Nocton Dairies Ltd - scoping request

Environmental Impact Assessment

I see that Nocton Dairies have submitted an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) scoping request to North Kesteven District Council (Ref: 10/0831/EIASCO) in relation to the 8,100 cow intensive dairy on Nocton Heath dated 1st July 2010. Presumably this is a precursor to a resubmission of a fresh planning application in the next month or so.

If the reason for withdrawal was concern over the potential leakage of effluent to the fragile aquifer under Nocton Heath, then it would appear the pipelines linking the lagoons will be a critical consideration.

Following research, I have discovered that double-skinned pipelines are available that will mitigate any risk. These type of pipes are common in the oil/chemical industry - see here.

N.B. Look under 'Environmental Awareness' for how these function.

If Nocton Dairies are serious in their wish to avoid potential damage to our fragile environment, one would expect them to install the best equipment available to avoid such an eventuality. It begs a question as to whether the Environmental Agency will recommend the installation of such piping and whether Planning Committee will endorse this with stipulation. If not, then what will suffice?

Nocton Dairies could decide to seek permission to use single-skinned umbilical slurry pipes on the surface, but these have to be transported around site with all the potential for nitrate ground contamination. Otherwise the waste will have to be tankered into position with a similar risk of spillage. This source would then need to be coupled to slurry injection equipment. See here for a typical example.

There may also be an argument to counter any accidental spillage by planting nitrate-reducing crops, but would this be an acceptable quid pro quo?

If an umbilical piping system is used, do local residents really want huge reels of pipes and specialist injector equipment moving frequently through local villages? The alternative will be slurry bowsers shackled to the back of tractors.

One can only hope that the necessary regulatory authorities carry out their risk assessments diligently and set limitations in place accordingly.

Other Guidance

SSAFO - Slurry reception pits and in-situ or above ground slurry stores or tanks
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/SSAFO_Factsheet_1.pdf

SSAFO - Low-rate slurry irrigation systems
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/SSAFO_Factsheet_4.pdf

SSAFO - Earth bank slurry stores and tanks
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/SSAFO_Factsheet_5.pdf

DEFRA - Manure Management Plan
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/docs/forms/agri_env/nvz/manureplan.pdf

National Farmer's Union Online - Dairy News

This is a useful site for keeping you up to date on all things dairy.

A recent article 'US Dairy Trip - dairy farming super-sized' actually makes a short reference to Nocton Dairies - see here.

The article mentions that "Wisconsin is probably the closest state in terms of the size, structure and geography of its dairy industry to Great Britain"... yet "as an industry, dairy farms in Wisconsin face a number of issues, including:
1. Large farm sitings (planning, public concerns over noise, odours, manures, government regulations for large units).
2. Environmental issues (water and energy use, nutrient planning)".

Since these are some of the major concerns we have about the intensive dairy industry, why did the article not venture into more explanation.  It is important that we have a full and frank debate about all issues, before these type of development are allowed to change the face of our dairy farming, perhaps for ever.

Perhaps Hayley Campbell-Gibbons (the NFU's chief dairy adviser) didn't want the more negative aspects of intensive dairying on show for all to see?  Mmmm... now I wonder why?