22 August 2013
Abbotts Hall Farm
Great Wigborough
Colchester, Essex
CO5 7RZ
Lucy Mondon / James Ryan
Planning Officers
Colchester Borough Council
Tel 01621 862960
Fax 01621 862990
BY EMAIL ONLY
E-mail
admin@essexwt.org.uk
Website
www.essexwt.org.uk
Dear Lucy and James,
Planning application no: 131484
Grass Reasons Farm, Newbridge Road, Layer Marney, Colchester CO5 9XT
Proposed upgrade of existing poultry unit including the demolition of 4
existing poultry sheds and erection of 2 poultry sheds
Planning application no: 131488
Layerwood Farm, Maldon Road, Layer Marney, Colchester CO5 9XJ
Proposed redevelopment of poultry unit including demolition of two
existing poultry sheds, erection of two replacement poultry sheds and a
service building with associated equipment
Thank you for consulting Essex Wildlife Trust with regard to the above planning
applications, in respect of which we would like to register an objection to both
proposals and submit a number of comments.
The reasons for our objection are as follows:





adverse impacts on a designated Local Wildlife Site
adverse impacts on protected species
incomplete vegetation survey data due to inappropriate timing
lack of protected species surveys
Critical Level for ammonia based on flawed report
Importance of Local Wildlife Sites
The application sites are directly adjacent to Layer Wood and Grassreasons
Local Wildlife Site (Co33), which comprises ancient woodland and lowland
mixed deciduous woodland, both of which are classified as BAP Priority
Habitats. The LoWS also contains areas of improved grassland and a number of
ponds.
Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS) are wildlife-rich sites selected for their local nature
conservation value. They vary in shape and size and can contain important,
distinctive and threatened habitats and species. In many parts of the UK they are
the principal wildlife resource, but their designation is non-statutory and their only
Essex Wildlife Trust
Company Registered
No 638666 England
Registered Charity
No 210065
VAT Registered
No 945 7459 77
Protecting Wildlife for the Future and for the People of Essex
protection comes via the planning system. LoWS play a critical conservation role by
providing wildlife refuges, protecting threatened species and habitats, and acting as links
and corridors between nationally designated sites such as nature reserves and SSSIs.
The Making Space for Nature report (September 2010) stated that:
“Local Wildlife Sites are important to future ecological networks, because they not
only provide wildlife refuges in their own right but can act as stepping stones and
corridors to link and protect nationally and internationally designated sites”.
As previously mentioned, the only form of protection afforded to Local Wildlife Sites has
been through the planning system. On 27 March 2012 the Government launched its
National Planning Policy Framework, a 50 page consolidation of policy, down from
more than 1,000 pages.
This new framework retains protection for Local Wildlife Sites which are clearly recognised
in the framework as locally designated sites. The policy specifically relating to locally
designated sites is found in several paragraphs which provide the direction for local
authorities to identify, map and protect these sites through local plans. The new policy
also requires protection of Local Wildlife Sites to recognise their importance and the
contribution that they make to wider ecological networks, as stated in the Government’s
own Natural Environment White Paper.
Protected species
The ponds within the LoWS support a population of Great Crested Newts, a European
Protected Species. Whilst this population will migrate to the ponds during the breeding
season, at other times of the year individuals will forage on land and range at distances of up
to 500m from the breeding site. There is, therefore, a strong possibility that the species
occurs at certain times of the year within the grassland habitats on the application sites.
In addition, populations of Common Lizard and Grass Snake have been recorded within
the LoWS, close to the boundaries with the application sites (See CBC planning application
112176 [previously 101903] for Reptile and GCN Survey Reports).
The Great Crested Newt is fully protected under Schedule 2 of The Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. It is an offence to:




deliberately capture, injure or kill a great crested newt;
deliberately disturb a great crested newt;
deliberately take or destroy its eggs;
damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place used by a great crested newt.
Additional protection for Great Crested Newts is provided under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which makes it an offence to:

intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter
or protection or disturb a great crested newt in such a place.
Both the Common Lizard and the Grass Snake are protected under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an offence to intentionally kill or injure any
common reptile species.
The protection afforded to species under UK and EU legislation is in addition to that provided
by the planning system and the applicant must ensure that any activity they undertake on the
application sites (regardless of whether or not planning permission has been obtained)
complies with the appropriate wildlife legislation. Protected species surveys are therefore
clearly required for Great Crested Newt, Common Lizard and Grass Snake in respect of
these applications.
Ammonia/nitrogen deposition
In addition to our concerns regarding protected species, we are also concerned about
adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the LoWS caused by ammonia/nitrogen
deposition as a result of emissions from both the current poultry farms and the proposed
new units.
The National Planning Policy Framework places a clear responsibility on Local Planning
Authorities to aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and to encourage biodiversity in and
around developments.
Additional guidance on the duty of Local Planning Authorities with respect to biodiversity is
provided by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act).
Section 40 of the NERC Act states that:
‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is
consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving
biodiversity’.
Section 40(3) also states that:
‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat,
restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Woodlands are able to scavenge air pollutants more effectively than shorter semi-natural
vegetation, with the result that inputs of ammonia/nitrogen deposition to woodlands are
generally larger than for other habitat types. Nitrogen deposition on woodland ecosystems
can lead to increased sensitivity to natural stress, impacts on roots, reduced species
diversity of the ground vegetation, reduced growth, and an unbalanced nutritional status due
to eutrophication and acidification (Erisman and de Wries 2000). Changes in woodland
ground flora have been clearly documented as a result of enhanced N deposition near farms
(Pitcairn et al. 1998). Nitrogen deposition has been shown to influence the bark pH of trees
which in turn can influence epiphytic communities. Lower bark pH caused by nitrogen
deposition can have an effect on the composition of these epiphytic lichens (Mitchell et al
2005).
Although a base, ammonia can also lead to acidification, since its oxidation by soil bacteria
produces nitric acid. Acid deposition primarily affects the soils of woodland habitats, where
inputs of sulphuric or nitric acids lead to leaching of base cations. The resulting soil
acidification can lead to mobilisation of naturally occurring aluminium in the soil, which may
have toxic effects on plant roots, leading to problems of tree health (UKCLAG 1994).
Emissions of ammonia can lead to N enrichment (eutrophication). This results in a loss of
biodiversity in sensitive ecosystems because N-loving species benefit at the expense of
other species of conservation interest that contribute so much to the character of semi
natural habitats. This happens due to nutrient imbalances, increased susceptibility to climatic
stress and higher levels of insect or fungal damage which all affect the balance of
competition between species. Species adapted to nitrogen-poor conditions are likely to
suffer from increased competition if an influx of nitrogen encourages the growth of plants
such as Urtica doica.
Modelling study and vegetation survey
The Critical Level for the atmospheric concentration of a pollutant is the threshold level
above which harmful direct effects can be shown on a habitat or species, according to
current knowledge. In the ammonia dispersion/nitrogen deposition modelling study which
accompanies this application, ADAS interpret their results utilising a Critical Level of
3.0ug/m3, based on advice from James Hodson of Eco-Check Consultancy Ltd. This greatly
exceeds the Critical Level of 1.0ug/m3 set by the Environment Agency in their pre-screening
report.
The Critical Level for the modelling study was selected based on the results of the
vegetation survey, the purpose of which was to assess the woodland sections adjacent to
the two farm sites, with a particular focus on the woodland areas likely to exceed the
ammonia critical level and nitrogen critical load. The ecological survey purported to
incorporate the dominant vascular and non‐vascular plant communities in order to
recommend an appropriate threshold value and also assess the value of the woodland within
the proposed area of exceedence (approximately 2.6ha).
The vegetation survey was completed on 22 March 2012, which means that it was not
conducted within the recommended season for an accurate assessment of the species
assemblages of higher plants present within the LoWS. Based on the findings of an
inappropriately timed survey (where ammonia/nitrogen sensitive species may have been
missed), the report recommends a Critical Level of 3.0ug/m3 for atmospheric ammonia. We
would, therefore, wish to challenge this decision on the grounds that it is based on
incomplete data.
The vegetation survey report concludes that:
“There are no signs that the LWS is suffering from excess deposition, otherwise
indicated by leaf scorching and loss of woodland, loss of lichen communities or
changes in ground flora composition.”
However, it is not possible to draw such a conclusion based on one survey, conducted
outside the main growing season. It would not be possible to accurately assess the level of
leaf scorching in the majority of tree species until they are in full leaf later in the Spring, while
the assessment of species losses and changes in floral composition would require repeat
surveys conducted over a number of years before any conclusions could be drawn.
Notwithstanding the elevated Critical Level selected for the modelling study, the ADAS report
nevertheless concludes that there are exceedences of both the Critical Level of annual mean
ammonia concentration of 3.0ug/m3 and the Critical Load of 10kg/ha/yr for nitrogen
deposition under both the current and predicted scenarios.
In the EA Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annexe (b) Intensive Farming it states that where
modelling predicts a process contribution >100% of the Critical Level/Load at an ancient
woodland or local wildlife site, a development proposal may not be considered
acceptable.
Additional effects of ammonia and other pollutants
In the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, no mention has been made of the potential effects of
ammonia and nitrate deposition on protected species. The application documents include
proposals for the construction of an attenuation pond for “lightly contaminated” water. It is
also proposed that surface water from all buildings and yards is to be directed to a disused
pit on the Layerwood site (Ordnance Survey maps show both a pond and a disused pit on
the site). There is a potential risk of harm to protected species if contaminated surface water
collects in this pit to form a water body which attracts breeding Great Crested Newts.
There is a further risk of pollution run-off from the poultry farms seeping into the drainage
ditch on the Grassreasons site; this ditch subsequently flows into Layer Brook and the
Roman River catchment, with potential implications for biodiversity in the wider landscape. It
is a strict condition of the EA permit for the poultry farm that there are no discharges of
polluting water from the site and the operators must ensure that at all times they adhere to
this condition. Any breach of the site permit would constitute a criminal offence.
Summary
Whilst we would welcome much-needed improvements to the current facilities on both
application sites, we object to the proposals to increase the size of the operations. This
would result in a net increase in the already unacceptable levels of ammonia and nitrogen
deposition, with potentially harmful impacts on the ecology and biodiversity of a designated
Local Wildlife Site and potentially harmful impacts on protected species. The vegetation
survey was conducted at an inappropriate time of year, which does not follow good practice
guidelines and renders the data unreliable and incomplete. As a result, we cannot accept
this survey as sufficient evidence to justify setting the Critical Level for ammonia in the
modelling study at 3.0ug/m3. Finally, given the previously recorded presence of protected
species on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site, the lack of protected species surveys
accompanying these proposals is unacceptable.
We would like to be kept informed as to the progress of these applications.
Kind regards,
Annie Gordon
Dr Annie Gordon
Conservation Officer
Essex Wildlife Trust
Email: annieg@essexwt.org.uk
Tel: 01621 862953
Mobile: 07771 967907