) that were constructed in 1975. These changes have not significantly altered the size or shape of the mill, but have resulted in an increase in output, benefiting from improved technology and working practices.

3.2 There is no need to assess developments constructed prior to 1980 because the EIA Regulations (implementing the EU EIA Directive) were not in force until 1988. At any point up until then no EIA was necessary for this type of development, however it was applied for or sought to be made ‘lawful’. To set the baseline year at 1980 ensures that the conclusions of the assessment are robust and that a cautious approach is taken to allow for any uncertainty in the dates when developments took place.

3.3 Principally, these alterations/extensions comprised:

▪ Workshops and barn (no. 15); ▪ Amino tanks and compression house,

separate wheat silo and bunded tanks (no. 21);

▪ Lagoon (no. 25); ▪ Staff toilets and rest room (no. 27);

▪ Replacement of silos (no. 2c), self-emptying silo (no. 36) and emergency silo (no. 43);

▪ Two intakes (nos. 31 and 42); ▪ Third and fourth press lines (nos. 2b and 33

respectively); ▪ Wheat cleaning building (no. 34); ▪ Mixer extension (no. 44).

4Summary of Effects


7

4 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Employment & Economy4.1 Employment related to the proposed development

grew from 87 in 1980 to 330 in 2010, an increase of 279%. Furthermore, this employment was in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors, the workforces of which halved in size in Norfolk and Suffolk over the same period. This was concluded to be a moderate-minor positive effect.

4.2 The assessment also considered the objectives of the Government’s food security policies, which seek to improve the resilience of the food sector by increasing the proportion of food grown in the UK relative to the population. The contribution that the proposed development has made towards this is concluded to be a minor positive effect.

Transport4.3 Whilst the proposed development has resulted in

an increase in output from the mill, this has not led to an increase in transport movements. This is due to the increased capacity vehicles used in 2010 (20-29 tonnes) compared with 1980 (9 tonnes). Consequently, the adverse effects often associated with development such as severance of communities or reduced amenity, are likely to be negligible due to the proposed development.

Noise4.4 The Noise Assessment found that the majority of

changes on the site would have had a positive

effect on noise emissions. There are, however, two exceptions:

▪ Transport: the increased output from the mill has not resulted in a significant change in traffic numbers. However, it has led to an increase in the size of the HGVs being used. The increase in size of HGV would suggest some increase in noise; however, improvements in engine technology between 1980 and 2010 are likely to have mitigated the majority of this. As such, the net effect on noise is likely to be minor.

▪ New press lines: the addition of two new press lines is likely to have resulted in an increase in noise emissions from the site, resulting in a moderate-major effect. However, this is an issue that is already under investigation through the environmental permitting process, which ensure that Best Available Techniques are implemented. As such there is high confidence that this effect will be mitigated.

Drainage4.5 The Drainage Assessment found that much of

the necessary infrastructure was already in place prior to 1980 and that the amount of hardstanding did not alter significantly up to 2010. As such the proposed development is unlikely to have had a significant effect on flood risk.

4.6 Various measures were implemented between 1980 and 2010 to better manage both foul and surface water on the site; particularly the

permitted lagoon to the north of the main site. Overall, the risk of pollution has been greatly reduced as a result of the proposed development.

Ecology4.7 The Ecology Assessment found that the site

itself has little intrinsic ecological value. The hedgerow on the eastern side of the site and the lagoon are the only features of note but are only considered to be of local value.

4.8 The Ecology Assessment considered the presence of protected species on site and concluded that it is unlikely that any would be significantly affected by the proposed development:

▪ Great crested newts, reptiles and hedgehogs could potentially use the hedgerow for cover; however, there are no records of their presence near to the proposed development site. In any case, the proposed development has not materially affected the hedgerow.

▪ Breeding birds may use the hedgerow and surrounding rural landscape, but again are unlikely to be affected by the proposed development.

▪ Bats could potentially use the offices as a roost, although there is no evidence of this. However, the offices have not been affected by the proposed development and as such the roost potential will not have been affected.


8

Cumulative Effects4.9 The Cumulative Effects Assessment has

considered a number of developments that are proposed in the area surrounding the proposed development site including a renewable energy facility, CHP plant, hatchery extension, solar farm, and poultry farm. Since 1980 there have also been various new developments in the Kenninghall area. These have been mainly agricultural, including increased capacity for chicken farming at Oaktree Farm, Trench Farm, Lopham Road and Park Common, and dairy farming at Heath Farm and Uphall Farm. The individual traffic effects of such developments are integral to the baseline conditions used in the assessment and have, therefore, been taken into account in assessing the capacity and resilience of the highway network.

4.10 Details of these proposals were taken from information that accompanied their planning applications, including several EIAs.

4.11 A range of receptor groups were identified that reflected small communities in the area surrounding the proposed development site, which might be affected by the various proposals to different degrees.

4.12 Overall, whilst there were small variations found across the receptor groups, the cumulative effect was concluded to be negligible.

5What Happens Next?


10

5 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?5.1 Following the submission of the Environmental

Statement in September 2014, there will be an opportunity for any interested parties to comment on the contents of the Environmental Statement and submit their views to Breckland Council as part of a formal consultation process. The full Environmental Statement and technical appendices, will be available to view by prior appointment at Breckland Council offices during normal office hours.

certificate of lawfulness for existing use or development - green farm …_kenninghall... · farm,...

Documents