Planning policy, and how it is implemented at local level, is one of the biggest barriers to expansion in the UK pig sector. It is also compromising producers’ efforts to deliver on increasing demands to improve pig welfare and their environmental footprint.
But are things about to get easier? Speaking at January’s Oxford Farming Conference, Defra secretary Steve Reed promised the government would ensure farmers and rural businesses benefit from ‘the biggest planning reform in a generation’.
“In spring, we will consult on national planning reforms to make it quicker for farmers to build farm buildings, barns and other infrastructure they need to boost their food production. Planning rules have got in the way for too long. We will speed up the system, so you can grow and diversify your business.”
He said the reforms will also support farms to reduce water and air pollution through improved slurry stores or anaerobic digesters, or build small reservoirs to provide an extra water supply for crop irrigation.
All very encouraging at face value, but, according to one the country’s leading experts on the planning issues farmers face, there is an awful lot to do to make the planning system truly work for farmers.
Unfavourable
NFU planning adviser Thomas Yule said he was surprised at the timing of the announcement, given that the government updated the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the highest-level planning document in England, from which all local planning policy decisions come – last year, but failed to take on board most of the changes put forward by the NFU to
support farmers.
“The planning policy landscape is unfavourable towards farming, at the moment, due mainly to a lack of policy. I see issues every day that could be resolved if there was a clearer policy,” he said.
He welcomed the ‘positive’ messages from Mr Reed, but described the comments as very ‘media-friendly’. “We’ve got no detail yet and no idea when these reforms are coming, so we’ll reserve judgement for now. Every government, over time, has promised to remove planning barriers, but none have, and there will be a reaction from NGOs,” he said.
Mr Yule set out some of the changes the NFU will be pushing for.
1. Embed sustainable food production
Local authorities, currently, do not factor in the benefits for sustainable food production in farm planning applications as there is no national level guidance.
The NFU would like to see it included as part of a ‘weighted balance’, as used in housing, where the benefits of sustainable food production and, for example, local economic and employment benefits could be weighted against perceived negatives, such as natural environment loss, pollution risk, emissions, increased traffic, odour and so on.
“Factoring in food production metrics is the most fundamental change of the planning system that could be made. It would be truly supportive of farming and open the doors for modernisation and expansion for new and existing farms,” Mr Yule said.
“Where there are issues with emissions, traffic, odour and visual impact, it is about being able to demonstrate how much the food you are sustainably producing would solve some of the local and wider issues we face. It would be a more balanced approach.”
2. End the policy lag
Mr Yule said one of the biggest barriers to planning was the disconnect between central government policy and implementation at local level.
“We have an old, slow-reacting planning system. There is very little join-up – there needs to be a faster route for planning to change and for changes at government level to be adopted by councils. Otherwise, we just have this policy lag where one system contradicts the other,” he said.
A prime example for the pig sector is how Defra is providing grant schemes for slurry stores, and yet local councils often won’t approve planning applications required to achieve funding.
Providing more space for livestock – in the pig sector, for example, to expand to facilitate the switch from conventional farrowing crates to larger flexible systems – can also fall foul of local planning authorities.
“Local authorities don’t have the resources, expertise or willpower to ensure that you are expanding for welfare reasons and, therefore, cannot be convinced that the decision would be enforceable,” Mr Yule said.
“If this was to become part of policy, local authorities would need the policy background and clarity from government to fully implement it. At the moment, central and local government are not moving in step – it can literally take years for local planning to catch up. Either one needs to wait for the other or they need to be changed at the same time. We need a more reactive planning system.”
3. Address nutrient neutrality
Another big barrier to farm planning applications is nutrient neutrality, which was triggered by a 2018 European Union Court of Justice ruling, known as the Dutch N (Nitrogen) case, related to activities in the Netherlands that were having a deteriorative effect on EU protected habitats.
It means that, across affected catchments, Natural England will only sign off a planning application if it is confident the proposed development will not add any additional nutrients to a sensitive receptor. Additional nutrients can be offset by mitigating existing nutrient losses to the same habitat, however.
“It will be very interesting to see if they take a proper look at this because, as it stands, it potentially blocks anything that produces emissions where there’s a sensitive receptor in the local vicinity,” Mr Yule said. “It can be a huge hurdle to deal with. Farmers end up competing with housebuilders and other industries for a greater share of the permitted nutrients into a sensitive receptor – but within the planning laws, there is no reason for councils to factor in food production benefits.
“We believe nutrient neutrality is far too narrow in its scope and does not factor in other benefits. We would like to see it removed or majorly redrawn.”
Pig farming perspective
NPA chief executive Lizzie Wilson said the pig sector urgently needs to see reforms in the planning system to enable it to grow and deliver what is being asked of it.
“We want to deliver our responsibilities when it comes to the Farming Rules for Water and slurry storage, and a voluntary transition to flexible farrowing,” she said.
“But it needs to be an enabling environment – and at the minute it’s absolutely not. If producers can’t get anything through planning, what’s the point? The government has provided funding for slurry infrastructure, and we told them until we were blue in the face that producers were going to have problems getting these through planning. But all they did was write letters to local authorities as guidance – it needs much more.
“We could need an extra 30% of building space to accommodate the larger flexible farrowing systems, but under current planning policy many producers will be blocked at the first hurdle. We have told government we cannot deliver in these areas unless they sort planning out.
“We fully agree with the NFU that, as part of these reforms, food security and self-sufficiency must be built into planning to balance some of the other requirements and give farm applications a fair shot.
“And we need more clarity and consistency between local authorities. Some are laws unto themselves and make it incredibly difficult to get any applications through if they have pig or poultry in the title.
“This happens because planning guidance is so open to interpretation, so government needs to step in and provide a much clearer framework under the NPPF for everybody to work from – and that must take account of food security.”
She also highlighted the huge planning limitations around nutrient neutrality, which she said is ‘suffocating all business development, not just farming’.
Nutrient neutrality laws mean authorities won’t accept applications for new farm buildings or slurry stores if they have the potential to add any nutrients at all into local sensitive sites – even if they are replacing far more polluting older buildings.
Mrs Wilson called for the principle of betterment to be recognised, meaning applications would be considered more favourably if they reduce the nutrient risk, compared to what they are replacing.
“We are encouraged that the government wants to reform planning policy, but it will need to be bold to make a real difference,” she concluded.