Exclusive - letter to NKDC

Dear Mr Fytche

I have been given permission to reproduce a letter sent to North Kesteven District Council from a concerned resident about the protocols of the NKDC officers' visit to Withgill Farm in Clitheroe.

Ian Fytche, Esq., BA
Chief Executive
North Kesteven District Council
District Council Offices
Kesteven Street
Sleaford
Lincolnshire NG34 7EF

15 October 2010

Dear Mr Fytche,

Visit of Members to Withgill Farm

I am writing to you on behalf of local residents who have serious concerns not only about the proposed Nocton Super Dairy, but also at the involvement of Members to date in the planning process. We have read on the NKDC website a report of the visit by a number of Members of the Council to Withgill Farm as part of helping inform their consideration of the revised planning application if, and when, it is finally submitted.

We are, of course, aware that to date no planning application has been submitted by Nocton Dairies. However, repeated public statements by the company would appear to indicate that a submission is imminent.

We fully understand the reasoning behind the visit to Withgill Farm. However, as has been clearly recognised, the significant differences between the two sites (notably in respect of environmental considerations) and the size and nature of the existing dairy unit and the Super Dairy proposed, mean that any comparisons and conclusions will, of course, be largely meaningless. In particular, of course, I would refer to the proposal to site the Nocton Super Dairy above a fragile aquifer.

We are also given to understand that the applicants were not permitted to address Members on the workings, etc of the Withgill Dairy, since to have done so could well be seen as having been prejudicial to their consideration of any planning application. We were, therefore, somewhat concerned to note that during the entire visit, Members were accompanied by a Graeme Surtees who is described in the minutes of the visit as an “Independent Dairy Consultant”. Apparently, in addition to describing the workings of the Dairy Unit in a lengthy presentation to Members, Mr Surtees answered questions and queries raised by them during their tour – and, no doubt, provided other information and comments about large-scale dairy operations.

I am not sure if you are aware – and it would be a matter of grave concern if neither you nor your Chief Planning Officer were – that Mr Surtees is, in fact, employed as a Consultant by Nocton Dairies and has been associated with the applicants from a very early stage. There is considerable evidence available to support this statement, including the following extract from the Farmers’ Guardian dated 14 March 2010:

"Is an 8100-cow dairy herd another nail in the coffin for family farms already struggling to produce cheap milk for the masses? Or is it a vote of confidence in a beleaguered dairy industry about to embark on a brighter future? Unsurprisingly, dairy consultant Graeme Surtees takes the latter view. Involved with the project from the outset, he advises the two farmers who set up Nocton Dairies, the company behind the project.”

As such, we find it impossible to believe that he would have drawn attention to any issue which might have led Members to conclude that there were any potential problems with dairy units of the size being proposed at Nocton. There is no reference in the notes of the visit that Mr Surtees declared to Members his clear interest in the matter or his relationship with the applicants. We can only assume, therefore, that he did not do so.

Given Mr Surtees’ clear interest in the application, my question is how can you – and more importantly, the public – be certain that the information he provided to Members was unbiased, independent and accurate? Is it not entirely reasonable to conclude that, in practice, the situation was no different than if the Members had been briefed by the applicants themselves? I should be grateful for your comments on this point and, in particular, the extent to which you feel it has affected the ability of Members to keep an “open mind”.

Local people with concerns about the proposed Super Dairy are anxious to ensure that Members are in full possession of all of the information relating to large-scale dairy units – and not just that which has been given to them by the applicants’ representative and which is, therefore, likely have been heavily weighted in their favour. Given the disinformation and lack of consultation which has, sadly, been a feature of the applicants’ approach to date, I am sure you would agree that it is essential that those Members making the final decision on any application which may be received by the Council are in full possession of ALL of the facts.

To this end, a number of residents are attempting to make contact with Members to identify ways and means by which they can present directly to them the huge volume of validated information they have collected on the environmental and other issues associated with large-scale dairy farming and the particular implications for any Super Diary on Nocton Heath. They would also wish to be able to address Members, as their elected representatives, direct on their concerns and fears should the Super Dairy proposal come to fruition. It appears, however, that Members are either refusing to respond to such requests at all – which is not only discourteous but also completely inappropriate behaviour on their part – or seem to be hiding behind the view that to listen to potential objectors direct will prevent them from being able to participate in the final decision-making process. If that is, in fact, the case then surely the views of Members have already been similarly prejudiced by having been addressed at length by the applicants’ Consultant. In these circumstances, we can only assume that Members have misunderstood the information which has been provided to them by officers.

Indeed, one Member has said that if they were to discuss any aspect of an application with a member of the public, then they would need to declare this at the [Planning] meeting and may ultimately be unable to participate in determining the application. Given that there is currently no planning application before the Council, it is difficult to give credence to this line of argument as a reason for not meeting with residents. Can you please confirm whether this is a correct understanding of the planning position and, if so, to let me know:

(a) why it is acceptable for the applicants, through their own Consultant, to be able to provide information to, and engage with, Members direct in support of their application, yet such an opportunity is not available to the public;

(b) will Members be required to declare (at the Planning Committee) the fact that they have received a detailed presentation, etc from the Consultant employed directly by the applicants; and

(c) how the representational role of Members which enables them to engage with their constituents on matters of major concern can appear to be subverted on planning issues.

In any discussion with Members, residents would clearly not be asking them to express a view either in favour of, or against, the Super Dairy proposal. They fully appreciate that to do so could indeed seen to be prejudicing the outcome of the final decision. They would merely wish to be given an opportunity to ensure that Members fully understand and appreciate both sides of the argument. To date, the process seems to have been heavily weighted in favour of the applicants.

I do, of course, realise that residents with concerns are entitled to send formal objections under the planning process and to write to Members. As we both know, however, Members are very busy people and cannot always be relied upon to read everything that is sent to them! This matter, which is under national and international scrutiny, is far too important for Members to be allowed to hear only one side of the story.

Finally, my attention has been drawn to an article in one of the Dairy Industry’s journals “LKL Newsletter” (October edition) which includes the following statement:

“Apparently, North Kesteven District Council in Sleaford want this project to happen and are not being intimidated (sic). The planning application will be resubmitted next month – and there is confidence that they will get the go-ahead.”

I should be grateful for your confirmation that this statement has no basis in fact whatsoever and that NKDC will be issuing a public rebuttal to that effect. I would contend that failure to respond to what I assume is a clear misrepresentation of the Council’s position could be seen to bring it into disrepute.

I look forward to your response to each of the issues raised above with interest.

Yours sincerely,

A full reply is awaited with interest and will be published here once received, although I suspect this correspondence should also be posted into the public domain by NKDC on their Planning Portal website against planning application 09/1040/FUL.