Suffolk Poultry Sheds Planning Appeal

We were jointly instructed by two Parish Councils to oppose an appeal of Mid Suffolk District Council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of three large poultry units and associated development in Eye. The Inspector agreed with points raised by us in our objection, leading to the planning appeal being dismissed and the Council’s decision to refuse the application being upheld.

We drafted written submissions that raised several significant points relating to the assessment of the impacts of the proposed development. First, in respect of odour, we noted that the applicant had failed to quantify peak odour emissions and that the Odour Assessment was based on opaque modelling data and failed to address the issue of uncertainty regarding the assessment of odour contrary to IAQM guidance (i.e. the extent to which the modelling results might differ from real-world conditions). We argued that the application would clearly give rise to significant adverse odour impacts, corroborated by the fact that the Environment Agency had indicated that it would not able to prevent “unacceptable odour pollution” via the permitting process and the Applicant had incorrectly classified a nearby employment site (a “medium-sensitivity receptor”) as a “low-sensitivity receptor”, which was a place where people expect to enjoy a reasonable level of amenity as set out in IAQM guidance.

Further, the Applicant had sought to assert that paras 170 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Feb 2019), which dealt with air quality, pollution and local amenity, were not relevant to impacts arising from odour. Our submissions set out why those paragraphs of the NPPF clearly meant that odour was a material consideration which must be considered in planning decisions.

We also pointed to lack of information regarding manure spreading and waste water disposal and a failure to assess its potential impacts, a lack of clarity regarding associated vehicle movements, the safety / feasibility of travel plans and a failure to consider the cumulative impacts of existing farms in the area.

A number of these points were taken up by the Inspector, who dismissed the appeal. In particular, the Inspector agreed that paras 174 and 185 of the NPPF (previously paras 170 and 180 include impacts from odour and were relevant to the determination application. The Inspector also agreed the nearby employment site was a medium sensitivity receptor and that the development could give rise to significant complaints and result in harm to its occupiers. Given the inspector’s findings on these points, it was considered that it was not necessary to deal with other issues raised in detail.