Oh, well, if anyone wants to check it all out, it's on http://193.114.205.78/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx , original application 07/15147/FUL (just search for 15147), and new application 08/15866/FUL (just search 15866)
A screening for EIA decided it wasn't EIA (the trigger for intensive livestock rearing is 500 square metres - i.e. less than that you don't need EIA, above it you might) so the applicant's first resort will probably be to ask the Secretary of State (i.e. the regional government office) to rule that it doesn't need an EIA. It might be worthwhile pressing for a condition that keeps the traffic off the canal bridge (which seems to be the case anyway for most of the movements between farms). I did pick up on the comment by an officer, "Many of those protesting to the current application have made a lifestyle choice to live in the country. Having made that choice they must accept that farms and farming activity are a fundamental aspect of life in the countryside and although farming methods may be changing over the years, it remains agriculture and should be accepted as such, and not categorised as some form of industrial process." (That depends on how you define intensive farming...) Steve -- In [email protected], David Cragg <dhsrcr...@...> wrote: > > Maesbury Marsh is a village near the end of the open section of the > Montgomery Canal. It is in the country and the canal section is an SSSI - or > so we thought... > > A few years ago a lorry driving chap brought 25 acres of land right next to > the village and near the Canal Central Post Office. The land had no house but > a barn and some sheds - the farm house being sold off years ago. > > Shortly after buying the land the owner first (illegally) lived in a caravan > on the land and then, in an area where permissions are rarely given, was > given permission to turn the barn into a house. After this another planning > application went in for a new barn and, in spite of local opposition, the > council officers and certain influential councillors bent over backwards to > push the application through. > > After the barn went up it quickly became clear that it was not for the few > cattle in the fields but for an intensive calf rearing operation. This > involves food being lorried in and muck being stored on site (400metres > upwind of the village) then lorried away along the road. The road is single > track and extremely narrow with twists. It is mainly used by walkers and > cyclists (though according to the county council it is used only by lorries > and few of them). > > The road crosses the canal near Canal Central PO on a bridge limited to 10 > tons - though loads of muck similar to the one that broke the bridge near > Stenson been seen to go over this bridge - a twin to the Stenson one. However > most of the lorries go the other way along the lane through a ford and over > that massive bridge created in the restoration by Peate's mill. (Be careful > here and up the lane walking, visiting folks!) Although an estimate by the > applicant implied 2 lorries a week plus others (?) a two day few hour count > saw 14 cross the bridge - and that was before the latest application... > > This latest application is for another shed for calf rearing. This shed could > take 600 though the application implies only 150 on top of the 200 currently > indoors on site. As before certain councillors (now backed by farmers mostly > not local) tried to bulldoze the application through while the council > officers (one of who advised on the application but is not the one set to > approve it) approved it in the face of local opposition. In fact some > councillors (at least one of which received calls to drop it) are now annoyed > enough oppose the application and to have forced a environmental assessment > to be carried out. (A thing the council officers maintain is needed for > siting a caravan but not for cattle rearing with muck per hundred cattle > piling up at 4 tons per day. (A read of the www.factoryfarming.org > site will tell you about the environmental implications of this!)) > > In the midst of this lot it was pointed out that the canal corridor along > here is an SSSI and surely that should count for something. Well locals have > always thought it was an SSSI and any WRGies out there may remember that when > they restored Aston locks in the 1990s BW chained them up and used the threat > of permanent refusal for future restoration by English Nature who had made > the canal below an SSSI as one of their clubs to beat the restorers into > compliance. > > When the SSSI status was raised the powers that be found that the Maesbury > bit was made a a rare plant etc., SSSI in the 1990s BUT in 2001 - when a BW > eco restoration was begun at massive cost on the Maesbury section English > Nature waved a magic wand, all the rare plants disappeared and the SSSI > status was rescinded as far as Redwith. So - when is an SSSI not an SSSI - > when English Nature (now Natural England) say so. And, in this case it was > on/off at convenient times for certain parties... It seems not only our > councillors perform cartwheels when it suits them. > > So now you know - and if you fancy a bit of factory farming now you also know > how to go about it - from field to house to barn to bigger barn - and there > is plenty of room for expansion yet in those 25 acres. > > Incidentally the farm guy keeps his barns and land around flood-lite all > night. Maybe he is worried that those men in hoods will arrive and free his > beasts - or maybe he just likes annoying his neighbours. (Final note for > visiting boaters - he has been reported to the police for driving at people > as he seems to think the local lane is his road private so watch out!) > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
