This document has been cleared for submission to the Board by Sepior nspector, Patrick Byrne 1 Signed: Date: 25/05/2015 L @Pa--d An-turh- Environmental Pmtectmn Agency CLMATE,LCENSNG & RESOURCE USE 1 TO: Directors 1 FROM: Technical Committee - LCENSNG UNT Breeding Stock, ndustrial Emissions Licence Reg:. ' 4 1 i Class(s) of activity: Category of Activity under ED Directive (2010/75/EC): Licence application received: Proposed Determination issued: First party objection received: Third Party Objection received Submissions on Objections received : 6.2: The rearing of pigs in an installation where the capacity exceeds: (a) 750 places for sows; (b) 2000 places for production pigs which are each over 30kg. 6.6(b) ntensive rearing of pigs with more than 2,000 places for production pigs (over 30kg); 6.6(c) ntensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows. 31'Juy 2012 20th March 2015 None Mr. Peter Sweetman, lsth April 2015 Mr. Paraic Fay, CLW Environmental Planners Ltd., on behalf of the applicant, 12th May 2015 :ompany Kiernan Breeding Stock, CRO No. 149938, is an existing integrated pig rearing unit located at Ardagullion, Granard, County Longford, which is owned and operated by Mark Kiernan, a Director of the company. The installation currently accommodates 800 sows (which includes served gilts), 3 boars, 4,000 weaners and 5,000 production pigs. Pig farming has been carried out on this site since 1990. Three submissions were received in relation to the application and these were considered by the Director at Proposed Determination (PD) stage. Page 1
One third party objection to the proposed determination was received from Mr. Peter Sweetman, Peter Sweetman & Associates, Rossport South, Ballin, Co. Mayo on the 15th April 2015, as detailed below. A submission on the objection was submitted by Mr. Paraic Fay, CLW Environmental Planners Ltd., on behalf of the applicant, on the 12th May 2015. Consideration of the Objection The Technical Committee, comprising of Pamela McDonnell (Chair) and Michael McDonagh, has considered all of the issues raised in the objection and the submission on the objection and this report details the Committee s comments and recommendations following the examination of the objection and submission on the objection together with discussions with the inspector, Maire Buckley, who also provided comments on the points raised. The main issues raised in the objection and the submission on the objection are summarised below however the original objection should be referred to at all times for greater detail and expansion of particular points A. Mr Peter Sweetman Third Party Objections Mr. Sweetman s objection covers a number of points relating to Appropriate Assessment and Environmental mpact Assessment. These points have been grouped together below. For clarity any Submission on Objections made by the First Party in relation to the Third Party objections are dealt with in association with the objection to which they relate. A.1 No Environmental mpact Assessment has been performed Mr. Sweetman states that no Environmental mpact Assessment (EA) has been performed for this development. He quotes UEU case C-50/09 which states that: development consent means the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project and that EA must take place before the giving of consent: Mr Sweetman contends that this must be interpreted as meaning that an assessment as referred to in Article 3 of the EA Directive (85/337) must be fully carried out before the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project is given. The objection also quotes paragraph 60 of the C-50/09 which outlines that reland contended as part of that case that... under rish law development consent requires both planning permission from the competent authority and a licence from the Agency.... Mr. Sweetman states that in this case, a final consent was given without a full EA being carried out. Page 2
The objection quotes parts of the nspectors Report to support the objection. The first part of the nspectors Report quoted relates to the quantity of the manure generated on site and how landspreading of this manure is subject to the requirements of the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 201 4 (S.. 31 of 201 4). Mr Sweetman states that: 'The purpose of these Regulations is to give effect to reland's Nitrates Action Programme for the protection of waters against pollution caused by agricultural sources. The set of measures in these regulations provide a basic level of protection against possible adverse impacts to waters arising from the proposed agricultural expansion under Food Harvest 2020. The second part of the nspectors Report quoted is that which states that as an ES was not submitted with the licence application, the Agency requested that an ES be submitted and this ES was subsequently received by the Agency. The objection also quotes the part of the nspectors Report which states that the nspector has considered and examined the E.. the licence application documentation, the planning documentation, correspondence with the planning authorities and third party submissions and has determined that the likely significant effects of the activity have been identified described and assessed in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the Directive as respects the matters that come within the functions of the Agency. t further quotes the points raised by the planning authority as part of the EA consultations carried O U ~ which can be summarised as follows: that the application did not contain suficient information in relation to landspreadtng and the location and capacity of each farm for receipt of slurry. that planning permission 12/208 was granted on the basis that the applicant was operating an integrated pig unit at a sow capacity of 500 +/- 10% with all pigs reared on the farm until they reach slaughter weight. that planning permission PL13/111 was for the retention of structures, and was not for an increase in stock numbers. The consultation response also included clarification in relation to sow numbers permitted at the site, having regard to the UEU definition of a sow (i.e. a total of 800 sows are permitted when served gilts are included). that neither of the above planning applications included information about boars or weaners. The submission also quotes the Agency's response to the points raised by the planning authority, which can be summarised as follows: - the E licence relates to the site of the activity for which the licence application is made and does not extend to the spreadlands. Landspreading will be controlled by the competent authorities designated under S. No. 31 of 201 4 (7. e. Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DA FM) and the Local Authorities). - the planning history for the site was noted. Page 3
- that while the UEU definition of a sow for licensing purposes includes served gilts. the planning permissions did not consider this definition however in their submission to the Agency the planning authority acknowledged that definition and the fact that the 800 sows requested as part of the licence application includes the 550 sows (500 +/- 10%) and the 250 served gilts permitted to be housed on site. The submission concludes with a quote from the UEU judgement where it states that by failing to ensure that, where planning authorities and the Agency both have decision-making powers concerning a project. there will be complete fulfilment of the requirements of Articles 2 to 4 of that directive. reland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Mr. Sweetman states the proposed determination in PO966-01 shows that reland is still failing in this regard, Submission on Objection: The applicant states that they have fully embraced the planning permission and licensing processes and completed applications in this regard in line with all requirements. As part of this process an ES was prepared and submitted as required. They note that any additional information requested as part of the recent planning permission applications. licence application and/or the ES, and/or as a result of either authority s assessment of the proposal was comprehensively addressed. The applicant is keen to have this matter progressed and are requesting that the Agency deal with this objection as expediently as possible. Technical Committee s Evaluation: The CJEU Judgement in Case C50/09 relates to the manner in which the EA Directive is transposed into reland s legislation. Following on from Case C50/09 national legislation, including the EPA Act, has been amended to take account of the judgement and the requirements of Articles 2 and 4 of the EA Directive. Having reviewed the documentation relating to the PD for Licence Register No. PO966-01, the Technical Committee is satisfied that the Agency has fulfilled its statutory role in relation to EA. The Technical Committee wish to clarify that any objection made to the Agency in relation to a licence application can only be made to the PD, as approved by the Board of the Agency (Licence Register No PO966-01). Therefore, any issue in relation to the assessment or decision of the planning authority can only be addressed by that planning authority as part of the planning process. t is noted that the planning authority engaged in the EA consultation process and that the planning decision, the planning application documentation and the consultations with the planning authority were fully considered and examined as part of the Agency s assessment. n relation to the issue of landspreading, it is important to note that the E licence relates to the site of the activity for which the licence application is made and does not extend to the lands on which organic fertiliser may be used as fertiliser. The control of application of all fertilisers to land, including organic fertiliser, is controlled by S.. 31 of 2014 and the competent authorities are the Department of Agriculture, Page 4
Food and the Marine and Local Authorities and as such, these authorities are responsible for ensuring that the application of all fertilisers to land, including organic fertiliser, is carried out in accordance with S.. 31 of 2014. The applicant has demonstrated to the Agency that there are sufficient lands available to accommodate- '. - the organic fertiliser generated by the activity. The assessment documented in the nspector's Report notes that the Recommended Determination includes conditions for the control and management of organic fertiliser on-site and also requires details of all movement of organic fertiliser off-site to be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water) Regulations 2014 (S.. 31 of 2014). The record of organic fertiliser movements off-site shall be maintained on-site and the record submitted to DAFM annually in accordance with S.. 31 of 2014. DAFM can use the record to establish if the receiving farmers are in compliance with S.. 31 of 2014. The Technical Committee is satisfied that this issue has been sufficiently addressed in the nspector's Report and by the PD. Rtkommendation: No change.. A.2 No Appropriate Assessment has been carried out Mr. Sweetman states that no Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been carried out for this development. He states that S.. 31 of 2014 (the European Union (Good Agrl'cultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 201 4) is not an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive. Tech n ica Com m ittee's Eva uation : An appropriate assessment (AA) has been carried out by the Agency for the purposes of the activity and the licence application as discussed under the section of the nspector's Report entitled "Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) & Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)". The Technical Committee notes that the Agency determined that Appropriate Assessment was required due to the nature and scale of the activity and the distance between the installation and the European Site, namely Ardagullion Bog SAC (Site code 002341), which is situated approximately 10m southwest of the installation and is protected for three habitat types / species: Raised Bog, Degraded Raised Bog, and Rhynchosporion vegetation. As outlined in the nspector's Report, the Agency determined based on best scientific knowledge in the field and in accordance with the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 and 2013, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, that the activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will not adversely affect the integrity of a European Site, in particular Ardagullion Bog SAC (Site code 002341), having regard to its conservation objectives and will not affect the preservation of the site at favourable conservation status if carried out in accordance with this Licence and the conditions attached hereto for the following reasons: The inclusion of a condition requiring the applicant to prepare and implement an ammonia management programme for the installation (Condition 5.5); 0 The conditioning of the ammonia mitigation measures currently being implemented on-site by the applicant; and Page 5
0 Ammonia emissions from this activity are not likely to have a significant impact on sensitive receptors (e.g. lichens, bryophytes etc.) within the SAC. The Appropriate Assessment concluded that in light of the foregoing reasons, the Agency is satisfied that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the Ardagullion Bog SAC (Site code 002341). t is noted that the nspector's Report does not suggest that S.. No. 31 of 2014 is an appropriate assessment for the purposes of the Habitats Directive. Recommendation: No change Environmental mpact Assessment Directive - Reasoned Conclusion Update The Technical Committee have reviewed the assessment in the nspector's Report and, taking into account all objections and submissions on objections received, and the contents of this Technical Committee Report, the Technical Committee considers that the likely significant direct and indirect effects of the activity have been identified, described and assessed in an appropriate manner as respects the matters that come within the functions of the Agency, and as required by Section 83(2A) and Section 87(1G)(a) of the EPA Act 1992, as amended. t is considered that the mitigation measures as proposed in the nspector's Report, will adequately control any likely significant environmental effects from the activity. t is also considered that the activity, if managed, operated and controlled in accordance with the licence conditions included in the PD, is unlikely to damage the environment as a whole and the risk of potential impacts occurring is not unacceptable. Overall Recommendation : t is recommended that the Board of the Agency grant a licence to the applicant (i) (ii) for the reasons outlined in the proposed determination and subject to the conditions and reasons for same in the Proposed Determination. Signed Pamela McDonnell for and on behalf of the Technical Committee Page 6