PLANNING OBJECTION

[Your name]

[Your address]

[Town / Village]

[Postcode]

[Email address]

[Date]

Planning Department

East Lindsey District Council

planning@e-lindsey.gov.uk

OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 00805/26/FUL — Proposed Intensive Poultry Unit, Land East of A16, Keal Cotes, Spilsby, PE23 4AQ

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to the above planning application for the erection of six intensive poultry rearing houses for up to 270,000 birds near Keal Cotes. ADD YOUR COMMENTS

My grounds for objection are as follows:

• Odour. The applicant's own odour assessment relies on a government benchmark (EA H4 guidance) that was formally withdrawn in December 2025. There is no current enforceable standard against which the development has been assessed. Odour from litter cleanout, dead bird storage, and muck spreading has not been assessed at all.
• Noise. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment modelled only four sheds, not six, and did not take measurements at residential receptors. East Keal village was omitted from the assessment entirely.
• Highway and bridleway safety. The proposed development would route up to 958 HGV movements per year along a narrow bridleway also used by horse riders, including riders from two equestrian yards on Fen Lane. This is dangerous and unacceptable. The visibility splay at the A16 junction is 15 metres short of the required standard. No HGV Management Plan has been provided.
• Ecology and protected species. The ecological survey was conducted in January, outside the optimal season. Local residents have reported great crested newt sightings in the area, yet no proper GCN survey has been carried out. The ecological report dismisses the impact on nearby SSSIs as negligible, directly contradicting the applicant's own ammonia report which shows contributions nearly five times the Natural England significance threshold.
• Archaeology. A geophysical survey has confirmed the likely presence of Romano-British remains within the site. Lincolnshire County Council's archaeologist has formally recommended pre-determination trial trenching, which has not been done.
• Landscape and visual impact. No Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted. The site drawings contain no height information for any structure. The feed silos and crumb bin could exceed 12 metres in height and would be highly visible in this open fenland landscape.
• Missing assessments. No Water Quality Assessment, Avian Influenza Risk Assessment, or Animal Welfare Assessment has been submitted, despite all three being requested at the scoping stage.
• Climate change. The development would generate approximately 14,000 tonnes of CO₂e per year. The only proposed mitigation is 142 trees, which would offset just 0.016% of annual emissions.

I urge the Planning Authority to refuse this application,  ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Yours faithfully,

[Your signature]

[Your printed name]