Pig Farm, Enforcement Issues, IPPC License & Planning Appeal

Musthavanegg

Hello everyone. Looking for an answer which I can't seem to find and hope someone here will know. A local piggery applied last year for expansion and several objections were lodged and the planning was subsequently refused on the grounds that there were several unauthorised buildings on site that needed retention first. Retention was applied for and has been appealed to ABP.The original refused planning has now been resubmitted and accepted despite the fact that there is a current appeal involving the same operation. Question is is this legal ? One would have thought that a new application couldn't be submitted until the outcome of a descision by ABP. thanks

muffler

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Hello everyone. Looking for an answer which I can't seem to find and hope someone here will know. A local piggery applied last year for expansion and several objections were lodged and the planning was subsequently refused on the grounds that there were several unauthorised buildings on site that needed retention first. Retention was applied for and has been appealed to ABP.The original refused planning has now been resubmitted and accepted despite the fact that there is a current appeal involving the same operation. Question is is this legal ? One would have thought that a new application couldn't be submitted until the outcome of a descision by ABP. thanks

The retention that is being appealed - was that granted or refused by the Council?

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Hello everyone. Looking for an answer which I can't seem to find and hope someone here will know. A local piggery applied last year for expansion and several objections were lodged and the planning was subsequently refused on the grounds that there were several unauthorised buildings on site that needed retention first. Retention was applied for and has been appealed to ABP.The original refused planning has now been resubmitted and accepted despite the fact that there is a current appeal involving the same operation. Question is is this legal ? One would have thought that a new application couldn't be submitted until the outcome of a descision by ABP. thanks

The two can be treated independently if, say, the retention permission is ultimately refused after all avenues have been exhausted and the buildings, the subject of the retention permission are removed and if this doesn't affect the new application, then it can be treated separately. (I hope that reads ok....:) ) This could only be determined by a professional checking the paperwork on behalf of an appellant, or with the intention of making an observation or submission on the new application.

Musthavanegg

Thanks Gentlemen, the retention permission was granted subject to a load of conditions . None of the conditions were in relation to all the objections relating to the odour. Problem is there are approx 40 dwellings ,school etc within approx 400 mts of the piggery and was appealed on the basis that no EIA was present or The operation having been screened for one.We have been told that under the amended 2010 act the council were obliged by law to screen for an EIA. The operation doesn't have an IPPC licence and is well over the threshold in sow nos. if an EIA were required then the new application should have it attached and it doesn't. All being said should the new application be allowed to progress while a current one is pending ? Everybody seems to be turning a blind eye including the EPA.

muffler

There is nothing in the regs that I am aware of that would prevent a Planning Authority from accepting an application for development on a site, part of which is the subject of an appeal to ABP. However things could change when its time to make a decision. Accepting and processing an application is one thing but making a decision when there are are other live issues is something else.

Musthavanegg

That makes a whole lot of sense to me . I guess we will just have to lodge more submissions on the new application, at least this will afford us the chance to get back to ABP again if the current appeal doesn't help us. It still defys belief how a planning officer initially issued planning for a several thousand unit pig farm in such close proximity to a town and the surrounding community which depends on tourism. There are at least 5 homes within 100 mts of this unit, all of which were built long before the piggery. You can imagine the scenario where the owner of the piggery lives 40 Klms away and the place is locked up from 5pm until 7am next day, nobody to control the noise or the odour and in the middle of the night one is worse than the other. We may have been thrown a lifeline this week in the form of the Inland Fisheries who are now on the case. Thanks again for your input.

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

if an EIA were required then the new application should have it attached and it doesn't. All being said should the new application be allowed to progress while a current one is pending ? Everybody seems to be turning a blind eye including the EPA.

I don't think anyone would be ignoring it, an EIS is too big of an issue to ignore. There are a few issues to work on before determining whether an EIS, or in this case a remedial EIS under section 177f of the Planning and Development Act 2010.

The date of the original farm development construction,
whether the development had planning permission,
whether the buildings for retention increased the stock or whether those buildings were necessary to house the same stock figures under revised stocking density ratios.

The above will all have a bearing on whether a remedial EIS is required or not.

It is also worth noting that an IPPC license can't be issued until any planning irregularities have been sorted out. It also depends on the number of pigs as to whether the farm is classed as a small or large enterprise or indeed whether an IPPC license is needed at all.

You mentioned sows, so it is an integrated unit and not a production unit?

Musthavanegg

Interesting info on the IPPC , it's a pleasure listening to someone who knows what they're about. Yes , an integrated unit where we believe the max no of sows allowed without an IPPC is 285. There are considerably more and when you take into account 1 sow = 10 pigs the numbers do add up. Our biggest problem as a community is being kept in the dark in relation to the laws etc. All we have been after for years is the installation of some form of filtration system for the odour problem but the owner just doesn't want invest. Approx 80% of the people being effected are retired and in their 70's and therefore spend most of the time at home. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree is finding a solution ?

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Yes , an integrated unit where we believe the max no of sows allowed without an IPPC is 285. There are considerably more

Below 285 sows in an integrated unit doesn't need IPPC license.
Between 285 and 570 sows in an integrated unit is considered a small enterprise and needs a license.
Above 570 sows in an integrated unit is considered a large enterprise and needs a license.

Musthavanegg wrote: »

and when you take into account 1 sow = 10 pigs the numbers do add up.

Well, that's what an integrated unit is after all. Any pig farmer could have up to 750 sows in a breeder unit without having to apply for an IPPC license. Or up to 2,000 fatteners in a production unit without having to apply for the IPPC license.

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Our biggest problem as a community is being kept in the dark in relation to the laws etc.

That's actually a tough one because there is no onus on the farmer or on the LA to keep the locals/neighbours up to speed on the current legislation changes which may affect the development. On the other hand why should any group of people have to pay any professional to keep them updated on legislation just because a particular development exists in their community.

Musthavanegg wrote: »

All we have been after for years is the installation of some form of filtration system for the odour problem but the owner just doesn't want invest.

There are additives which can be mixed into the slurry to reduce odours. However, the manufacturers of any such additives have to prove vigorously to the EPA that their product actually works before they can be recommended, which can be costly on the manufacturers.
This isn't an excuse, it's the reason there are no approved additives available, to my knowledge.

There are other means of reducing odours, and it would be nearsighted of any farmer not to consider it.

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Approx 80% of the people being effected are retired and in their 70's and therefore spend most of the time at home. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree is finding a solution ?

Ideal, persons to get on the computer and scour the EPA's site for solutions, Silver surfers unite.....

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Silver surfers unite.....

Careful now

Someone accused me some time ago of making ageist comments and I think they even mentioned it in a DRP thread. Turned out they were younger than me

Anyhow, back to the pigs

Musthavanegg

Would odour Emmisions from a piggery be classed as air pollution ? Maybe I'm wrong but under the Air Pollution Act are the LA not responsible for monitoring. One of the conditions of the original planning was that a large fee be paid annually to the LA for monitoring ! I have been to the LA office to view the log of the monitoring and would you believe it couldn't be found or doesn't exist more likely !! Hopefully ABP will ask to see it!

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Would odour Emmisions from a piggery be classed as air pollution ? Maybe I'm wrong but under the Air Pollution Act are the LA not responsible for monitoring. One of the conditions of the original planning was that a large fee be paid annually to the LA for monitoring ! I have been to the LA office to view the log of the monitoring and would you believe it couldn't be found or doesn't exist more likely !! Hopefully ABP will ask to see it!

The conditions of a planning permission will have a bearing on how the development affected by that planning permission is carried out and used. After all, the conditions are just that, conditions under which the development may proceed. If in thios case the LA did indeed put that condition you refer to on the development and if the large fee you mention was paid, then there would appear to be an onus on the LA to carry out the works referred to.

I think we may have come to this stage sooner if the following had not been ignored:

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The date of the original farm development construction,
whether the development had planning permission,
whether the buildings for retention increased the stock or whether those buildings were necessary to house the same stock figures under revised stocking density ratios.

We usually don't ask these type of questions unless they have a bearing on any opinion we may give.....:)

Musthavanegg

Ah Ha ! Yes ! Planning was given in the late 90's amid a huge barrage of complaints and objections and we were given every assurance by the then planning officer that the farm would be well monitored. The planning was given subject to approx 30 conditions and one very specific one " the operation of the farm will be in such a manner that it will not cause any nuisance by way of odour or noise to any of the properties in the vicinity " When we challenged the LA on this about a year ago we told to write to the Planning Enforcement Officer which we did, but once again nothing has been done, not even a reply.
There were about 5 buildings erected without planning but whether they increased the herd size nobody knows as I'm fairly sure the LA don't do a head count as such !

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Ah Ha ! Yes ! Planning was given in the late 90's amid a huge barrage of complaints and objections and we were given every assurance by the then planning officer that the farm would be well monitored. The planning was given subject to approx 30 conditions and one very specific one " the operation of the farm will be in such a manner that it will not cause any nuisance by way of odour or noise to any of the properties in the vicinity " When we challenged the LA on this about a year ago we told to write to the Planning Enforcement Officer which we did, but once again nothing has been done, not even a reply.
There were about 5 buildings erected without planning but whether they increased the herd size nobody knows as I'm fairly sure the LA don't do a head count as such !

Two issues here:
1. The stock figure places for the IPPC license we spoke about in earlier posts are not the actual head count stock numbers as these can be kept artificially low when an application is being made...;) The figures are actually worked out on the available floor areas for stock. The stocking density has reduced in recent years, meaning that extra floor area may have been needed to maintain the stock figures originally granted planning permission. Only in-depth scrutiny of the plans would give a detailed answer to this. Hint: Increasing the stock in any form may open the door for an EIA.

2. The LA would appear to bear a burden of responsibility in regard to monitoring of the proper running of this enterprise, but reporting this to Planning Enforcement Official may be like complaining an attack on the hen-house to the fox with the feathers in its mouth. Anyway keep a record of all complaints and correspondences. If you (collectively) are serious about getting this enterprise cleaned up you would be best advised to get a professional involved and contact http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/publications/information-leaflets/the-ombudsman-and-local-authorities/

Chasing a non compliance with a condition of a planning permission can't be done directly through enforcement once there is 12 years and 108 days passed after the grant of the planning permission involved.

Musthavanegg

Uncle Tom, you are a mine of valuable info. Thank You. Chased a different ave today although probably not a direct responsibility of the piggery owner. A list of slurry recipients is put forward to the LA and under scrutiny 6 on the list own farms on the banks of a well documented salmon spawning river, 2 have river fields with gradients of 45* and 1 of these has a well. 2 farms have told us they recieve slurry and only gave their herd nos to make up acreage! 2 more we have been told are in REPS. One of the principle recipients is a 100 % cereal man ! Can't remember the last time I saw a slurry tanker spreading slurry on corn. Question asked now , if it's not going where it's supposed to go then where Is it going. We have also asked the LA env office if the farms on the river banks had been soil tested and they said that was up to the individual farmer. As most of these lands along the river are boggy there are serious concerns re runoff. I suspect this is why the inland fisheries have become involved as all the Crowfoot has been killed off. I think you are completely correct in saying its time to get a pro involved. And on Pat Kenny today we hear that confined pigs are the biggest carriers of MRSA so maybe another ave opened up !

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Uncle Tom, you are a mine of valuable info. Thank You. Chased a different ave today although probably not a direct responsibility of the piggery owner. A list of slurry recipients is put forward to the LA and under scrutiny 6 on the list own farms on the banks of a well documented salmon spawning river, 2 have river fields with gradients of 45* and 1 of these has a well. 2 farms have told us they recieve slurry and only gave their herd nos to make up acreage! 2 more we have been told are in REPS. One of the principle recipients is a 100 % cereal man ! Can't remember the last time I saw a slurry tanker spreading slurry on corn. Question asked now , if it's not going where it's supposed to go then where Is it going. We have also asked the LA env office if the farms on the river banks had been soil tested and they said that was up to the individual farmer. As most of these lands along the river are boggy there are serious concerns re runoff. I suspect this is why the inland fisheries have become involved as all the Crowfoot has been killed off. I think you are completely correct in saying its time to get a pro involved. And on Pat Kenny today we hear that confined pigs are the biggest carriers of MRSA so maybe another ave opened up !

Just a word of caution, attack the application not the applicant. You don't want to alienate half the local population.

Musthavanegg

No, that wouldn't happen, a little bit too long on the road to be caught out that way. All of the above is just to point out how lax and uncontrolled the whole system is here. If needs must, you mentioned getting a professional . What field would you reccommend, engineer, environmental, legal ?

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

No, that wouldn't happen, a little bit too long on the road to be caught out that way. All of the above is just to point out how lax and uncontrolled the whole system is here. If needs must, you mentioned getting a professional . What field would you reccommend, engineer, environmental, legal ?

A Planning Consultant, I doesn't matter whether they are planners, engineers, architects or arch tech's, just make sure they have a record of fighting a case through to the end. You have the added difficulty of getting someone who knows the IPPC licencing process, there are not too many who are capable of both, good luck.

Musthavanegg

Thanks ! Incidently I have discussed the matter yesterday with a relative who is senior council and he had exactly the same thoughts as yourself. The original planning was issued subject to a no of conditions one which specifically states that the farm is run in a manner that will not creat a nuisance by way of odour or noise for any properties in the vicinity of the farm. Ultimately the LA are responsible if there are constant problems and he believes enough legal pressure could be brought to bear to persuade them to act accordingly. I will keep you informed of the outcome.

Poor Uncle Tom

I think these posts deserve a thread on their own at this stage.

dathi

uncle tom i asked mrs d and she says she would be looking for ippc at 750sows in breeder unit not 1500 and she would be counting served gilts as well as sows for the 285 in integrated unit.;)

Poor Uncle Tom

dathi wrote: »

uncle tom i asked mrs d and she says she would be looking for ippc at 750sows in breeder unit not 1500 and she would be counting served gilts as well as sows for the 285 in integrated unit.;)

You're quite right, I was quoting from memory with my emphasis on an integrated unit as that was stated earlier as the activity being discussed here...

Class 6.2, ‘The rearing of pigs in an installation, whether within the same complex or within 100 meters of the same complex, where the capacity exceeds-750 places for sows in a breeding unit, or 285 places for sows in an integrated unit, or 2,000 places for production pigs.’
Where the activity is covered by more than one description in the First Schedule of the EPA Act 1992, as amended, the principal activity (main manufacturing activity) should be indicated with reference to other relevant activities.

Anyway, I've updated the figures here now, thanks.

Poor Uncle Tom

dathi wrote: »

......and she would be counting served gilts as well as sows for the 285 in integrated unit.;)

In general terms once a gilt farrows it becomes a sow, taking serviced gilts as sows can only be considered as practical if you are going to keep them in the unit after farrowing.

Some of the American farming bodies have a clear cut definition of when a gilt becomes a sow as being at the age of 6 months weighing between 200 and 220 lbs.

It makes more sense counting them only if they have been served.

dathi

its an european court of justice ruling that served gilts are counted as sows for stocking rates

Musthavanegg

This new " Substitute Content " is interesting if I understand it correctly.May even be helpful in our case. The amount of laws, rules, regulations etc are baffling. Glad I never considered Planning as a career.

http://www.arthurcox.com/ontrack/spring2011/the-planning-and-development-amendment-act-2010.html

dathi

if you think that the stock rate is over the 285 limit your first port of call should be the epa .you can make a complaint on there web site bottom of first page under the i want to section. the complaint will be investigated by epa and they will check his stock levels etc and make him apply for ippc licence . they also have the power to prosecute him for non compliance.

Musthavanegg

The sow numbers are 350 as has been identified in the Planning Application. We have been told by the EPA that they have it flagged by their enforcement office for investigation but as Uncle Tom has pointed out nothing much can be done while their are live planning irregularities.

Musthavanegg

Found this and it's practically identical to our own scenario albeit we have a lot more homes involved !

http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup/articles/2008/08/13/29832-ballinagh-piggery-development-refused

Poor Uncle Tom

That particular appeal is a bad example and not really relevant, imo, for the following reasons:

1. It's based on a 2008 appeal.
2. The refusal is based on deficiencies in the application documentation, not on the proposal per-se.
3. The article doesn't seem to mention the local residents at all, apart from the fact that it was a local that appealed the planning.
4. The inference is that if the refusal reason is dealt with effectively, there's no reason why planning permission wouldn't be granted in future, even through appeal.

Musthavanegg

Uncle Tom, As an expert on all matters planning , is it normal procedure for a LA to make a submission on an appeal to ABP ? Apologies if I appear a bit ignorant on the subject but I would have thought it would be the applicant who would make a submission in their defence of an appeal.

muffler

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Uncle Tom, As an expert on all matters planning , is it normal procedure for a LA to make a submission on an appeal to ABP ? Apologies if I appear a bit ignorant on the subject but I would have thought it would be the applicant who would make a submission in their defence of an appeal.

Not answering for PUT but just to confirm that not only is it normal it is a requirement of the appeals procedure for the LA to make a submission. After all it is their decision that is being appealed either by the first party (applicant) or in this situation a third party.

Poor Uncle Tom

Musthavanegg wrote: »

Uncle Tom, As an expert on all matters planning , is it normal procedure for a LA to make a submission on an appeal to ABP ? Apologies if I appear a bit ignorant on the subject but I would have thought it would be the applicant who would make a submission in their defence of an appeal.

Under section 129 of the Planning & Development Act, the Board will give a copy of the relevant appeal to each party and state that they make a submission within a 4 week period. The LA, being a party to each planning application may make a submission.

Since planning staff at each LA are looking for work to keep themselves busy at present they are not passing up the opportunity to have their say on all matters planning.

So to answer your question, it is normal procedure for LA's to make a submission, but not every LA would do so.

I answer this as a normal poster as I am not familiar with your particular case and as such I cannot answer your question as an expert. Independent professional advice should always be sought outside of any internet forum.