|
You
couldn't make it up. One of Britain's largest livestock
companies - Midland Pig Producers (MPP) - are planning
to imprison 2,500 sows on a massive factory farm in
Derbyshire right next door to a women's prison.
We need your help to stop it.
| |
 |
| |
The pictures above are from a
previous investigation of a farm connected to
Midland Pig Producers back in 2003 (we also
investigated one of their farms in 2006). MPP may have
said they have improved welfare marginally, but
given the dreadful conditions above can we really
believe what they say? The bottom line is that it
will be impossible to have good animal welfare on
a factory farm the size of the one proposed in Foston. Please help us stop this pig prison from
going ahead. |
Consultation period now closed: an amazing 1,700+
people objected. Thank you! The consultation closed on
the 30 June 2010, and we await the outcome. However, see
our suggested pre-prepared email
for an overview of the issues.
Foston Pig Prison
Surrounded by barbed wire fences, the massive complex
would imprison sows that would never go outside. An
uncomfortable comparison with the neighbouring women's
prison only a stone's throw away. [click
here
to see the plans for this massive complex]
Foston
pig farm is due to be situated right next to the
historic village of the same name (on a beautiful
Greenfield site) and will produce a thousand pigs a week,
which will be transported off-site to slaughter. That's 48,000
pigs a year. At any one time the farm will house around
26,000 animals trapped on a slow conveyor belt towards
the abattoir. As far as we know, these plans are
for the biggest factory farm of pigs so far in Britain.
Unbelievably, there will be a picnic site overlooking
it.
The man behind this venture has been voted
Pig Farmer of
the year 2009. His company going so far as to say that
the countryside will be
stripped of its animals within a
decade - with MPP seemingly at the forefront of this
move. They even say their factory farms
are preferable to animals being outside!
MPP
also claim to have been working with animal welfare and
animal rights groups - rest assured it was most
certainly not Viva! - in designing potentially Britain's
largest pig factory farm. Yes, they have made some
improvements - farrowing crates where sows can now
actually turn around - but it is impossible to provide
high welfare on a farm this size. Pigs are rooting
animals that can roam miles in the wild and enjoy total
freedom in their interaction with their young. Today's
factory farms deny almost all that is natural to these
sensitive and intelligent animals.
Then
there's the impact on humans. Have we learnt nothing
from swine flu, bird flu, SARS etc in the way we treat
animals? Situating a massive intensive farm this close
to people (the nearest house is just 20 metres away from
the perimeter fence) is asking for trouble. Not least
the use of a huge anaerobic digester to process around
15 million litres of slurry a year. These digesters are
designed to produce energy and reduce smell, but can
actually be a source of smell, noise and - in the
worst case scenario - toxic gases and even fire and
explosions.
If
Foston Pig Prison goes ahead this - like the proposed
move to zero-grazing dairy cows in Lincolnshire - could
be the thin end of the wedge. If the company gets its
way, there will be no more animals left in the British
countryside. We must stop this.
What
can I do?
Object!: now closed - thanks to everyone who did!
Stop
eating meat: these places only exist because of our
demand for meat. If you want to stop them, stop feeding
them your custom.
Go vegetarian or even better
go vegan.
Join
Viva!: we are completely donations run. If you agree
with what we do and want to fight the disease that is
factory farming from spreading any further across this country please
join us or
donate to our campaigns.
 |
|
| Foston Pig Prison
would be built on this beautiful Greenfield site |
|
Suggested objection:
"Dear
Sir/Madam
Planning
Application
9/2010/0311 – Foston
pig farm
I am writing to
lodge a formal objection to the proposed intensive pig
farm at Foston, South Derbyshire (by Midland Pig
Producers (MPP)). The reasons for my objection are below.
Animal welfare: I
know this isn't taken into account when deciding the
outcome of planning meetings, but I strongly believe it
should be - and, despite welfare improvements MPP have
suggested they will make, I do not believe that it is
possible to provide high welfare for 26,000 pigs on an
indoor farm this size.
Risk to human health:
keeping large numbers of animals near residential
dwellings (Foston prison and the village itself - where
the nearest inhabited dwelling is only 20m from the
perimeter) is a disease risk to humans. In light of the
recent swine flu outbreak this should be of particular
concern.
Environmental impact:
this farm will not be green, as MPP have suggested. In
fact, it is my understanding that the methane from the
pigs themselves will produce over twice as much carbon
equivalent gases as the neighbouring village of Foston
itself.
Anaerobic digester: I understand that this is being
used to strip the slurry of methane and to stop smell.
However, it is also my understanding that anaerobic
digesters can actually be responsible for producing
smells and toxic gases, and in the worst case scenario
can provide a fire or explosion risk. Good practice
dictates that these should not be built next to
residential areas (especially one of this size) - and to
do so would potentially put lives at risk. It will also
use huge amounts of water - as will the farm itself -
and would potentially pollute surrounding land.
Noise: the developers
say that the noise will be minimal. This is hard to take
seriously, as noise will be generated by machinery and
from the animals themselves as they are taken to
slaughter (a thousand a week). MPP say that the nearby
road will drown the noise out, but it is my
understanding that the noise level from the road is not
consistent and some residential units are closer to the farm itself than they are to the road.
Impact on wildlife: the development will obliterate
a productive Greenfield site, whilst Brownfield sites
are nearby. Bat roosts have been potentially identified,
and building work - and the farm itself - whilst perhaps
not encroaching directly onto it, will still have a
negative effect on wildlife.
HM
Foston: it is wrong to build such a development next
to a group of people who have no rights to play a part in
deciding whether it should be built or not. It is also
my understanding that MPP have declared that the women's prison
could be powered by energy produced on the farm, but no
agreement - formal or even informal - has been entered
into. In fact, the energy produced will not power any
part of the village - and is therefore of no direct
benefit to the local area.
Increased traffic: the A50 through Foston is already
a busy road. The pig farm will bring more traffic -
especially heavy goods vehicles - that will increase
congestion. As the road outside of Foston has been the
scene of several road traffic accidents recently, this
could make the situation worse.
Jobs
for local people: MPP have said the development will
provide jobs for local people. However, the acquisition
of residential properties from the women's prison suggests that
workers from outside the area will be brought in -
further increasing traffic.
Precedence
against the development at Foston: it is my
understanding that, in the past, a neighbouring property
had its planning application turned down because
of its potential effect on the view (Maidensley Farm -
where the erection of a chimney was refused) . The pig
farm development at Foston will change the local view
incalculably more and should not be allowed.
South
Derbyshire District Council Environmental Policy: it
is my understanding that this development may contravene
the council's own environment policy, by polluting,
increasing traffic, being noisy and generally
disruptive.
To sum
up: the proposal has no discernable benefits for the
local community whatsoever. Housing on site is surely
to attract workers from outside the area. The women's prison has
denied that it has entered into any agreement with MPP –
and as any energy produced will go to the national grid
it will have no direct relevance to Foston itself. No
amount of ‘environmental enhancement’ from MPP will
disguise the fact that a massive industrial agricultural
unit has obliterated a Greenfield site and forever
altered the landscape around this ancient village. It
will also unquestionably increase traffic on a road
(A50) that has suffered traffic accidents recently. It
will also bring an unreasonable increase in noise levels
for adjoining residents from machinery, traffic and the
animals themselves. Finally, the potential health and
environmental consequences of placing what could be
Britain's largest ever pig farm next to an inhabited
area should not be underestimated. South Derbyshire may
be going against its own Environmental Policy by doing
so.
MPP's
plans to develop land at Foston for intensive pig
farming must not be given approval.
Yours
faithfully"
Below is Viva!'s official objection to South Derbyshire
County Council. Please feel free to use any information
here to add to you objection:
"South Derbyshire District
Council
Planning Services
Civic Offices
Civic Way
Swadlincote
Derbyshire
DE11 0AH
15 June 2010
Dear Sir/Madam
Planning
Application
9/2010/0311 – Foston
pig farm
I am writing to
you from the campaign group Viva! to lodge a formal
objection to the proposed intensive pig farm at Foston,
South Derbyshire (by Midland Pig Producers (MPP)). We
are representing the concerns of what we believe is the
majority of local people within the Foston area – as
well as representing the concerns of the public at
large.
We believe that
the proposed development at Foston is ill thought out
and potentially hazardous to those living near by. An
industrial agricultural development of this size and
nature – which may possibly be the largest pig farm so
far in the UK with between 26,000 - 30,000 pigs on site
at any one time – is wholly inappropriate to be situated
near a populated area. It is also wholly inappropriate
to situate it on a Greenfield site – which the Fisher
German Design and Access Statement admits is currently
“… productive arable land”, whilst brown field
sites lay languishing in South Derbyshire.
Please take the
following comments into account when judging the
suitability of the proposal.
Animal welfare
We are very much
aware that animal welfare is not taken into account when
planning proposals are considered. However, we feel
that this is unfair and the law should be changed in
this regard (although, obviously, we recognise this is
not your remit). Places of this size are largely
untested in the UK and therefore legislation is playing
catch up in this regard. Further to this, we feel that
this is not a farm as such and, by its very scale,
should be considered an industrial unit and as such we
believe that other criteria should be taken into
account.
Despite MPP’s
assertion that animal welfare will be improved on this
farm (and certainly the suggested 360°
farrowing crates are an improvement on traditional
farrowing crates), we believe that it will be impossible
to maintain good animal welfare overall on an enterprise
of this size. The proposed development in Foston is
designed to maximise profit, not necessarily improve
animal welfare. Further to this, MPP have publicly
stated they believe no livestock will be outside within
a decade (http://www.mppfoston.com/The%20Next%20Agricultural%20Revolution.pdf).
They have also made the ludicrous declaration that
welfare on their farm (where no animal will even see the
outside), is preferable to outdoor bred pigs (see link
above). We firmly believe that the development in Foston
will be a benchmark in the further intensification of
the pig industry in this country, and we doubt that
South Derbyshire would want to be associated with a
dedicated campaign to strip the fields of the
countryside of all farmed animals.
We also note
that the development does not have a slaughterhouse on
site. Slaughter itself is bad enough, but as the plans
suggest that around a thousand pigs a week could be
leaving the factory we are gravely concerned about the
welfare of animals travelling distances to slaughter who
have previously only known the four walls of the
factory.
Risk to human health
Intensive farming is a breeding ground for disease.
Having tens of thousands of pigs in close proximity to
residential areas – and especially the prison – is a
potential health hazard. There is evidence that the
relatively recent ‘swine flu’ pandemic originated in an
intensive pig farm. Intense scrutiny should be given to
the wisdom of citing what could be Britain’s largest
ever pig unit so close to where people live. We firmly
believe that the risk is too great to take and that
approval for this development should be refused. For
more reading on this see:
http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/qa_on_swine_flu_050209.html.
Environmental
impact
The proposal pig
farm in Foston is being promoted as a ‘green venture’.
However, the developers have not taken into account
significant issues which make it anything but. In
fact, despite measures to reduce pollution, figures
below show that the development will produce over twice
as much global warming equivalent gases annually as the
village of Foston itself!
Therefore, this
contravenes South Derbyshire’s own environmental policy
for new developments.
Methane from
breath and flatus
Whilst the
proposal talks about stripping methane from slurry
through anaerobic digestion, we did not see any
indication that methane excreted in the form of gas from
the animals themselves would be controlled.
Amount of methane produced by pigs through breath and
flatus: “About 1 litre CH, was excreted
per day at 2&25 kg LW increasing to a maximum of 12
litres at 120 kg LW, which corresponded to no more than
1.2% of dietary gross energy.”
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=861712&jid=BJN&volumeId=57&issueId=03&aid=861704
By our
calculations (based on number of pigs at Foston of
running at full potential) it could produce
18,980,000 l of Methane per year:
18,980,000 l =18,980 m3 of CH4
produced per year
* 0.68kg/m3 = 12906.4kg is the mass
of that CH4.
* 21 CDE = 271,034.4 kg equivalent
amount CO2
If we take into
account the differing sizes of the pigs (due to live
weight differences) a median figure could be around
169,000 l. With this figure the CO2 equivalent output
would be 880861.8kg.
An
average household is about 6 tonnes per year (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/319282.pdf)
so by our calculations that’s equivalent to the global
warming gases emitted by 148.8 houses: over double the
number of house in the immediate Foston area (60-70),
and so therefore producing twice as much pollution as
the village itself.
Anaerobic digester
Whilst
anaerobic digesters are potentially useful in general
terms, we strongly do not believe that it is wise to
situate one so close to habituated areas. Biogas can
produce trace gases that are toxic and dangerous to
human health (hydrogen sulphide and ammonia). The use of
one at Foston is hugely inappropriate – and should not
be allowed to go ahead.
“AD produces certain
emissions and effluents, to air, ground and water, which
need treatment to avoid damage to human health and the
environment.” (Anaerobic Digestion Of farm and
food Processing residues, Good Practice Guidelines,
(for British Biogen, 2000).
http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf). This report
also says, “Anaerobic digestion projects, as with any
development, will create some risks and have some
potential negative environmental impact”. It also
says, “There may be some risk to human health from
the pathogenic content of the feedstock and digestate.”
Most worryingly, the report states that “There may
also be some risk of fire and explosion, although no
greater than with systems using natural gas.” The
report also cites increased traffic and visual impact as
possible concerns.
Whilst MPP may have taken
steps to minimize the risk to local people have all of
these been undertaken and what happens if something goes
wrong? The risks outweigh the benefits. Even the small
potential for fire or explosion if something goes wrong
should automatically mean that this should not be built
near residential areas – even more so near ones where
people are incarcerated (HM Foston) and there may be
difficulties evacuating large numbers of people.
There
is also an irony that whilst MPP makes great effort to
point out that the farm will produce minimal smells (a
claim that is difficult to believe), experts have
insisted that anaerobic digesters themselves have been
known to produce smells. So much so that researchers at
Kansas State University said, “From a public
relations perspective, people generally accept
biodigesters. However they should still be constructed
far from residential areas for reasons of biosecurity to
minimize odor problems” (National Agricultural
Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University 2004 Ch. 7
p. 15. Section 5. Implications to the Environment).
A
study by Northampton County Council states that
anaerobic digestors are not suitable for urban areas and
says: “Where possible, facilities should be located
at least 250 metres from sensitive properties."
[sensitive properties include housing] (http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Environ/planning/mwdf/Documents/PDF%20Documents/421%20Info%20Sheets%20Combined.pdf).
Note: Maidensley Farm is around 150m from the Bio-gas
plant according to the map provided by MPP.
Research from Iowa University found that whilst it
helped, “[anaerobic digestion] …does not totally
eliminate the offensiveness of the swine manure odor”
(Viability of Methane Production by Anaerobic
Digestion on Iowa Swine Farms
http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/asl1693_C1B3959140EF2.pdf).
In fact, anaerobic digestion removes 80 per cent of the
smell (http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf)
– a sizeable amount – but 20 per cent of the smell from
a farm which will have slurry of around 26,000 pigs
could still be considerable. Because the development is
so close to residences, this could mean that odour could
still be a problem for local people in Foston.
Anaerobic odours can originate with the incoming
feedstocks or bulking agents, which may have been stored
prior to anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic
Digestion Of farm and food Processing residues, Good
Practice Guidelines
says “… odour from the feedstock
will be released as it is stored, and especially
whenever it is moved or mixed, and this odour needs to
be carefully managed.” How is this to be managed?
The
disadvantages of anaerobic digestion are as follows:
-
Sludge disposal is a problem in some locations
-
Difficulty of storage of gas (corrosive)
-
Significant consumption of water
-
Storage of fertilizer is difficult
-
Problem of management of the sludge
- Does
not destroy all pathogens
-
Prions (eg mad cows disease, chronic wasting disease)
-
Thermo resistant bacteria (eg. Bacillus cereus)
The
use of antibiotics has been found to make anaerobic
digesters less effective (Michigan Biomass Energy
Program September 2005 p. 2). The use of antibiotics in
intensive farming is widespread, especially on pig farms
of this size, to ensure that disease does not spread
through animals kept in close quarters. It is an almost
certainty that the pig farm at Foston will use
antibiotics, and this must lead to questions about the
efficiency of the anaerobic digesters and the knock on
effect to the local community.
Finally, the Anaerobic Digestion Of
farm and food Processing residues, Good Practice
Guidelines
cites “Impacts
on neighbours” as an issue. It says, “CAD plants
may be best sited in areas designated for industrial
development in the development plan of the local
planning authority. All plants need to consider noise,
smell and traffic impacts on local residents.”
Waste Aware Scotland states: “Large-scale plants
resemble standard industrial buildings and would be more
suited to areas allocated for commercial/industrial
areas.” (http://www.wasteawarescotland.org.uk/aboutWasteTech.asp)
To
locate a large anaerobic digestion unit so near to
populated areas goes against good practice and, in
theory, could put local residents at risk.
Water use and pollution
Anaerobic digesters use a huge amount of water and can
pollute water tables and the local environment. Pig
farms of this size will also use massive amounts of
water for the animals, cleaning and other uses.
There is also concern that antibiotic residues
and other pollutants may end up in the surrounding
ground, and we believe that this will be extremely
difficult to eradicate this risk entirely.
Noise
MPP claim: “Any
noise will be minimal and will not be heard over the
constant background noise generated by the A50.”
This is hard to take
seriously, as 26,000-30,000 pigs will make a level of
noise that is likely to be heard from the farm’s
immediate neighbours (Maidensley Farm and Foston Prison
– both of which are nearer in parts to the development
than they are to the road).
Anaerobic digesters are also known to make noise: “AD
projects can generate noise. Consideration needs to be
given to potential noise from deliveries, pumps,
compressors, the power plant and the overall scheme.”
(http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf)
This
noise level will be exacerbated by the removal of around
a thousand animals a week to slaughter (both animal
noise of frightened and disturbed pigs and noise from
HGVs). Local residents have also told us that the noise
from the A50 is not consistent (with it dropping down at
off-peak times), so noise from the pig farm may dominate
and be a persistent nuisance to the properties
neighbouring it at certain times of the day.
Impact on wildlife
The
Fisher German report plays down the impact of the
proposed development, but does acknowledge potential bat
roosts nearby. It dismisses any impact on bats and other
local wildlife. However, the area where the development
is to be cited be obliterated – destroying Greenfield
land – the land around will also be severely disturbed.
Wildlife is bound to be affected by not only the farm
(and the waste management utilities) but also by its
lengthy construction period.
Involvement of
HM Foston
Much has been
made by the developers and the local press about power
generated by the factory farm being beneficial to the
local area – and specifically the neighbouring HM Foston
Prison. However, a letter to a local resident (dating
from 28 May 2010) from Elisabeth Goulden (Strategy and
Programme Development Unit) shows that no formal or
informal agreement between MPP and the Ministry of
Justice has been entered into.
She states that:
“Nor is there
any commitment to receive power, energy, or any other
product at this prison that may be produced from this
proposed site.”
The letter also
says:
“Every prison establishment has in place contingency
plans to cover a range of potential operating
emergencies. As yet there is no risk assessment carried
out regarding the potential pig rearing unit and biomass
plant.... We would not look to make detailed
contingencies until we have a clear idea of the exact
layout of the development, and the exact nature of the
work and processes to be undertaken on site. In addition
the local planning authority (LPA) will carry out due
diligence exercise with regard to any potential Health
and Safety and / or public health issues from the
proposed development. We are maintaining close contact
with the LPA on this matter.”
This suggests that they have specific issues with the
development, and shows that it cannot go ahead at least
until these have been addressed.
Regardless, it
is wholly inappropriate to situate an industrial
agricultural unit that will be handling highly toxic
waste materials next to an institution which houses
around 283 fully captive individuals. Finally, the site
itself is of architectural interest (dating from the 14th
century originally – with the current main building
dating from the 1800’s), and the position of the
development immediately next to Foston prison is
unquestionably, and negatively, going to affect its
appearance.
There is also a
moral question that, as the prisoners have lost their
‘civil rights’, should a development of this kind be
situated next a group of people who are not able to
voice their opinion for or against it?
Increased
traffic
The developers
appear to think that they have accounted for an increase
in traffic. However, we believe that they have
significantly underestimated this. By their own
admission (http://www.mppfoston.com/),
around a thousand adult (6 month old) pigs will be
leaving the site each week to slaughter (= 4,000 a month
and around 52,000 a year). As slaughtering is taking
place off site, this will mean numerous large animal
transporters visiting the site each week (at least 10
HGV). There is also the bringing in of organic matter
(The Fisher German document has this at 45,000 tonnes
but does not give a timescale). Biofertilser will also
need to removed from the development and animal feed
brought in. There is also the increase of traffic for
workers at the site (MPP quote 18 new jobs – though
don’t promise these will be for local people). This all
brings a substantial increase in traffic to the Foston
area.
In fact, as
already noted, good practice suggests that anaerobic
digesters should be located away from residential units:
“… developers should be encouraged to
site plants in areas already served by appropriate
infrastructure such as industrial estates, which may
also have the benefit of being away from residential
areas, in order to avoid the need to upgrade roads, with
all the cost and environmental impacts that would
create.”
(http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf).
The proposed development at Foston clearly goes against
this advice.
Also, the A50
around Foston has been the scene of recent traffic
accidents (8 March 2010:
http://www.dlraa.co.uk/news/road-traffic-accident-a50-nr-foston-eastsbound-derbyshire
/ (24 April 2010:
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Woman-taken-hospital-A50-crash/article-2065950-detail/article.html))
and an increase in traffic – especially the use of HGV –
is only likely to make the situation worse.
MPP have stated
that as another Midland Pig Producers’ farm will be
closed within the Parish boundaries, it is expected that
the overall traffic impact will be reduced in the area.
This cannot be true, as the site in Foston is many times
the size of the existing pig farm. This will actually
increase traffic significantly. Also, the site of the
existing farm will undoubtedly be sold to another
business, and this in turn will add to the level of
traffic in the immediate area.
Jobs for local
people
MPP ostensibly
appears to be suggesting this development will create
jobs for local people. However, eight semi detached, two
storey residential properties have been sold to the
developers by the prison for private occupation. This
does not suggest jobs for people already located within
the Foston area, rather it suggests an influx of workers
from outside of the area which will put an added load on
local services.
Also, we
understand that MPP have actually closed down two of
their farms in the local area. Large scale farms of the
size of the one proposed at Foston actually employ fewer
people than the total equivalent number of smaller ones,
so MPP are actually planning to strip the area of work
opportunities not increase it.
Precedence
against the development at Foston
It is our
understanding that previous building alterations
immediately adjacent to the proposed development at
Foston (adding a brick chimney to a development at
Maidensley Farm and Buildings) has been refused in the
past. Whilst we wait confirmation, we understand that
this was with regards to affecting the view of the local
area. Maidensley Farm – which currently overlooks a
Greenfield site between it and HM Prison Foston – will,
if the development goes ahead, be within 25 metres of
farm buildings. It is therefore ironic that development
there was turned down when the view under current
proposals will be obliterated – quite literally – by an
industrial factory farm complex on a massive scale. The
proposed use of Bio-landscaping to presumably ‘hide’ the
development will still hugely alter the existing view
and landscape. Therefore, the criteria that stopped the
minor development at Maidensley Farm surely means that a
development of the size suggested by MPP cannot be built
at that location.
Building on a
Greenfield site
The situation of
the development is wholly inappropriate, especially
destroying a potentially productive Greenfield site.
Local people have told us that there are numerous
Brownfield sites nearby that lie unused or underutilised
(including ‘Merlin Business Park’ and the ‘Dove Valley
Business Park’). We have been told that there is
suspicion that the wishes of larger businesses is taking
precedent over that of local people (by placing this
development near homes rather than near other large
businesses). We reiterate our opposition to building
this farm anywhere, but the current proposed location is
especially wrong-headed. Local people have told us that
they feel victimised and that the area around Foston has
already had more than its fair share and is already
over-developed (including the aforementioned business
parks, a travellers’ camp, another pig farm, a turkey
farm and numerous smaller developments). The proposed
site at Foston would make this imbalance of the needs of
local people even more pronounced.
South Derbyshire
District Council Environmental Policy
The document (http://www.south-derbys.gov.uk/Images/EnvironmentalPolicy_tcm21-83988.pdf)
signed by Frank McArdle, Chief Executive Officer of
South Derbyshire County Council states the following:
“Reduce our impact on identified activities on global
environmental issues such as climate change, resource
depletion, ecological damage, as well as on locally
disruptive factors such as noise, traffic and
maintenance.”
We believe that
this objection shows that the proposed development at
Foston contravenes a number of these declarations, and
is therefore against the spirit of the county’s
Environmental Policy. This means that the development
should not be given approval as it will potentially
break the guidelines set out in the policy.
To sum
up: the proposal has no discernable benefits for the
local community what-so-ever. Housing on site is surely
to attract workers from outside the area. The prison has
denied that it has entered into any agreement with MPP –
and as any energy produced with go to the national grid
it will have no direct relevance to Foston itself. No
matter how much ‘environmental enhancement’ will
disguise the fact that a massive industrial agricultural
unit has obliterated a Greenfield site and forever
altered the landscape around this ancient village. It
will also unquestionably increase traffic on a road
(A50) that has suffered traffic accidents recently. It
will also bring an unreasonable increase in noise levels
for adjoining residents from machinery, traffic and the
animals themselves. Finally, the potential health and
environmental consequences of placing Britain’s largest
ever pig farm next to an inhabited area should not be
underestimated. South Derbyshire may be going against
its own Environmental Policy by doing so.
MPP
plans to develop land at Foston for intensive pig
farming must not be given approval.
Yours
sincerely
Justin
Kerswell
Viva! campaigns manager
8 York Court
Wilder St
Bristol
BS2 8QH
Click
here to read about Viva!'s latest undercover
investigation in British pig farming.
Viva! is entirely funded by your donations. Please
consider
donating to fund our work.
Click below to find out more about Viva! campaigns to
end the factory farming of pigs.

|