The challenge with upgrading farm infrastructure

Upgrading farm infrastructure is rarely as simple as putting up a new building or digging a bigger slurry store.

As agricultural businesses expand, ageing infrastructure needs replacing and environmental standards become more demanding, farmers increasingly need to consider planning, habitats, water quality, ammonia emissions and biodiversity alongside the functional requirements of a new development.

Speaking at a recent Institution of Agricultural Engineers lecture, ADAS Technical Director Charles Bentley, drew on more than 35 years of experience working with farm infrastructure, pollution control and manure and nutrient management to explore some of the challenges farmers can face.

Farm infrastructure needs investment

Much of Britain’s agricultural infrastructure is ageing.

Significant investment took place from the 1960s through to the early 1990s, supported by schemes such as the Farm Conservation Grant Scheme and grants associated with Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. The newest of those facilities are consequently now approaching 30 years old.

While private investment has continued, Charles explained that it has often been sporadic or piecemeal because of the cost involved and the challenging economics of agriculture.

At the same time, businesses themselves have changed. Expansion and amalgamation mean that larger numbers of livestock on a site bring greater requirements for housing, slurry and manure storage, while environmental and planning scrutiny has also increased.

The need to upgrade infrastructure can therefore arise for several reasons, from replacing ageing facilities to improving animal welfare or providing additional slurry storage to improve regulatory compliance and ensure that nutrients can be applied at more appropriate times.

But addressing one problem can sometimes create another.

Improved winter housing, for example, could benefit cattle welfare and help avoid soil damage while increased slurry storage can help farmers better target manure applications reducing risks to water quality. However, a development close to a sensitive habitat is also likely to need to demonstrate that additional ammonia or nutrient emissions will not adversely affect that site.

Start with the long-term plan

One of Charles’s strongest messages is the importance of taking a step back before beginning the planning process.

Farmers need a clear vision of what the business will require, not simply for the current project but potentially five, ten or more years ahead.

There is little benefit, for example, in gaining consent for new silage clamps intended to support a larger dairy herd if a subsequent livestock building cannot overcome nutrient neutrality or air-quality constraints.

The same principle applies to design. Infrastructure needs to work in practice once constructed, rather than merely satisfying the requirements of a planning application.

Charles highlighted cases where insufficient detail on drawings had resulted in expensive problems later, and others where proposed infrastructure was incompatible with the farm’s existing slurry management system.

His advice is therefore to consider the complete development chain, even where investment will ultimately take place in phases.

Permitted development or full planning permission?

An important early decision is whether a proposed development could proceed through agricultural permitted development rights or requires full planning permission.

For qualifying projects, permitted development can offer a simpler and potentially quicker route. However, eligibility depends on factors including the type and scale of the development, its location and the planning regime operating in that part of the UK.

Even where a project falls within permitted development rules, farmers still need to follow the appropriate prior notification process.

Moving a development can ‘make all the difference’

The position of new infrastructure within a farm can have a significant bearing on the planning process.

Charles described one project involving a new above-ground steel slurry store. The farmer’s preferred location offered practical advantages, including better access and some potential for gravity transfer, but it also placed the store closer to a neighbouring property.

A second site required more pumping but put the installation further away from the neighbour. That relatively small design decision enabled the project to follow a more straightforward permitted-development route.

It demonstrates why considering alternatives at an early stage can pay off. The most obvious engineering solution is not necessarily the best solution when planning and environmental requirements are considered alongside it.

Identify environmental constraints early

Obtaining planning consent does not automatically remove a farm’s wider environmental responsibilities.

Protected habitats can be affected through water and air pollution, with nitrogen, phosphate and ammonia among the principal considerations for livestock infrastructure.

Under the Habitats Regulations, a development that risks adversely affecting a protected site may require further assessment. This can apply even where the development itself would otherwise qualify as permitted development.

Measures such as covering slurry stores, incorporating lower-emission flooring, reviewing the location of livestock housing or stores, and developing appropriate nutrient-management strategies can potentially reduce a project’s environmental impact.

Rather than treating environmental assessment as something to address once a design has been completed, Charles advised farmers to incorporate it into the design process itself.

Understanding nutrient neutrality

Nutrient neutrality has become another important consideration for developments within certain sensitive catchments.

Where nutrient levels are already affecting protected habitats, new developments are likely to need to demonstrate that they will not result in an unacceptable increase in nutrient loading.

For agricultural businesses, that can be complicated because nutrients contained within manure and slurry are not simply wastes to dispose of. They are valuable fertilisers required by the farming system.

Charles described work for an estate spanning two catchments, one of which was subject to nutrient-neutrality requirements for phosphate. Through detailed assessment, it was possible to demonstrate that an additional 200 cows could be accommodated without increasing the nutrient loading within the sensitive catchment because there was demand for the nutrients in cropping elsewhere.

It is an example of why whole-farm nutrient management can become an important part of the planning case.

Air quality and ammonia

For livestock developments, ammonia emissions can present another hurdle, particularly where farms are close to sensitive habitats.

Livestock housing, slurry storage and manure management can all be potential sources of ammonia. Proposed developments may therefore need to be screened to establish their potential impact on nearby protected habitats.

Again, minimising impact begins with the project’s design.

Covered stores, changes to spreading practices, appropriate equipment and careful siting can all form part of demonstrating how impacts will be managed.

The important point, Charles explained, is to provide sufficient information to give planners and statutory consultees confidence that the proposed approach is realistic and will deliver what it is intended to achieve.

Without that information, repeated requests for further detail can significantly extend the planning process.

Biodiversity net gain

In England, biodiversity net gain, or BNG, adds another consideration for developments requiring full planning permission.

The principle is that development should leave biodiversity in a better condition than it was beforehand. For farm projects, that means assessing existing habitats, identifying what would be affected and determining how the required gain can be achieved.

But mitigation does not necessarily need to be complicated.

On one dairy-farm slurry lagoon project Charles described, the external banks surrounding the new lagoon could be established and managed as an improved grassland habitat. Other options on farms can potentially include hedgerows, grass buffer strips and wetlands.

The key, again, is to consider BNG early.

Practical measures can then be incorporated into a project’s layout rather than becoming an additional issue to resolve once the design and planning application have already been completed.

Allow enough time

Perhaps one of the less obvious costs of a new farm development is time.

Professional design, planning consultants and environmental assessments can all add to the financial cost of relatively straightforward infrastructure. But delays can be equally significant.

A poorly prepared application that results in repeated questions from planners, environmental regulators or consultees can dramatically extend the process.

Early engagement can therefore be valuable, particularly where a development could interact with environmental regulation.

Understanding potential constraints before committing to a design reduces the risk of delays and additional work.b