1. Is the document generally clear in its guidance, user friendly and easy to understand? Please add something else to tell us why.

In general, the document is very clear and written in plain English that is easy to understand. However, there is an imbalance in relation to the amount of guidance given in Section 3 to address the different issues that are listed. For example, while detailed guidance is provided in relation to the Habitats Regulations, very little guidance is included to address other issues in Section 3 such as ammonia pollution and air quality. Also, the source of the issue is not fully explained in places. For example, the link between phosphorus pollution in the River Wye and manure spreading in the catchment is not mentioned at all in Section 3.4. For each of the issues discussed in Section 3, it would be useful to explain: the nature of the problem and the harm that it causes to the environment or human health/residential amenity; how specific agricultural development can contribute to this problem; and how applicants should assess the issues and mitigate any impacts from as part of a planning application for agricultural development. A summary table providing a brief outline of this information would also be a useful reference point to include in the SPD.

2. Overall do you think the SPD will be helpful to assist putting together a planning application for your scheme? Please add something else to tell us why.

The publication of a supplementary planning document (SPD) to inform agricultural developments in Herefordshire is a very positive step and has the potential to be a very useful tool for applicants. Agricultural development and activities can have significant impacts on the environment including impacts on water quality, air quality, biodiversity, climate, residential amenity and people’s health. Many potential applicants are not aware of the full extent of these impacts and the SPD is a useful way of raising awareness of these issues. Below, we have suggested some additional information that the SPD could include to further assist applicants in understanding the potential impacts that agriculture may have and addressing these impacts in their planning applications.

3. Do you have any other comments to make on particular sections of the document? In your answer, please refer to topic areas and / or paragraph numbers. Please say whether there is anything else you think should be included or anything that you think we might have got wrong.

Section 1 Paragraph 1.5 – identifying the source of phosphorus pollution in the River Paragraph 1.5 notes that one of the areas of particular concern in relation to the impact of farming on protected sites is that the River Wye SAC “is under significant threat from phosphorus entering the river system”. However, this paragraph does not explain how phosphorus is entering the river system. Recent studies have shown that the majority of the phosphorus surplus comes from the application of livestock manure to agricultural land in the catchment. This should be explained in paragraph 1.5 and section 3.4 (see below for further comments on section 3.4). Paragraph 1.12 - defining agricultural development Paragraph 1.12 explains that the SPD applies to “all agricultural development that requires planning permission”. It would be useful to explain in this introductory section what is meant by the term “agricultural development”. For example, it would be useful to clarify whether anaerobic digester (AD) plants that process livestock manure are included in this definition. AD plants are not included in the definition of agriculture in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 19901. Paragraph 1.14 - control of farming day to day farming operations Paragraph 1.14 notes that the planning system does not control day to day farming operations and notes that there are “regulatory systems and various national and local initiatives which allow farmers to adopt good practice into their operations”. It is important to note here that The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 also (known as the Farming Rules for Water) require (rather than just allow) farmers to adopt good practice in spreading manure and other fertilisers to reduce and prevent diffuse water pollution from agricultural sources. It is also worth mentioning the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) here, which were recently introduced to replace the former EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Basic Payment Scheme and which aim to pay farmers and land managers to protect and improve the environment and mitigate against climate change. Section 2 Paragraph 2.3 -Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) The table summarising the key Core Strategy policies following paragraph 2.3 notes that the draft MWLP “recognises the role that anaerobic digestion can play in managing natural agricultural wastes and effectively reducing the amount of raw manure that is deposited on farmland.” However, AD plants still have the potential for contributing to nutrient pollution in rivers. The digestate from AD plants which process raw manure contains the nutrients from the manure in a more concentrated form. This digestate is routinely spread onto farmland where it causes excess nutrients to leach into rivers as with spreading raw manure. It should therefore be noted in this paragraph that AD plants can contribute to managing natural agricultural wastes and avoiding the application of raw manure to farmland but only where digestate from the AD plant is not itself applied to agricultural land where it could further contribute to nutrient pollution in water bodies. Section 3 Climate impact as a key issue to include in Section 3 Section 3 of the SPD considers a wide range of issues that can arise in relation to agricultural development. However, one of the key issues missing from this list is the impact that agricultural activities can have on climate change. It is important to include climate impacts as one of the issues in Section 3 considering the significant impacts agriculture can have on climate and the fact that Herefordshire Council declared a climate emergency in March 2019. Climate change has also been held by the courts to be a legitimate material planning consideration that should be considered in determining planning applications where relevant (R(McLennan) v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1738). Furthermore, paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that new development should be planned for in ways which “can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as through its location, orientation and design.” Agriculture contributes to the emission of several greenhouse gases which are emitted from livestock, agricultural soils, stationary combustion sources and off-road machinery. According to the government’s Agri-Climate Report 2022, agriculture is a major source of both nitrous oxide and methane emissions in the UK and in 2020, it accounted for 69% of total UK nitrous oxide emissions and 48% of all methane emissions. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted from denitrification processes in soils, manure and stationary combustion sources while methane is produced as a by-product from the decomposition of livestock manure. Paragraph 2.5 of the draft SPD refers to the checklists for Climate Change Compliance which applicants can use to demonstrate compliance with policies SS6, SS7, SD1, LD2 and LD3 of the Core Strategy. However, climate should also be included as one of the issues to be considered in Section 3 of the draft SPD that applicants must address in making planning applications for agricultural development. The SPD should therefore advise applicants how to assess the climate impacts of their proposed development and demonstrate how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced and/or avoided as part of the proposal. While greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture can arise from the day to day farming practices which are outside planning control (for example, through the application of fertilisers and pesticides), a significant proportion of agricultural development with potential for greenhouse gas emissions is likely to come under planning control such as applications for intensive livestock units, storage facilities for livestock manure, biomass plants for heating poultry units, CHP units and bio digesters for heating and energy production. 3.2 Habitats Regulations Process The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process is explained in detail in Section 3.2; however, it would still be useful to make the following amendments: Screening - it would be useful to explain in paragraph 3.2.2 that it is the applicant who must carry out the screening process to identify any potential pathways by which the proposal may impact on a designated site. It would also be useful to note that, following the People Over Wind judgment in 2018, when carrying out the screening process the potential for “likely significant effects” must be assessed without taking into account any mitigation measures which have been added to avoid or reduce a harmful effect on a designated site. If any potential pathways are identified in the absence of mitigation measures, then the proposal is deemed to have a likely significant effect and an appropriate assessment must be carried out. Appropriate assessment In order to explain clearly that the applicant must provide sufficient detailed information to enable the council to carry out an appropriate assessment, it would be helpful to move paragraphs 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 so that they follow immediately after paragraph 3.2.3. Imperative Reasons of Over-Riding Public Interest In paragraph 3.2.4, the text which explains the process to follow when a likely significant effect cannot be avoided is different to that in the government’s guidance: “Where an adverse effect on the site’s integrity cannot be ruled out, and where there are no alternative solutions, the plan or project can only proceed if there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and if the necessary compensatory measures can be secured.” It may be useful to use the government’s wording here to avoid confusion and to refer to the guidance in paragraph 3.2.4 for further information on imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. Condition of the River Wye SAC and nutrient pollution issues It would be useful to note in Section 3.2 that the SSSI units of the River Wye, which make up the River Wye SAC, have all been assessed by Natural England to be in unfavourable ecological condition, in large part due to nutrient pollution. In Natural England’s supplementary guidance on securing European Site Conservation Objectives in relation to the River Wye SAC (October 2022), it explains that as both phosphorus and nitrogen are causing eutrophication in the River Wye SAC, both of these nutrients have maximum levels set which should not be exceeded to ensure the health of the SAC. In relation to these targets, the Natural England guidance notes that: • The upper River Wye upstream of Hay-on-Wye is currently meeting its conservation target and is not considered to be at risk from the current permitted discharges. • The River Wye (between Hay-on-Wye and the River Lugg confluence) is currently just meeting the phosphate target in some monitoring locations and therefore partially fulfilling the conservation objectives set out by Natural England. • The River Lugg section of the SAC is currently exceeding the phosphate target set out for the site's favourable conditions tables and is considered by Natural England to be failing its conservation objectives, and not therefore making a full contribution to achieving favourable conservation status of each of the qualifying features of the SAC. It would also be useful to note in Section 3.2 that all agricultural development activities that are carried out within the River Wye catchment have the potential to contribute to in-river nutrient pollution in the River Wye and thereby adversely affect the integrity of the SAC due to the transfer of excess nutrients from soil into waterbodies. Consequently, all planning applications for agricultural development within the River Wye catchment should consider their potential impact on the River Wye SAC. 3.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Paragraph 3.3.1 states that applications for “major” development will be screened by the Council to determine whether or not an EIA is required. It would be useful to briefly summarise in the SPD what the threshold is for “major” development and what kind of agricultural development may require an EIA. For example, Schedule 1 (17) of the EIA Regulations 2017 indicates that an EIA will automatically be required for the following types of development: Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than— (a) 85,000 places for broilers or 60,000 places for hens; (b) 3,000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg); or (c) 900 places for sows. Schedule 2 lists development for which screening is required and where an EIA will only be required if the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment due to its size, nature or location: (a) Projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes where the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare. (b) Water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage projects where the area of the works exceeds 1 hectare. (c) Intensive livestock installations (unless included in Schedule 1) where the area of new floorspace exceeds 500 square metres. While links are provided in Section 3.3 to relevant government guidance, very little information on EIA is actually provided in this section. Consequently, it would be helpful to include a brief summary in Section 3.3 of what is involved in each of the five stages of EIA that are listed in bullet points. For example, it could be noted in section 3.3 that screening is the process carried out to determine whether a proposed project falls within the remit of the EIA Regulations, whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore requires an EIA. It could also be noted in Section 3.3 that an environmental statement must include the information reasonably required to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the development and must be prepared by competent experts. 3.4 Phosphorus Levels in Rivers Explaining the source of excess phosphorus Section 3.4 is an extremely important part of the SPD considering the urgent need to address the high phosphorus levels in Herefordshire’s main rivers. Paragraph 3.4.11 notes that “diffuse pollution from some agricultural operations” can significantly increase phosphorus levels entering the river system”. However, section 3.4 does not explain how phosphorus enters the river as a result of agricultural activities. As one of the aims of the SPD is “to help reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture that is associated with development that requires planning permission” (para 3.4.11), it is essential that the SPD fully the contribution of agricultural activities to this problem and how this issue can be addressed in planning applications for agricultural development, for example through proposals for managing the disposal of manure as part of an application for an intensive poultry unit. Large sections of the River Wye and its tributaries are failing to achieve the statutory nutrient control targets for good or high ecological status due to phosphorus pollution. According to the ‘RePhoKUs’ report by Lancaster university (Re-focusing Phosphorus use in the Wye Catchment, Paul J. A. Withers, Shane A. Rothwell, Kirsty J. Forber and Christopher Lyon, May 2022), phosphorus levels in the River Wye catchment are nearly 60% greater than the national average. A recent study of the River Wye by Natural Resources Wales has shown that only fourteen water bodies passed their targets for phosphorus, 28 failed and the outcome from a further three was unknown (Natural Resources Wales / Compliance Assessment of the River Wye SAC Against Phosphorus Targets). The SPD should explain that intensive poultry industry in Herefordshire is one of the major drivers of the very high phosphorus levels in the River Wye. The RePhoKUs report estimates that approximately two thirds of the excess phosphorus in the River Wye catchment comes from agriculture and that intensive poultry units are the dominant source of phosphorus in the catchment. It has been estimated that the intensive poultry industry in Herefordshire houses over 20 million chickens at any one time and produces over 100,000 tonnes of chicken manure per annum. This manure is routinely spread on agricultural land in the catchment land causing run-off from the soil into local rivers when it rains. Nutrient run-off also results from free-range egg units, manure storage facilities and digestate from AD plants that process chicken manure (which is also spread on farmland in the catchment). As explained in the recent Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) report, “Water Quality in Rivers” (4th Session 2021-22), the amount of manure produced in the catchment is more than the soil can absorb, and more than the grassland or crops need to grow. The RePhoKUS report estimates that there is over 3,000 tonnes of surplus phosphorus in the catchment per annum and that this is also creating a legacy issue whereby the surplus builds up in the soil, year on year. The report recommends a large-scale reduction of nutrient application to land in the catchment in order to remove the phosphorus surplus and improve water quality in the River Wye. To achieve this, the report recommends a combination of reducing the numbers of livestock in the catchment and processing livestock manures to recover renewable fertilisers that can substitute for imported phosphorus products instead of spreading it on agricultural land. The EAC report also notes the need to reduce nutrient levels in the River Wye catchment by transporting waste out of catchment and reducing livestock levels. How the planning system can help to address this issue The planning system can contribute to addressing the surplus of phosphorus in the River Wye catchment by applying strict controls to the management and disposal of manure and nutrient-rich digestate when granting planning permission for poultry and other livestock units and AD plants in the River Wye catchment. For example, planning conditions should be used to avoid the spreading of manure from this type of development on farmland in the catchment. The SPD should advise applicants for all agricultural development to carefully consider the impact of phosphorus on local rivers. In particular, applicants proposing intensive livestock units and AD plants should be advised to submit detailed management plans as part of their applications which clearly demonstrate how manure and digestate will be carefully managed and disposed of to avoid nutrient run–off into local rivers. These plans should be then routinely monitored and enforced to ensure their effectiveness. It is worth noting the recently finalised Environmental Principles Policy Statement (EPPS), one of the key elements of the new environmental governance framework which was introduced by the Environment Act 2021, requires policymakers to apply the internationally recognised environmental principles of ‘prevention’ and ‘rectification at source’ when making new policy in order to try and prevent environmental damage from occurring at the outset. One of the reasons for the continuing high levels of phosphorus loadings in the Wye catchment seems to be that no assessment is being made of the overall cumulative impact of intensive livestock units in the catchment when planning permission is granted for these units. In order to address this issue, a nutrient budget should be calculated for each catchment of the River Wye and its tributaries which can then be used to restrict and control development in the catchment that may increase the nutrient loading. The nutrient budget approach was recommended by both Natural England in their recent supplementary guidance on the River Wye SAC and the EAC in their report on Water Quality in Rivers. Both the NPPF and the EPPS also note the need to consider the impact of cumulative effects on the environment when making policy. Paragraph 185 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development “is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment...” Once a nutrient budget has been established for each catchment, nutrient pollution from all sources in the catchment should be progressively assessed and then reduced or mitigated until it does not exceed the capacity of the river to handle the nutrients. Reductions in livestock numbers should be encouraged in catchments with high levels of nutrients. The EAC report recommends that there should be a presumption against granting planning permission for new poultry farms or other livestock units (or extensions to existing units) in catchments which are already exceeding their nutrient budgets, unless evidence is presented of robust mitigation plans in place that are demonstrably effective in reducing the accumulation of nutrient loads in soils and river sediments within sensitive areas in the catchment. 3.5 Ammonia and Nitrogen Section 3.5 explains how ammonia emissions arise from agriculture and some of the adverse impacts these emissions can have on the environment. It is important to note that airborne ammonia contributes to eutrophication in nitrogen in rivers as well as causing harm to biodiversity on land. It would be worth mentioning here that the Nitrates Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 restrict farming activities on land which has been designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) in order to reduce the risk of nitrate pollution in water bodies. Large sections of the Wye catchment in Herefordshire have been designated as NVZs. It should also be noted that ammonia can have adverse impacts on human health. Ammonia also reacts with other pollutants in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which is known to have serious negative effects on human health, including cancer, heart attacks, asthma attacks and strokes. The Herefordshire Health and Well Being Scrutiny Committee’s recent report on the impact of intensive poultry units on human health (July 2022) demonstrated that some residents living in the vicinity of intensive poultry units in Herefordshire have suffered from respiratory problems such as aggravated asthma symptoms which they attribute to the poultry units. The SPD states that Defra and the JNCC have developed new approaches to assist with technical assessment of developments with a risk of ammonia impacts and that further information will be included when available. In the meantime, the SPD should provide guidance on how applicants can address ammonia emissions in planning proposals for agricultural development. For example, the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Reducing Ammonia Emissions (2018) provides guidance on how ammonia emissions can be reduced through the design and construction of slurry and digestate stores and livestock housing. Guidance should also be provided in the SPD on how the health impacts on local residents of ammonia from intensive poultry units can be addressed and avoided in planning proposals. 3.9 Air pollution Section 3.9 notes some of the potential air quality impacts of agricultural development and paragraph 3.9.1 mentions the potential for intensive poultry units to generate particulates from ventilation systems. Paragraph 3.9.1 should also note that intensive poultry units can release ammonia and bioaerosols as well as particulate matter into the atmosphere. The Heath Protection Agency’s Position Statement on Intensive Farming (2006) notes that agriculture is responsible for up to 15% of fine particulate matter emissions in the UK with poultry units responsible for around 5% of emissions. The statement notes that both long and short term exposure to ambient levels of particles are associated with respiratory and cardiovascular illness and mortality. As noted in relation to section 3.5 above, fine particulate matter is formed when ammonia reacts with other pollutants in the atmosphere. Bioaerosols are airborne particles that contain living organisms, fragments, toxins and waste products and they derive from animal waste and feed. The Herefordshire Health and Well Being Scrutiny Committee’s report has noted that bioaerosols can travel long distances and human exposure to bioaerosols has been associated with a range of adverse health effects and diseases. It would be useful to refer to local and regional air quality strategies as well as paragraph 186 of the NPPF, which states that planning decisions should contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Furthermore, it would be useful to mention in Section 3.9 that air pollution is recognised by the government to be the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK and that the UK has legally binding national emission reduction commitments for overall UK emissions of 5 damaging air pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5) ammonia (NH3) nitrogen oxides (NOx) sulphur dioxide (SO2) non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) The government has recently revised the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP) which has the aim of limiting anthropogenic emissions in accordance with the emission reduction commitments. It should be noted in the SPD that public authorities are legally obliged (under section 9 of the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018) to have regard to the NAPCP when exercising any functions which significantly affect the level of emissions of a relevant pollutant within the UK. In relation to the assessment of air quality in planning applications, section 3.9 of the SPD should refer applicants to the Government guidance on planning and air quality which explains that air quality assessment may be relevant to determining a planning application where the development would: - Lead to changes (including any potential reductions) in vehicle-related emissions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development or further afield. - Introduce new point sources of air pollution. - Expose people to harmful concentrations of air pollutants, including dust. - Give rise to potentially unacceptable impacts (such as dust) during construction for nearby sensitive locations; - Have a potential adverse effect on biodiversity, especially where it would affect sites designated for their biodiversity value. The SPD should advise applicants to assess the potential air quality impacts of proposed developments and demonstrate in their applications how any emissions of harmful pollutants such as ammonia, particulate matter and bioaerosols will be avoided and/or mitigated.

4. Do you find the guidance in Appendix 1a clear and easy to follow? Please add something else to tell us why.

Yes

5. Do you think the guidance in Appendix 1a will be useful when you are putting a scheme together? Please add something else to tell us why.

Yes

7. Do you find the guidance in Appendix 1b clear and easy to follow? Please add something else to tell us why.

Yes

8. Do you think the guidance in Appendix 1b will be useful when you are putting a scheme together? Please add something else to tell us why.

Yes

10. Please provide any general comments about the use of Farmscoper to support planning applications.

Farmscoper is a useful tool to help farmers understand the impacts of diffuse pollution from agriculture and suggest ways of mitigating these impacts. However, it should not be relied on as conclusive evidence of the nutrient loading of a development proposal, given the Council is unlikely to be able to verify the information input into the model by the applicant and it may be difficult to monitor and enforce the implementation of any mitigation measures proposed to achieve a ‘zero’ phosphorus loading, even if these measures are secured by planning condition. Planning officers should also make an independent assessment of the likely nutrient loading of a proposed development based on livestock numbers and other relevant factors. This should then be assessed against the nutrient budget for that catchment, taking into account the cumulative impact on nutrient levels of other existing development in the catchment. As already noted above, a nutrient budget for each catchment is needed to inform planning decision in determining whether or not to grant permission for the development and/or what restrictions to place on proposed new development to control nutrient pollution.

1. Is the document generally clear in its guidance, user friendly and easy to understand? Please add something else to tell us why.

The document is very wordy and so it would be more user friendly if there was a summary of potential plg app requirements at the start perhaps with a flow chart

3. Do you have any other comments to make on particular sections of the document? In your answer, please refer to topic areas and / or paragraph numbers. Please say whether there is anything else you think should be included or anything that you think we might have got wrong.

A summary table (or similar) will be helpful to quickly establish what info may be required in support of different types and scales of agri applications. 3.4.16 – is a condition controlling livestock numbers achievable, enforceable etc??

4. Do you find the guidance in Appendix 1a clear and easy to follow? Please add something else to tell us why.

No

7. Do you find the guidance in Appendix 1b clear and easy to follow? Please add something else to tell us why.

The requested level of info will be unachievable with most small to medium agri developments requiring planning. The info is excessively complex and disproportionate with the scale and impact of typical small to medium agri development apps in Herefordshire.

8. Do you think the guidance in Appendix 1b will be useful when you are putting a scheme together? Please add something else to tell us why.

Excessively detailed and complex

10. Please provide any general comments about the use of Farmscoper to support planning applications.

The Farmscoper assessment appears very complex and is therefore likely that it will have to be completed by specialist consultant further adding to the applicant costs. If adopted, a training event on its use for interested agents/applicants will be helpful.

3. Do you have any other comments to make on particular sections of the document? In your answer, please refer to topic areas and / or paragraph numbers. Please say whether there is anything else you think should be included or anything that you think we might have got wrong.

A separate document has been sent to Herefordshire Council as we felt there was more to comment on throughout the document than just the specific questions listed here.

10. Please provide any general comments about the use of Farmscoper to support planning applications.

On behalf of our members, we have submitted a letter detailing our concerns as we felt there was more to comment on than just the specific questions listed above.

1. Is the document generally clear in its guidance, user friendly and easy to understand? Please add something else to tell us why.

Yes

2. Overall do you think the SPD will be helpful to assist putting together a planning application for your scheme? Please add something else to tell us why.

It won't be helpful