Representation by Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Andrew Peter Dennis (Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Andrew Peter Dennis)
- Date submitted
- 12 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Planning Inspectorate Ref EN010130 APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE (ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY SECURITY AND NET ZERO) UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 OUTER DOWSING OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER EXAMINATION BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: PRE-EXAMINATION STAGE REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF : WOODLANDS FARM (KIRTON) LIMITED and ANDREW PETER DENNIS Executive Summary We wish to register our objections to the proposed Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm Development Consent Order. Our concerns are summarised below: • The applicant has not adequately addressed the potential impact on organic farming and how they will go about mitigating this. • We are concerned at the potential adverse impact on the organic system of production from: o the damage to the soil structure, o damage to soil biology, o damage to soil organic matter o loss of fertility and nutritents, o potential contamination from non-organic soils, o potential contamination from pesticides or other chemicals, o increased weed burden • The potential impact on the soil in an organic system may persist for far longer than the applicant has contemplated. • To date the representatives of the ODOW scheme have been unable to satisfy us that they understand the particular issues specifically relating to organic land, that they have taken this in to account, and that appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate these impacts. • The application documentation submitted by the applicant does not sufficiently address the specific concerns caused by the potential impact of the scheme on an organic farming system. • Detailed written management plans, protocols and monitoring are required to minimise any impacts, and these must be monitored and complied with. • We are concerned that such a protocol may not be properly observed or adequately enforced. When non-instrusive survey work way undertaken for the project, a protocol was agreed prior to access being taken, but this was then not observed on the ground. Therefore, we lack confidence that the project is able to deliver an adequate level of compliance. • If the project must cross our client’s land then it would be much preferred for this to be undertaken by directional drilling under the land. • The severance of our client’s land leaves relatively small, irregularly shaped fields which are not suitable for cropping with high value intensive crops. This causes a problem with cropping and rotation. • Our negotiations with the project have left us with the impression that they have not fully taken in to account the special nature of the organic farming system being practiced. 1. Introduction 1.1 These representations are being submitted by Jonathan Charles Wood BSc (Hons) MRICS FAAV, who is a Director of Savills (UK) Limited (“Savills”). Savills are the firm of land agents acting on behalf of Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Mr Andrew Peter Dennis in respect of the Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm project (ODOW). 1.2 Savills are responsible for negotiations with the representatives of ODOW on behalf of Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Andrew Peter Dennis. Savills have acted in this role on behalf of this client since 2022. We have been instructed to make these representations on behalf of Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Andrew Peter Dennis. 1.3 Jonathan Wood is a Chartered Surveyor (Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), a Fellow of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, and has a BSc. (Hons) degree in Land Management from Reading University. He has more than twenty years’ experience of dealing with infrastructure projects and the management of rural estates. 1.4 Jonathan Wood was born at Boston Pilgrim Hospital and up until commencing his university studies, lived in east Lincolnshire in the vicinity of the proposed route of the ODOW cables. He returned to practice in Lincolnshire more than twenty years ago and again lives in east Lincolnshire. Prior to acting on behalf of Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Mr Dennis, he has been involved in several other infrastructure projects in the local area, including NSIP projects, such as Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm, the Viking Link, road schemes and water pipelines. He has for many years managed other rural estates and properties in Lincolnshire, several of which are located in the area which is subject to the ODOW proposals. Therefore, in addition to professional knowledge he has a strong and intimate personal knowledge of the local area, its particular landscape and the unique local characteristics. 1.5 Our client owns land which is affected by the proposed ODOW scheme and these areas are identified in the applicant’s application, (i.e. documents 2.5 Land Plans (APP-009), 4.1 Book of Reference (APP-025), and 4.3 Statement of Reasons (APP-031)), and within those documents are referred to by way of reference to No.s 40-009 (4,982 sq.m.) (temporary rights); 40-010 (58,240 sq.m.) (permanent rights); and 41-001 (904 sq.m.) (temporary rights). There is also reference within the application to an assumed (we assume riparian) ownership of 41-002 (499 sq.m.) (permanent rights). These areas are shown with the associated references on Drawing No. PP1-ODOW-DEV-CS-MAP-0005/Drawing 41 of 51 within document APP-009. The total area of these land parcels affected by the proposed scheme is approximately 15.97 acres with permanent rights proposed over more than 14.51 acres. 1.6 These land parcels are located in the parish of Fosdyke, within the Boston Borough Council area. Andrew Peter Dennis is the freehold owner of these areas of land. The land, in common with other land owned by Mr Dennis, is farmed by his company Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited. 1.7 Mr Andrew Dennis owns and operates Woodlands Farm as a 3,000 ac mixed arable and livestock organic farm. The farm was established in the 1870s by the current owner’s Great Grandfather Mr William Dennis (the son of a farm labourer, who became known as the Potato King). By 1910 he was growing 1,500 acres of potatoes supplying markets throughout the UK. William’s sons took over the estate which by the mid 1920s had increased in size to approximately 22,000 acres throughout Lincolnshire. Andrew’s father Peter Dennis took over half of the estate around 1960, followed by Andrew who inherited the Kirton farm in the mid 1990s. Andrew Dennis had an aversion to the use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers and started converting the farm to organic production in 1997 and by 2000 the entire farm was farmed organically. Many miles of hedgerows were planted along with 40 acres of woodland and shelter belts. Pure Lincoln Red cattle were introduced to utilise legume leys which are part of a diverse seven year rotation growing a range of combinable crops, brassicas, potatoes and beetroot. Today the farm is a wildlife haven and produces high quality organic produce supplied to all leading supermarkets and artisan bakers. The soils on the farm are highly fertile and farmed in a sustainable way to benefit wildlife and the environment and provide full time employment to seven full time members of staff and up to nine part time. 1.8 The applicant’s document 4.3 Statement of Reasons (APP-031), incorrectly states that the temporary rights for access over 40-009 and 41-001 are secured by the Heads of Terms. This is not the case, as the Heads of Terms in respect of these areas are not agreed and have not been signed by the landowner. We wish to object on behalf of Woodlands Farm (Kirton) Limited and Mr Dennis to the proposals for the ODOW project. Set out below are written representations which set out our concerns in respect of the implications and impacts that this scheme will have. The potential impact of the proposed scheme on this organic farming business is of great concern to our client. These concerns are further set out in details below. 2. Adverse Impact on Land use, Agriculture and Soils – Organic Farming The practice of organic farming is based on a sustainable system of farming with a minimum of external inputs. Production is free of artificial fertiliser or chemicals, and relies on a wide crop rotation to build fertility and control weeds, the use of organic matter to enhance and maintain healthy soils, and mechanical weed control. The preservation of soil structure and microorganisms, and the maintenance of ecological balance are vital. Sector bodies, such as the Soil Association certify that food is produced to minimum standards so that it can be marketed and sold as “organic”. In order to be certified as organic, land must undergo a period of conversion, usually a minimum of two years, during which time organic practices have to be followed, but produce cannot be sold as organic. The ODOW project proposals have the potential to have a very serious negative impact on the organic farming enterprise operated at Woodlands Farm. This is agricultural land which has been farmed organically since the later 1990s. Over that time through the careful use of fertility building leys, a diverse cropping rotation, timely cultivations and organic manures an extremely fertile, healthy living soil has been built up that grows productive healthy crops. The farm produces very high quality produce, which is expected by the customers. The disturbance of the living topsoil and and subsoil, and compaction from heavy machinery will destroy what has taken more than 24 years to achieve. We are gravely concerned at how long it will take for soil fertility and microbial life to recover. When the farm first converted to organic production the first ten years, which represented a three year conversion period and the first full crop rotation of seven years, proved difficult even on undisturbed soil. The farm relies upon producing high quality produce, and cannot risk producing an inferior quality product. The disturbance of a small proportion of the farm creates many complications as it is not possible to market small quantities of inferior produce, or to separate and store these small quantities. 2.1 We are concerned at the potential adverse impact on the organic system of production from the damage to the soil structure, damage to soil biology, loss of fertility, potential contamination from non-organic soils, potential contamination from pesticides or other chemicals, increased weed burden. The length of timing of this impact will depend on the conduct of the physical works, the extent of the damage to the soil and drainage, and the adequacy of restoration. The possibility of contamination is significant as neighbouring land is farmed conventionally, and contractors undertaking operations during the construction of the scheme could transfer chemicals from neighbouring land. Organic produce sold by the farm is checked and tested, including testing down to parts per billion in the export market to Germany. Any adverse testing result could have major implications through rejections of produce, destruction of trading relationships and goodwill, reputational damage, and loss of organic status. 2.2 Our clients have commissioned advice in respect of the potential impact of the scheme from their organic farming consultant Mark Measures BSc. Hons, Agric., FRAgS., IOTA Accredited. Mark Measures is the leading UK adviser in organic farming; he is an agriculture consultant specialising in provision of on-farm advice and training in farm business and environmental management, soil, crop and animal husbandry. Formerly head of the Organic Advisory Service and the Institute of Organic Training and Advice and visiting lecturer at Scotland’s Rural College. He has worldwide experience of organic farming and is director of an education and conservation trust operating an estancia in Argentina. He provides policy advice to Government, technical advice to research and joint editor of the 12th edition (2023) of the “Organic Farm Management Handbook”. A partner in a 150-acre farm in the Shropshire Hills. In 2018 he completed a Winston Churchill Fellowship studying soil management in the US and Europe. Mr Measures has worked with Woodlands Farm since the conversion to organic production in the late 1990s and has intimate knowledge of the farm and its soils. The excerpts from the advice provided by Mr Measures are set out below: Background information It is expected that the operators will require an 80m wide strip across 2 fields, total area 14.4 acres. Six individual cables will be laid to a depth of 1.2m over a total width of 60m. Full protocols have yet to be set but it is proposed that the topsoil and the subsoil will be stored and kept separately. A roadway will be laid along the length of the strip for vehicles and machinery to travel on. It is expected the operators will have possession for 4 years, 2027-2030. Soil restoration The period required for full recovery of the land to its previous cropping potential under organic farm management is dependent on several factors related to soil type and management of the site and management of the stored soil during the period of pipeline installation. These are summarised below, and references provided for studies on the restoration period required. Effects of soil disturbance The principal effects of soil disturbance are on: 1. soil biology (including earthworms, bacteria, fungi and arthropods) 2. soil structure and any mixing of top with sub soil 3. soil organic matter 4. soil nutrients, particularly nitrogen and nutrient availability. Particularly for organic farming it is essential that soil structure, biological activity and organic matter are optimised; soil structure is fundamental to biological functioning of the soil as the main means of nutrient availability to the crop. Reference: Measuring Soil Health https://farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/toolkit-page/measuring-soil-health/ . This is significantly different to conventional farming where nutrients can be supplied by the application of externally sourced fertilisers. The soil type is relevant as clay and silt soils, characteristic of Woodlands Farm, are particularly susceptible to compaction. Reference: Soil Susceptibility to Compaction 2008 https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/soil-susceptibility-compaction The effects of soil disturbance will depend to some extent on ensuring dry conditions of work, traffic frequency, type and weight and how and for how long topsoil is stored. Duration of the effects of soil disturbance It may take many years for soil biomass populations and functioning to recover. A report reviewing the restoration of soil on several sites states that it takes longer than 5 years. Reference: The Impact of Land Use Practices on Soil Microbes, page 287 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225222623_The_Impact_of_Land-Use_Practices_on_Soil_Microbes . A review of international reports on the effects of pipeline installation in agricultural land found that “after 10 years corn yields were still suppressed”. Reference: Pipeline installation effects on soils and plants: A review and quantitative synthesis Para. 3.5 https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/agg2.20312#:~:text=Pipelines cause sustained soil degradation,decreased plant biomass following installation A 2022 study of post pipeline restoration following implementation of current “best practice” found “Widespread disturbance persisted 5 years following pipeline installation in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Current best management practices of pipeline installation and remediation employed by three companies were insufficient to combat widespread soil degradation and crop yield loss”. Reference: Soil degradation and crop yield declines persist five years after pipeline installations. 2022 Abstract page 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365656726_Soil_degradation_and_crop_yield_declines_persist_five_years_after_pipeline_installations Based on this evidence and my personal experience of restoration of organic farmland following pipeline installation, restoration of farmland on similar land to Woodlands following harvest damage and engagement with industrial land reclamation the best estimate is that it will take at least 7 years to recover the cropping potential of the land at Woodlands, possibly more. That is even with best current restoration practice, which is likely to include long diverse leys, and possibly appropriate cultivations and green manures after the cable installation is completed. Monitoring Monitoring using consistent monitoring procedures (sampling methods, frequency and sample site layout and analysis) before the work commences and during and after the restoration work will be required in order to indicate best management practices and whether the restoration has been fully effective. General information on monitoring is provided by Farm Carbon Toolkit https://farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/toolkit-page/measuring-soil-health/ . The following monitoring is required for the Woodlands site: 1. Earthworms 2. Soil fungi and bacteria 3. Soil structure – field assessment throughout the soil profile to half a meter below excavation depth 4. Compaction 5. Aggregate stability 6. Bulk density 7. Soil nutrient and organic matter of the topsoil e.g. NRM Soil Analysis service specification for topsoil Suite A882 https://cawood.co.uk/services/laboratory-testing/?cwquery=soil 8. Soil nutrient and organic matter of the Sub soil. e.g. NRM Specification for subsoil NRM Suite A883 This monitoring of soil structure, biological activity and nutrient availability is essential to ensure that the soil is returned in suitable condition for organic farming. Analysing only for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium is absolutely insufficient. Analysis will need to be undertaken before the work commences, immediately after the work is completed and after the restoration work has been undertaken. Assessment of any top and sub soil mixing should be undertaken at the end of the installation work, this cannot be undone but may require a longer restoration period. If there is risk of any pollution e.g. vehicle oil or cable remains, this should be monitored and remedied. [End of Report Excerpts] 2.3 To date the representatives of the ODOW scheme have been unable to satisfy us that they understand the particular issues specifically relating to organic land, that they have taken this in to account, and that appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate these impacts. 2.4 The applicant’s document 8.1 Outline Code of Construction Practice (APP-268) at paragraph 5.10 states “The Applicant will follow best practice guidelines and measures set out by Defra or similar to avoid cross contamination between non-organic and organic fields. These will be outlined in the final Soil Management Plan submitted as part of the final CoCP.”. It is not clear what this means, we have queried this and have not been provided with any further detail by way of explanation. The project have asked us whether we would be prepared to draft a protocol document for them to consider. This suggests to us that they do not themselves fully understand the issues at hand. There is no further mention of organic land in that document. This statement at paragraph 5.10 is insufficiently vague to provide any reassurance. 2.5 The applicant’s document 8.15 Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (APP-289) at paragraph 65 states “Vehicle cleaning would also be undertaken to avoid transfer from non-organic to organic land parcels.”. There is a lack of detail here in terms of precisely how, where and when this would be undertaken. 2.6 The applicant’s document 6.1.23 Environmental Statement Chapter 23 Geology and Ground Conditions Volume 1 Chapters (APP-078) discusses the impact on soils at paragraph 348 onwards, and covers agricultural soils, but this document makes no reference to organic land. The applicant’s document 6.1.25 Environmental Statement Chapter 25 Land Use Volume 1 Chapters (APP-080) refers to organic environmental stewardship schemes, but not organic land per se, and does not identify the land at Woodlands Farm as such. Notwithstanding that omission, for the reasons set out above, we would disagree with the assessment that the impact on organic land would necessarily be “minor (not significant)”. The above omissions add to our concern that the applicant has not properly considered the particular impact on organic land. 2.7 The applicant’s document 8.1.3 Outline Soil Management Plan (APP-271) includes no reference to organic land. We are very concerned that the required special treatment of organic land is not mentioned in this important document. This provides no reassurance that the project adequately understands the distinction between conventional land and organic land, and will treat organic land with the necessary sensitivity. 2.8 The application documents, including the Outline Code of Construction Practice and Outline Soil Management Plan, make reference to an appointed Agricultural Liaison Officer (ALO) and Soil Clerk of Works (SCoW). It is essential that these roles are delivered by suitably qualified and experiences people, and the documentation is vague on this point. Furthermore if they are to deal with organic land and to be responsible for ensuring that the works are undertaken in accordance with the plans and any agreed protocols then they must have an adequate understanding of organic farming. 2.9 The documentation submitted by the applicant assumes that the land will be restored back to production, and does not seem to adequately consider the reduction of productivity over subsequent years. Damage to the soil structure could take many years to remedy. There are numerous local examples of engineering schemes through the Lincolnshire which have had longstanding adverse impacts that have failed to be mitigated adequately. To quote an example, another client of Savills Lincoln office owns land in Digby Fen, Lincolnshire, where British Gas PLC laid the Hatton to Silk Willoughby line, which was a considerably smaller scale gas pipe installation that the subject scheme. Rights were granted for the scheme to be undertaken in 1994, yet 17 years later in 2011 problems were still being experienced with the standard of restoration. In 2011 a final settlement was reach with a capital payment, following annual compensation having been paid throughout the intervening period. This capital payment was made in lieu of any further restoration works or compensation being paid, as the operator was ultimately unable to adequately restore the land, even after this considerable time since installation. It was effectively determined that the damage to the soil structure, and fertility, was irreparable. 2.10 The aforementioned site at Digby Fen was not organically farmed land, but land which was farmed conventionally, with the use of artificial fertiliser inputs. Restoration of fertility was impossible in a conventional farming system, and hence the risk of such damage being irremediable will inevitably be significantly greater in any organic farming system where it is not possible to rely on artificial fertiliser. 2.11 The information submitted by the applicant does not adequately address the possibility for similar damage to occur to these complex and fragile soils, within an organic farming system, and neither does it adequately deal with the necessary associated mitigation measures which may be required. 2.12 If the works are to go ahead, we would agree that a detailed protocol to be followed when works are undertaken on organic land are required. This would help to make it clear that for example, no chemicals can be brought on to the land, no soil is to be moved on to the land from neighbouring land, and measures to prevent any “spray drift”. Spray drift is a particular concern as in the past our client has had to put two fields back through organic conversion for a second time, due to spray drift from neighbouring land. However, we are concerned that such a protocol may not be properly observed or adequately enforced. When non-instrusive survey work way undertaken for the project, a protocol was agreed prior to access being taken, but this was then not observed on the ground. Therefore, we lack confidence that the project is able to deliver an adequate level of compliance. 2.13 If the project must cross our client’s land then it would be much preferred for this to be undertaken by directional drilling under the land. We have had some discussions with the project on this subject, and they have committed to drilling under the northern field, but not the longer southern field. They would also apparently still very probably require a haul road, which would still sever the farm and involve physical intrusion across the land. 2.14 The severance of our client’s land leaves relatively small, irregularly shaped fields which are not suitable for cropping with high value intensive crops. This causes a problem with cropping and rotation. The representative of the project are yet to take on board the potential impact of this disruption. 2.15 Our negotiations with the project have left us with the impression that they have not fully taken in to account the special nature of the farming system being practiced. 3. Conclusion 3.1 For the reasons set out above we wish to register our objections to the proposed Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm Development Consent Order. Jonathan Wood Savills (UK) Limited 12th June 2024