EAST KEAL PARISH COUNCIL

Formal Objection to Planning Application — Updated Representations (Version 3)

To: Planning Department, East Lindsey District Council

Application Reference: 00805/26/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 6 poultry units (broiler chicken rearing houses) and associated works, land east of A16, near Keal Cotes, Spilsby, Lincolnshire PE23 4AQ

Submitted by: East Keal Parish Council (as statutory consultee)

Date: 24th June 2026

Status: Further updated representations following submission of additional technical documents by the applicant, including a Noise Impact Assessment, Heritage Statement, and Geophysical Survey

1.  Introduction and Summary of Objection

East Keal Parish Council formally and strongly objects to planning application 00805/26/FUL for the construction of six large-scale broiler chicken rearing houses capable of housing up to 270,000 birds on land east of the A16, near Keal Cotes. These representations further update those previously submitted in relation to both the scoping application (ref: 03812/25/ESO) and the full application.

The applicant has now submitted three further documents which have been considered in preparing these further representations:

• Dispersion Modelling Study of the Impact of Odour (AS Modelling & Data Ltd., 28th February 2026, reviewed 2nd March 2026) — an odour impact assessment using the ADMS atmospheric dispersion model, assessing predicted odour concentrations at twelve discrete residential receptors in the surrounding area.
• Noise Impact Assessment (Environmental Noise Solutions Ltd, ref: NIA-12468-26-12797-v1, dated 24th February 2026) — a BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 assessment of fixed plant, delivery, and cleaning noise from the proposed six poultry units.
• Desk-Based Heritage Assessment (Prospect Archaeology Ltd, report ref: HAW03-01, January 2026) — a heritage assessment covering buried and built heritage within 1,000 m of the application site.
• Geophysical (Gradiometer) Survey (Pre-Construct Geophysics Ltd, April 2026) — a fluxgate gradiometer survey of the application site undertaken to establish the presence and nature of sub-surface archaeological features.

The Parish Council has carefully reviewed all three reports. Whilst we acknowledge that these assessments have now been provided, as requested in our scoping response, we have serious concerns about each of them. These concerns are addressed in detail in Sections 2, 4, and 5 below. Our objection is maintained in full.

For completeness and ease of reference, the full grounds of objection are set out below, updated to reflect all documents now submitted:

• The odour assessment, whilst now submitted, relies upon a benchmark (the Environment Agency H4 guidance) that was formally withdrawn in December 2025 — the same month it was withdrawn — and the applicant’s own report acknowledges that England and Wales currently has no replacement guidance. The assessment therefore rests on no current, enforceable benchmark. Moreover, the contour plots in the report reveal that the 3.0 ouE/m³ threshold — itself a moderate benchmark for an odour characterised in the report as ‘moderately offensive’ — is exceeded across a wide area surrounding the site, and the report fails to assess the impact of the litter cleanout operation at the end of each flock cycle, which the report itself acknowledges is likely to produce the highest odour peak of the entire cycle.
• The in-combination ammonia assessment confirms process contributions to Jenkins Carr SSSI reaching 4.82% of the Critical Level and 2.50% of the Critical Load — nearly five times the 1% Natural England threshold — with no mitigation proposed.
• The applicant has now submitted a Heritage Statement (Prospect Archaeology Ltd, January 2026) and a Geophysical Survey (Pre-Construct Geophysics, April 2026). Both confirm that the potential for regionally significant Iron Age and Romano-British remains extending into the site is High. Despite this, no pre-determination Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation or Heritage Impact Assessment has been carried out, contrary to the formal recommendation of Lincolnshire County Council’s Historic Environment Team.
• A Noise Impact Assessment has now been submitted (Environmental Noise Solutions Ltd, February 2026). The Parish Council has reviewed this report and has serious concerns about its methodology, in particular the reliance on a single, poorly sited monitoring position, the modelling of an unrealistically small number of sheds, and the failure to consider cumulative noise from wind-enhanced fan operation under adverse meteorological conditions. These concerns are addressed in Section 5 below.
• No Transport Assessment has been submitted.
• No Water Quality and Drainage Impact Assessment has been submitted.
• No Avian Influenza Risk Assessment has been submitted.
• No animal welfare assessment has been submitted for a development housing 270,000 birds in intensive conditions with a dedicated dead bird storage facility.
• The Biodiversity Net Gain metric requires independent verification by the LPA’s ecologist.
• The human rights of local residents under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — the right to respect for private and family life and the home — are engaged by the predicted odour, noise, and ammonia impacts of this development. The LPA, as a public authority under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is obliged not to act incompatibly with those rights. It cannot lawfully grant permission in the current inadequate state of the evidence.

2.  Odour: Assessment of the Submitted Report

2.1  What the report does

The Odour Impact Assessment (AS Modelling & Data Ltd., February/March 2026) uses the ADMS 6 atmospheric dispersion model to predict the maximum annual 98th percentile hourly mean odour concentration at twelve discrete residential receptors in the surrounding area. The same GFS meteorological dataset and terrain modelling approach used in the ammonia assessment is employed. Odour emission rates are calculated using an internal model that accounts for varying internal odour concentrations as birds age through the crop cycle, stocking density, and ventilation rates.

The report concludes (Section 6) that at all nearby residences considered, predicted odour concentrations are below 3.0 ouE/m³ — the benchmark for moderately offensive odours set out in the now-withdrawn Environment Agency H4 Odour Management guidance. The highest predicted concentration at any discrete receptor is 1.74 ouE/m³ at a residence on the A16 Main Road (receptor 3), with South View Farm (the closest named residential property at approximately 430 m from the site) predicted at 1.63 ouE/m³.

2.2  The benchmark used has been formally withdrawn

The Parish Council draws the Local Planning Authority’s attention to a fundamental problem identified by the applicant’s own report. Section 3.2 of the odour assessment explicitly states:

“Note that the H4 guidance was withdrawn in December 2025 with no known replacement that AS Modelling & Data Ltd. are aware of. This withdrawal has left England and Wales with no guidance on what level of odour might be problematic or indeed constitute a statutory nuisance.”

This is a remarkable admission. The only benchmark against which the applicant’s odour model results are assessed is guidance that was formally withdrawn by the Environment Agency in December 2025. The applicant’s consultants are relying upon withdrawn guidance because there is ‘no known replacement.’ In these circumstances, the Parish Council submits that:

• There is no current, enforceable, nationally recognised benchmark against which to assess whether the predicted odour levels are acceptable or unacceptable. The applicant cannot, therefore, legitimately claim that the predicted concentrations are below any current threshold, because no current threshold exists.
• The LPA must consult the Environment Agency directly on what standard it now considers appropriate for assessing odour from intensive poultry operations in the absence of H4 guidance, and must not accept at face value the applicant’s assertion that the withdrawn H4 benchmark remains the appropriate measure.
• In the absence of any current national benchmark, the precautionary principle must apply. Where there is genuine scientific and regulatory uncertainty about what constitutes an acceptable odour level, the LPA should resolve that uncertainty in favour of the protection of local residents and the community, not in favour of the applicant.

2.3  What the contour plots actually show

The contour plot of predicted odour concentrations (Figure 7 of the odour report) is revealing and warrants careful scrutiny by the LPA. The Parish Council draws attention to the following:

• The 3.0 ouE/m³ contour — the withdrawn H4 benchmark for moderately offensive odours — extends to approximately 500–600 m from the site in the direction of the prevailing south-westerly wind, and to approximately 300–400 m in other directions. This means that a substantial area surrounding the site, including agricultural land, tracks, and open countryside regularly used by local residents, experiences odour concentrations at or above the former benchmark level for a significant proportion of the time.
• The 5.0 ouE/m³ contour extends to approximately 300–400 m from the site. At 5.0 ouE/m³, the UKWIR research referenced in the report (Section 3.3) notes that a significant proportion of odour complaints are registered — 38% of total complaints occur in areas of modelled exposures between 5.0 and 10.0 ouE/m³.
• The 10.0 ouE/m³ contour extends to approximately 150–200 m from the site. UKWIR findings state that the majority of complaints (59% of total) occur in areas of modelled exposures greater than 10.0 ouE/m³. The contour plots confirm that this level is reached at the boundary of the site and in its immediate surroundings.
• Whilst the discrete residential receptors assessed fall below the 3.0 ouE/m³ level, this is partly a function of their distance from the site. The contour evidence demonstrates that any residential property within approximately 500 m of the site in the downwind direction could expect to experience odour concentrations at or above the former H4 benchmark on a meaningful proportion of occasions throughout the year.

2.4  The litter cleanout operation has not been properly assessed

The report acknowledges (Section 3.5) that peak odour emission rates are likely to occur when housing is cleared of spent litter at the end of each crop cycle, and that this emission is ‘likely to be greater than any emission that might occur when there are birds in the house.’ The report notes that each house takes approximately two hours to clear and that houses would be cleared sequentially.

With six houses and 7.5 flock cycles per year, the litter cleanout operation is a frequent and high-intensity event — occurring up to 45 times per year (six houses, 7.5 cycles each). These events will produce odour peaks significantly above the modelled steady-state figures that form the basis of the assessment. Yet no separate quantification or assessment of the litter cleanout odour impact is presented in the submitted report.

The report states that ‘there may be some discretion as to when the operation is carried out’ and that it may be possible to time it to coincide with winds blowing in a favourable direction. The Parish Council does not regard ‘wind direction discretion’ as an adequate or enforceable mitigation measure. There is no proposed condition, monitoring regime, or complaints procedure that would make such a commitment enforceable. The LPA should not accept this as mitigation.

2.5  The report does not assess odour from the dead bird storage facility

The application includes a dedicated dead bird storage facility. The odour assessment makes no reference to this facility whatsoever. As noted in our previous representations, a development of this scale — 270,000 birds per cycle, 7.5 cycles per year, with mortality rates that could produce tens of thousands of carcasses annually — will generate substantial odour from the storage and disposal of mortalities. This is an entirely unassessed odour source.

2.6  The report does not assess odour from manure and litter storage or spreading

Our original scoping request specifically asked for an odour assessment that ‘identifies odour sources’ including ‘manure/litter storage’ and ‘land-spreading’. The submitted report assesses only ventilation fan emissions. The storage of spent litter prior to removal, and its subsequent land-spreading on agricultural fields in the surrounding area, are both significant odour sources that have not been assessed. If litter from 270,000 birds per cycle is to be spread on local farmland, the odour impact of that operation on nearby residents has not been considered.

2.7  Summary: the odour assessment is inadequate

In summary, the Parish Council considers the odour assessment to be inadequate for the following reasons:

• It relies upon a benchmark (EA H4) that was formally withdrawn in December 2025, leaving no current enforceable standard against which results can be assessed.
• The contour plots reveal that the former benchmark of 3.0 ouE/m³ is exceeded across a wide area surrounding the site, including areas accessible to local residents, even if discrete residential receptors fall below this level.
• The highest-intensity odour event — litter cleanout — has not been separately modelled or quantified, despite the report acknowledging it is likely to produce the highest odour peak of the entire operation.
• Odour from the dead bird storage facility has not been assessed.
• Odour from litter storage and land-spreading has not been assessed.
• No odour monitoring, complaints procedure, or enforceable mitigation is proposed.

The Parish Council requests that the LPA require the applicant to submit a comprehensive and fully compliant odour assessment, prepared against a current benchmark agreed with the Environment Agency, that addresses all odour sources, including ventilation, litter cleanout, dead bird storage, and any litter spreading operations. Until such an assessment is provided, the application cannot be properly assessed.

3.  Ammonia, Nitrogen Deposition and Ecological Impact

3.1  Process contributions from the proposed development alone

The Ammonia Dispersion and Deposition Report (AS Modelling & Data Ltd., original: 28th February 2026; revised: 8th June 2026) confirms that the proposed development would generate 0.205 g-NH3/s of ammonia from 270,000 broiler chickens (Table 3 of that report). The predicted process contributions from the proposal alone (Table 7) exceed the 1% Natural England threshold at multiple designated wildlife sites:

• Jenkins Carr SSSI: 3.32% of the Critical Level and 1.72% of the Critical Load (receptor 2).
• Keal Carr SSSI: up to 2.39% of the Critical Level and 1.24% of the Critical Load (receptor 5).
• The Local Wildlife Site: 2.44% of the Critical Level and 1.27% of the Critical Load (receptor 1).

3.2  In-combination process contributions

The revised report (8th June 2026) includes an in-combination assessment (Appendix 1 and Table 8). The in-combination results are substantially worse than the proposal-alone results:

• Jenkins Carr SSSI: 4.82% of the Critical Level and 2.50% of the Critical Load — nearly five times the 1% Natural England threshold that triggers the requirement for further assessment.
• Keal Carr SSSI: 3.59% of the Critical Level and 1.87% of the Critical Load — more than three times the 1% threshold.
• Mavis Enderby Valley SSSI: 0.91% of the Critical Level in combination — remaining just below 1% but, as a worst-case precautionary figure, offering no meaningful margin.

The in-combination assessment identifies two relevant nearby developments: application S/204/00755/24 (a free-range egg production unit, granted May 2024) and application 02241/25/FUL (four further poultry units, currently pending and undecided). The Parish Council maintains the following serious concerns:

• Application 02241/25/FUL is itself undecided. If both 00805/26/FUL and 02241/25/FUL were to be granted, the cumulative ammonia burden on nearby SSSIs would be substantially greater than assessed. The LPA must consider whether granting this application prejudices its ability to lawfully assess 02241/25/FUL.
• Two further EA-permitted intensive farming installations (EPR/GP3921SL and EPR/EP3122SF) were identified on the EA Public Register but excluded because no emissions data was available. The LPA must ensure Natural England is specifically consulted on whether these installations should have been included.
• No mitigation is proposed despite in-combination contributions far exceeding the 1% Natural England threshold at two SSSIs.

3.3  The ecological baseline

Background ammonia concentration in the area is already 2.29 µg-NH3/m³ — more than twice the Critical Level of 1.0 µg-NH3/m³ for sensitive lichens and bryophytes. Background nitrogen deposition to woodland is already 34.39 kg-N/ha/y — more than three times the Critical Load of 10.0 kg-N/ha/y. Adding further in-combination process contributions of 4.82% of the Critical Level to Jenkins Carr SSSI — a species-rich alder carr of regional importance already under severe nitrogen stress — is ecologically unacceptable. The precautionary principle must apply.

4.  Heritage and Archaeology: Submitted Reports Confirm High Risk — Trial Trenching Still Required

The applicant has now submitted a Desk-Based Heritage Assessment (Prospect Archaeology Ltd, January 2026) and a Geophysical (Gradiometer) Survey (Pre-Construct Geophysics Ltd, April 2026). The Parish Council has carefully reviewed both documents. Far from resolving the heritage concern, these reports materially strengthen it. Together, they confirm that the application site carries a High potential for regionally significant Iron Age and Romano-British remains, and that the only responsible course of action before determination is to require pre-determination archaeological trial trenching. LCC’s Historic Environment Team consultation response (Ruben Lopez, Historic Environment Officer) constitutes a formal recommendation to precisely this effect. The key findings are:

• The Desk-Based Heritage Assessment (Prospect Archaeology, January 2026) concludes that the potential for regionally important Iron Age and Romano-British remains extending into the application site is High. A significant Iron Age and Roman site — with concentrations of pottery, soilmarks, and settlement evidence — has been identified in the field immediately to the west of the application boundary.
• The Geophysical Survey (Pre-Construct Geophysics, April 2026) confirms those concerns in stark terms. The survey identified a dense rectilinear array of ditches in the mid-southern region of the application site, consistent with a farmstead settlement extending beyond the southern boundary of the site. The survey report states that this settlement “almost certainly” dates from at least the Romano-British period and that its full extent “remains unknown.” Further isolated potential ditches and pits were also recorded elsewhere within the site. The survey describes its own findings as confirming settlement of Iron Age and Romano-British date — the very period the Heritage Assessment assessed as having High potential for regionally important remains. These are features that would be irreversibly destroyed by the proposed groundworks.
• LCC formally recommends that the application be accompanied by a pre-determination Heritage Impact Assessment informed by a full standard intrusive Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation, in line with NPPF 2025 paragraphs 207, 208, 216 and 218. This recommendation was made before the geophysical survey was available. Now that the geophysical survey has confirmed the presence of probable Romano-British settlement features within the application boundary, the case for pre-determination trial trenching is beyond question.
• LCC explicitly states that the applicant has not adequately described the significance of heritage assets affected and that the information before the LPA is insufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. The Heritage Assessment itself, prepared by the applicant’s own consultants, recommends that a geophysical survey be followed by trial trenching if appropriate. The geophysical survey has now confirmed the presence of probable Romano-British settlement features. The condition for trial trenching is therefore met on the applicant’s own consultants’ terms.

The Parish Council fully endorses LCC’s recommendation. The geophysical survey has now effectively confirmed the presence of a probable Romano-British farmstead settlement within the application boundary. The groundworks associated with this development — six large building foundations, a concrete apron of 2,835 m², internal roads, hard standing, an attenuation pond, drainage installations, and associated landscaping — carry the potential to permanently destroy remains of proven Romano-British date across a site of high archaeological significance. This would be irreversible harm to a non-renewable heritage asset. NPPF paragraphs 207 and 208 are clear: the LPA must be able to identify and assess the particular significance of heritage assets that may be affected before granting consent. The LPA cannot currently do so. No planning permission should be granted until a properly conducted and independently approved Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation, prepared under a Written Scheme of Investigation agreed with LCC’s Historic Places Team, has been completed and its results assessed.

5.  Noise Pollution: Assessment of the Submitted Noise Impact Assessment

A Noise Impact Assessment (Environmental Noise Solutions Ltd, ref: NIA-12468-26-12797-v1, dated 24th February 2026) has now been submitted. The Parish Council has carefully reviewed this report and considers it to be seriously inadequate for the following reasons.

First, the baseline noise survey was conducted at a single monitoring position located at the south-eastern corner of the application site — not at any of the nearest residential receptors. Background noise levels measured at this single point are then applied to all receptors, including Manor Farm (NSR1), approximately 300 m to the west, and Holly Lodge and Woolham Farm (NSR2), approximately 1 km to the east. This is methodologically unsound. The BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 methodology requires background noise measurements to be representative of conditions at the assessment location (i.e., at or close to the affected receptor), not at a point on the application site itself. A single monitoring position in the south-east corner of the site cannot reliably characterise background noise conditions at Manor Farm to the west, which lies on the opposite side of the A16 and in a different acoustic environment. The reported background levels — as low as 23 dB LA90 at night — may not be representative of the tranquil rural conditions actually experienced by residents of East Keal, which the prevailing south-westerly wind direction means would be closer to the noise sources than the monitoring position itself. The LPA should require the applicant to conduct dedicated baseline monitoring at the nearest residential receptor (Manor Farm) before the assessment can be accepted.

Second, the report models only four sheds for the purpose of the fixed plant assessment (Section 4.2 refers to “4 no. sheds” requiring ventilation fans), whereas the proposal is for six sheds. This under-representation of the noise-generating plant is a significant error. With six sheds rather than four, the aggregate fan noise levels at all receptors will be higher than those presented in the assessment. The applicant must remodel the assessment correctly for six sheds before it can be accepted.

Third, the report acknowledges that the ventilation fans operate on a 24-hour basis and confirms that during daytime the 100% fan loading scenario is modelled as worst case. However, it does not adequately address the impact of adverse meteorological conditions — specifically, the combination of wind in the direction of the nearest receptors and temperature inversions at night — which are well known to substantially increase the propagation of low-frequency fan noise over distances to residential properties. The prevailing south-westerly wind direction, confirmed in both the ammonia and odour reports, means that Manor Farm and the residential properties of East Keal will be downwind of the site on a significant proportion of nights throughout the year. Under these conditions, fan noise attenuation will be considerably less than modelled under neutral meteorological assumptions. BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 guidance recognises that meteorological effects are important; the report does not adequately address them.

Fourth, the report presents predicted noise levels at only two receptor locations: NSR1 (Manor Farm, c.300 m west) and NSR2 (Holly Lodge and Woolham Farm, c.1 km east). The residential properties of East Keal village, which lie to the north-west and north of the site and would be in the direct path of noise propagation under south-westerly and south-south-westerly wind conditions, are entirely absent from the assessment. Given that the prevailing wind direction confirmed in the odour and ammonia reports is south-westerly, the omission of East Keal village as an assessed receptor is a material deficiency that must be addressed.

The Parish Council requests that the LPA require the applicant to submit a revised Noise Impact Assessment that: (a) uses dedicated baseline measurements taken at the nearest residential receptors, including Manor Farm and properties in East Keal; (b) correctly models six sheds; (c) addresses adverse meteorological conditions including downwind and temperature inversion scenarios; and (d) assesses all residential receptors within a reasonable distance in the prevailing wind direction. The current assessment cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that noise impacts will be acceptable.

6.  Highway Safety and HGV Traffic

No Transport Assessment has been submitted. This was explicitly requested in our scoping response. A development housing 270,000 broiler chickens across 7.5 flock cycles per year will generate a substantial number of HGV movements: for feed delivery, delivery of day-old chicks, live bird collection at the end of each 38-day cycle, litter removal, and disposal of mortalities. These movements will all be concentrated on the A16, a rural A-road with a 60 mph speed limit where turning movements by large articulated vehicles present a foreseeable and serious highway safety risk.

A full Transport Assessment, swept path analysis, schedule of vehicle movements, and HGV Management Plan must be submitted before this application can be determined. The Parish Council requests refusal or return of the application pending this submission.

7.  Waterways, Drainage and Water Quality

No Water Quality or Drainage Impact Assessment has been submitted, despite being explicitly requested in our scoping response. The site is surrounded by fenland drainage channels that form part of a network connecting ultimately to the Wash — an internationally designated Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The storage and removal of litter from 270,000 birds per cycle, the generation and disposal of contaminated wash-down water from up to 45 cleanout operations per year, and the storage of a very large number of bird mortalities all present specific risks of nutrient-rich and pathogen-rich pollution entering local watercourses. A comprehensive Water Quality Impact Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan must be submitted. The Environment Agency and the relevant Internal Drainage Board must be formally consulted.

8.  Avian Influenza Risk

No Avian Influenza Risk Assessment or Biosecurity Management Plan has been submitted, despite being explicitly requested in our scoping response. The proposed site is close to a pond used by wildfowl for significant parts of the year. A site of 270,000 susceptible birds in proximity to wild bird habitat presents a material and foreseeable biosecurity risk. The consequences of a Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreak at this scale would have severe and wide-ranging impacts on the local community. This assessment must be provided before any determination is made.

9.  Animal Welfare and the Dead Bird Storage Facility

The application documents contain no assessment of animal welfare. The Parish Council considers this a significant omission. The submitted plans include a dedicated dead bird storage facility. With 270,000 birds per cycle and 7.5 cycles per year, even conservative mortality rates could produce between approximately 60,000 and 100,000 or more bird mortalities per year. The storage of this volume of carcasses presents serious risks of odour — which, as noted in Section 2.5 above, the odour report entirely fails to assess — as well as vermin attraction, leachate, and disease transmission.

The disposal route for these mortalities has not been addressed anywhere in the application documents. Whether by on-site rendering, off-site licensed disposal, or other means, each option carries vehicle movements, biosecurity, and environmental implications that require assessment. The Parish Council urges the LPA to give appropriate weight to the ethical and amenity dimensions of this operation, and to require a full account of mortality management before any decision is made.

10.  Biodiversity Net Gain

A Biodiversity Net Gain Metric has been submitted (DEFRA statutory metric, ref: 00805/26/FUL-BIODIVERSITY_METRIC-8089317). The Parish Council maintains the concerns raised in our previous representations:

• The metric spreadsheet, in the form submitted, does not display completed calculated results without running the live workbook in Microsoft Excel. The LPA’s ecologist must independently verify that the workbook has been properly completed, that all input data is accurate and appropriate to this specific site, and that the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain requirement under the Environment Act 2021 has been genuinely achieved.
• Any biodiversity net gain must be secured by a legally binding obligation enforceable in perpetuity before any permission could be granted.
• The cumulative biodiversity impact — including ongoing ammonia and nitrogen deposition on nearby SSSIs confirmed at levels far exceeding Natural England’s 1% threshold, potential drainage impacts on aquatic habitats, and the physical loss of land to permanent hard standing — has not been adequately assessed in the round. A net gain in habitat units on a spreadsheet does not offset irreversible and ongoing harm to nationally designated sites.

11.  Human Rights

The Parish Council submits that the human rights of local residents are a material consideration in the determination of this application, and that the LPA must have regard to those rights in reaching its decision.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private and family life and the home. The seminal authority on the application of Article 8 to environmental nuisance is Lopez Ostra v Spain (1994), in which the European Court of Human Rights held that an applicant’s Article 8 rights had been violated by hydrogen sulphide emissions from a waste treatment facility near her home that caused pollution and serious odour nuisance. The Court confirmed that severe environmental nuisance can amount to an interference with the right to respect for the home and private and family life, even where it does not directly endanger health. The parallels with the present application are direct: the applicant’s own odour assessment demonstrates that the former benchmark level of 3.0 ouE/m³ will be exceeded across a wide area surrounding the site, with odour characterised in the report as ‘moderately offensive’ reaching residential properties in the vicinity. The confirmed in-combination ammonia contributions of 4.82% of the Critical Level at Jenkins Carr SSSI, added to an already severely nitrogen-stressed local environment, compound the concern.

Under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in any way that is incompatible with a person’s Convention rights. The Local Planning Authority is a public authority for these purposes. Granting planning permission for a development that would foreseeably interfere with the Article 8 rights of local residents — through odour, noise, ammonia, and particulate impacts that have not been adequately assessed — without securing effective and enforceable mitigation would be incompatible with the LPA’s obligations under Section 6. The Parish Council submits that the LPA cannot lawfully grant consent in the current state of the information before it, given the acknowledged inadequacies in the odour, noise, and ammonia assessments.

The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of July 2025 on the obligations of states with respect to climate change and the environment (paragraph 393), recognised that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition to the exercise of many other human rights. The Court affirmed that the right to a healthy environment derives from the interdependence of human rights and environmental protection, and is inherent in the enjoyment of fundamental rights. Whilst this opinion concerned state obligations in the context of climate change, it reflects and reinforces the broader principle that environmental harm giving rise to pollution, nuisance, and ecological damage engages the human rights of those affected. The Parish Council submits that this principle supports the case for a precautionary approach in the determination of this application.

The Parish Council draws the LPA’s attention to the particular vulnerability of some local residents. A number of residents in East Keal and the surrounding area suffer from asthma and other chronic respiratory conditions, which make them more susceptible to the effects of ammonia, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10 associated with poultry operations), and dust from the proposed units. Elderly residents and households with young children face heightened sensitivity to these pollutants. The LPA must weigh these individual circumstances when assessing whether the proposal meets the Article 8 standard of proportionality. No assessment of particulate matter or dust from the proposed development has been submitted.

12.  Planning Policy Considerations

The Parish Council considers that this proposal conflicts with the following policy framework:

• NPPF 2023/2024, Chapter 15 (Natural Environment): The applicant’s own revised ammonia report confirms in-combination process contributions of 4.82% of the Critical Level at Jenkins Carr SSSI — a site already receiving background nitrogen deposition at more than three times its Critical Load. This is contrary to NPPF requirements to protect and enhance designated sites.
• NPPF 2023/2024, Chapter 16 (Historic Environment), paragraphs 207, 208, 216 and 218: Lincolnshire County Council’s Historic Environment Team has formally stated that the LPA cannot currently assess the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of heritage assets, and has recommended pre-determination trial trenching. The LPA cannot discharge its duty under Chapter 16 without this work.
• NPPF 2023/2024, Chapter 9 (Sustainable Transport): No Transport Assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that the highway network can safely accommodate HGV movements from a 270,000-bird intensive poultry operation.
• NPPF 2023/2024, Chapter 12 (Amenity): In the absence of an adequate odour assessment (relying on withdrawn guidance and omitting key sources), a noise impact assessment, and other supporting information, the LPA cannot demonstrate that the amenity of local residents would be adequately protected.
• East Lindsey Local Plan – Core Strategy (Adopted 2018): The Parish Council requests that the LPA identify and apply all relevant policies relating to the natural environment, residential amenity, heritage, and highways.
• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017: The Wash SPA and Ramsar site is connected to local drainage systems, yet no water quality assessment has been submitted to consider this connectivity. Additionally, if both 00805/26/FUL and 02241/25/FUL were granted, an in-combination Habitats Regulations assessment may become necessary.

13.  Conclusion and Formal Request

East Keal Parish Council strongly urges East Lindsey District Council to REFUSE planning application 00805/26/FUL, or alternatively to decline to determine it until all outstanding concerns identified in these representations have been addressed by way of compliant assessments, formal statutory consultee responses, and independent verification.

The submission of an odour assessment — whilst welcome as a step towards addressing our scoping request — does not resolve the Council’s concerns. On the contrary, the odour assessment as submitted:

• Relies on a benchmark formally withdrawn by the Environment Agency in December 2025, with no current replacement.
• Demonstrates through its own contour plots that the former benchmark level of 3.0 ouE/m³ is exceeded across a substantial area surrounding the site.
• Fails to assess the highest-intensity odour event in the operational cycle (the litter cleanout).
• Fails to assess odour from the dead bird storage facility.
• Fails to assess odour from litter storage and land-spreading.
• Proposes no enforceable monitoring, mitigation, or complaints procedure.

The full list of outstanding concerns remains:

• Odour: A revised, comprehensive odour assessment agreed against a current benchmark with the Environment Agency, covering all odour sources.
• Noise: The submitted Noise Impact Assessment is inadequate: it uses a single monitoring position on the application site rather than at residential receptors; it models only four sheds rather than six; it does not address adverse meteorological conditions including downwind propagation towards East Keal; and it omits East Keal village from the receptor assessment entirely. A revised assessment must be submitted.
• Transport: A Transport Assessment and HGV Management Plan have not been submitted.
• Water Quality and Drainage: A Water Quality and Drainage Impact Assessment has not been submitted.
• Avian Influenza: An Avian Influenza Risk Assessment and Biosecurity Management Plan have not been submitted.
• Heritage: The applicant’s own Heritage Statement and the Geophysical Survey both confirm a High potential for regionally significant Iron Age and Romano-British remains, with the geophysical survey identifying a dense rectilinear farmstead settlement in the southern part of the site extending beyond the application boundary. No pre-determination Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation or Heritage Impact Assessment has been carried out. These are required by LCC’s Historic Environment Team and are necessitated by the geophysical findings before this application can proceed.
• Animal Welfare and Mortality Management: No assessment of animal welfare or mortality disposal has been submitted.
• Ammonia Mitigation: No mitigation has been proposed for in-combination process contributions that exceed the Natural England 1% threshold by a factor of nearly five at Jenkins Carr SSSI.
• Biodiversity Net Gain: Independent verification by the LPA’s ecologist of the submitted metric is required.
• Human Rights: The LPA must have explicit regard to its obligations under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 ECHR. Granting consent in the current inadequate state of the evidence would risk acting incompatibly with the Convention rights of local residents, including those with respiratory conditions, elderly residents, and households with young children, who face heightened vulnerability to the predicted pollutant impacts. No particulate matter or dust assessment has been submitted.

The Parish Council formally requests that:

• The application be refused, or that a formal request for further information be issued under Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.
• Natural England be formally consulted on the in-combination ammonia assessment results, the two EA-permitted installations excluded for lack of data, and on whether the predicted contributions at Jenkins Carr and Keal Carr SSSIs are acceptable without mitigation.
• The Environment Agency be formally consulted on: (a) what benchmark it now considers appropriate for assessing odour from intensive poultry operations in the absence of H4 guidance; and (b) water quality, drainage and pollution risk, including connectivity with the Wash SPA/Ramsar site.
• Lincolnshire County Council Historic Environment Team’s recommendation for a pre-determination trial trench evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment be adopted as a precondition of any further consideration of this application.
• The LPA’s own ecology officer independently reviews and verifies the Biodiversity Net Gain metric.
• The relationship between this application and application 02241/25/FUL (four further poultry units, currently pending) be considered explicitly in terms of cumulative in-combination ammonia impact.
• East Keal Parish Council be notified of any further information submitted by the applicant and be afforded a further opportunity to comment before any decision is made.

Submitted by: Mrs Pauline Murray, Parish Clerk at East Keal Parish Council

On behalf of: East Keal Parish Council

Date: 3rd July 2026

East Keal Parish Council reserves the right to supplement these representations with further comments as additional information becomes available or as the determination of this application progresses.