Parish in their letter dated 28/9/07 state “The Roads Committee has studied the application in conjunction with applications PP/2007/1974 and PP/2007/1799. The Committee has no objection to the proposed re-development of the dairy farm other than reiterating (as in PP/2007/1974) its wish to see an improved visibility line towards the east at the access/egress point.” PSD (Drainage) in their letter dated 31/7/07 state “The existing property has been provided with a foul connection to the public foul sewer that lies to the east of the main farm buildings in Field 62. 1. The position of the new slurry store is not dimensioned. However, its position would appear to be very close to the Public foul sewer that passes to the east of the dairy farm. Under the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005, no building or other structure shall be constructed within 5m of a Public sewer without the permission of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. If the new slurry storey is within this 5m boundary, then either the slurry store will have to be relocated, the sewer diverted at the developers expense, or detailed plans of the proposed structure submitted to this Department for a consideration of a relaxation of the 5m distance. 2. With regard to the new slurry store and the dirty water areas, our understanding of this arrangement from the submission, is that the slurry store and the reception pit are to be covered and that all slurry and the dirty water areas are to be collected and drained to the new store for spreading on adjacent land at some later date, i.e. none of this discharge, which will at times contain a significant volume of rainwater, will be directed to the foul sewer. All ‘clean’ yard and roof water is to be disposed of via the existing surface water routes on the site (provided this is not to the foul sewer). If this assessment is correct, then the Department has no objections to the proposals, subject to the comments below. If this assumption is not correct, then the developer is requested to contact this Department as soon as possible to discuss the detailed drainage proposals on the site. 3. The existing surface water disposal routes on the site are not clear. However, if these routes are to the adjacent water course then the peak flow rate from the new development must not exceed the peak flow rate from the existing site. In essence, if the new development is going to result in an increase in impermeable area discharging to the watercourse, then it is likely that some form of flow attenuation will be required on the site. Soakaways, if they work, would remove the need for attenuation. However, it mentions in the submission problems with high water table and therefore, investigations into this disposal route would be required. It is noted however, that the re-use of rainwater is proposed and therefore, this may negate the requirement for attenuation or soakaways depending on the extent or re-use. 4. It is accepted that effluent run-off from the silage clamp area needs to be directed to the foul sewer system. However, the pumping capacity of the downstream foul pumping station is frequently exceeded during periods of heavy rainfall and particularly when the silage clamp is empty, the new silage clamp facility should be covered and the clean water from the roof disposed of via the surface water disposal route. This will ensure that only the silage clamp effluent reaches the foul sewer. 5. The downstream foul pumping station frequently experiences blockage problems, particularly with straw. An interceptor facility should be installed prior to discharge to the foul sewer to prevent solid matter, such as straw, from entering the foul sewer system. 6. It is not clear from the submission what the purpose of the new reed bed is, or the effect the infilling of the brook and pond upstream of the farm site will have no downstream flows (7). 8. Section 4.1 (page 12) in the submission states that Mr. Le Gallais has a licence to discharge dirty rainwater as well as parlour washings to the main drainage system. This is incorrect. The Trade Discharge consent issued by this Department to Cowley Farm only applies to parlour washings and not to dirty rainwater. This being the case, Mr. Le Gallais will need to apply to the Trade Effluent Officer at TTS to obtain Trade Effluent consent to discharge this water.” PSD (Drainage) in their further letter dated 7/9/07 state “Whilst Mr. Le Gallais has met with the Department to discuss drainage issues on the proposed development, the new submission does not cover all of the points raised in TTS’s previous comments of 31/7/07. It can be confirmed that item 1 has been addressed and the location of the slurry store is acceptable. However, there are no details shown on the drawings to indicate foul and surface water disposal routes. Whilst these were discussed with Mr. Le Gallais, given the problems that the Department experiences with the downstream pumping station, all the proposed drainage routes for both foul and surface water need to be clearly indicated and there needs to be a formal drainage submission detailing how the proposed flows to both foul sewer and watercourse will alter with the new development, and with regard to the surface water run-off, how increased flows are to be dealt with i.e. attenuation or re-use. This relates to items 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the previous comments. With regard to item 7 of the previous comments, the details of the proposed infilling and piping of the watercourse upstream is noted. In the event this proposal is approved, the pipe used under the infilled area must be at least equal in size to the existing pipe under the farm. In addition to the above, it is noted that it is now proposed to re-locate a feed bin directly over the existing foul sewer. In accordance with the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005, this structure will need to be re-located to a position at least 5m from the foul sewer.” PSD Drainage in their further letter dated 30/10/07 state “On the ‘existing’ layout, the area contributing to the stream is given as 4370m². This correctly ignores the ‘existing clean outside yard area’ as this is unchanged in the ‘proposed’ layout. However, the 4370m² includes 2350m² of existing field draining to the stream. In considering run-off rain water from any given area, only a proportion of field areas are taken as contributing towards this run-off as a significant proportion of the rainwater is absorbed by the field. Generally, it is considered that only 20% of any field area will contribute. Therefore, in considering the 2350m² field area, only 470m² is considered to contribute to the run-off to the stream i.e. 2350m² x 0.2. This being the case, the area currently considered discharging to the stream will be 2020m² from the existing roofs and 470m² from then field, giving a total of 2490m². This area must be compared to the run-off likely from the ‘proposed’ scheme, which when including existing and new roofs, (including new slurry store), the additional clean yard area and the silage clamp area (seasonal), I estimate to total 5085m². I confirm that you are proposing to collect and re-use some of the water, however, these volumes will need to be confirmed and any additional run-off to the stream, over and above what runs off the 2490m² above, will need to be attenuated. In respect of foul water, It is understood that the applicant will be collecting and storing dirty yard area water on site in the slurry store and can confirm that this acceptable.” PSD Drainage in their further letter dated 31/3/08 state “In respect of surface water, the current ‘clean’ hardstanding areas on the site discharge direct to the stream. The proposal entails an increase in ‘clean’ hardstanding area of approximately 2700m². Normally, the developer would look to discharge the whole site, including the increased area, to the stream, in which case, attenuation would be required to limit the peak flow from the new site to what it was before development. However in this case, the applicant is making use of a water storage tank so that rainwater can be re-used on site. The tank volume is in order of 170m³ and the applicant has submitted figures that demonstrate that the tank has a capacity to store all of the rainfall from a 24 hour, 1 in 20 year event, which is considered acceptable. I do not have detailed drain layout drawings of the proposed site. However, it is important to stress that the storage volume provided is on the basis of only 2700m² being directed to the tank and not the whole site. The remainder of the site should be directed to the stream and this should be checked before approval is given at planning application stage. In respect of foul water, it is understood that all ‘dirty water areas’ are to be collected and directed to a new on-site slurry store. If this is the case, then this is acceptable. Foul flows from any toilets on the site should obviously be directed to the foul sewer. If any ‘dirty water areas’ are now being directed to the foul sewer, then I would be grateful if you could refer back to this Department for further comment.” EPU in their letter dated 10/8/07 state” Environmental Protection (EP) recognises that the construction of facilities to increase slurry storage capacity have the potential to reduce significantly the instances of pollution to surface water and ground waters in Jersey and are therefore supportive of this application. Due to the nature and scale of this development, EP has a number of specific comments on different aspects of the planning application. The stream running through the site is a feeder stream to Grands Vaux Reservoir. In respect of slurry storage, it is important that all of the recommendations of the Dairy Group (2005) are implemented in order to achieve the maximum environmental benefit. It is clear that separation of clean and dirty water is a key element to this in terms of reducing the initial waste stream. Measures such as sealing rain water down pipes can help to reduce the risk of clean water becoming contaminated with yard run off and the applicant should ensure that any water being directed into a soakaway does not pose a risk of pollution to groundwater. It is recommended that a discharge permit be applied for in respect of any planned discharges to groundwater. Of particular importance to the prevention of pollution to controlled waters are the following: - Having adequate land over which to spread the slurry; - Not spreading within 10m of a watercourse or ditch and not within 50m of a borehole or well; - Ensuring that all dirty water is directed to a slurry store, and - Building the store to a recognised standard and maintaining it so that the risk of cracks and leaks is minimised. It should also comply with all relevant aspects of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water (The Water Code) Jersey. In respect of storage and handling of oils, chemicals and other risky materials: - Storage containers must be fit for purpose, regularly inspected and maintained; - Storage areas and containers should be sited away from watercourses, drains and unsurfaced areas; - Storage containers should have secondary containment, such as a bund, to contain any leaks or spills, and - There should be procedures for safe delivery and handling of materials. In respect of the construction of ponds/reed beds, it is vital that the applicant has in place a method statement for these, together with associated landscaping that fully takes into account measures to prevent pollution to the stream during the construction phase. The applicant should ensure that there is sufficient residual flow at all times so that the stream does not run dry. Ponds constructed in streams are liable to silting and thus not recommended. If the applicant needs to clean or de-silt the pond, the silt should be removed in stages and disposed of. It should not be passed downstream where it can smother the stream bed. In respect of infill and culverting of the stream, the applicant should ensure that nothing enters this watercourse as a result of the infill that could cause pollution. Infill must be clean and inert and should not pose a risk of pollution to any controlled waters. Any culverting of the open stream should be kept to a minimum. The applicant should be producing a plan to be submitted, quantifying the amount of material that is likely to be produced and demonstrating how this material shall be re-used, recycled or disposed of either within or off the site. It should be noted that the incoming Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007 may have a bearing on the abstractions from boreholes and creation of and abstraction from impoundments. Retrospective applications for abstraction licences may be required and clarification should be sought from EP by the applicant.” Environment (Dairy and Livestock Advisor and Countryside Manager) in their letter dated 7/8/07 state “The Rural Economic Strategy (RES) Group are fully supportive of this proposal as it will provide modern efficient facilities which will aid the future prosperity of the dairy industry, improve the current animal housing facilities at Cowley Farm and provide protection for and improvements to the surrounding environment. From the information provided, the storage facility at Cowley Farm should have a capacity of 1661m³ for a 180 cow dairy herd. The proposed building developments at the farm housing 210 cows will have a capacity of 2000m³ providing well over 4 months slurry storage capacity. The new slurry store and associated drainage systems will all be built to BS5502 standards insuring against leaks or other environmental problems. This development will meet the current and proposed future regulations laid out in the Jersey Water Code and the proposals being envisaged for a 2 to 3 month closed period for slurry spreading likely to be introduced in November 2008. The main nuisance concerns that could occur following the construction of the proposed new dairy unit at increased noise, odour and water pollution problems. In this respect, the current practice of removing slurry from the existing store on a daily or weekly basis by the use of a tractor mounted vacuum tanker would cease. The increased capacity of the envisaged store would mean that the store would be emptied 3 to 4 times per year according to crop requirements. In addition, the pumping of the rainwater from the existing collecting yard to the current store following heavy periods of rain would be greatly reduced. The cows are currently housed in dilapidated conditions close to the western boundary of the site. The proposed clear span cattle building will be sited further away from the neighbouring properties and the enclosed nature of the building should reduce noise levels. Odour problems from the modernised dairy unit would be greatly reduced owing to the animal housing being completely covered. It is proposed that the new cow house is scraped twice per day, with the dung entering a below ground channel thus reducing the likelihood of odour being spread on the wind. The new slurry store will have a canopy constructed over the store to avoid odour problems during emptying and filling operations. The amount of slurry and manure produced will marginally increase due to the slightly enlarged dairy herd. The amount of traffic to and from the farm on an annual basis however should not significantly increase and the capacity of the slurry storage facility will mean that the current weekly spreading activity will be concentrated into 3 to 4 short periods per annum. The feeder stream to Grand Vaux Reservoir which runs under the Farm via an underground culvert will have increased protection from pollution owing to the total capacity of the slurry store and the building standards used in its construction. The current design of the unit could result in dirty water entering the stream if the owner was not vigilant in mitigating these problems. The proposed unit will overcome the problem of dirty water run-off into the stream by firstly reducing the area of open dirty water yards and secondly through the cows being housed in a clear span building with a solid concrete floor avoiding the percolation of liquids into the surrounding environment. The redevelopment of the Farm provides an opportunity to significantly increase the environmental benefits from the site. The plans show an amount of screening by creating a bank with excavated material and some tree planting around the immediate vicinity. More details of the screening should be provided, together with a discussion on the choice of species and numbers of trees proposed to be planted. It would be of great benefit, if, at the same time, the hedgerows on the fields surrounding the farm unit were improved through gapping up and replanting. Such hedges could extend some distance from the unit than is shown on the landscape plan and into the surrounding fields to provide screening from noise, visibility of the development and improvement of the habitat corridors. There is further opportunity for nesting ledges for house martins and swallows to be designed into the new unit in addition to bat boxes and other nest sites which can be common on farmsteads if they are sensitively managed. The pond should be carefully designed to provide as much benefit as possible, with consideration of a series of ponds, particularly if improvement of the water quality is required before it enters the stream. The reason for the reed bed is unclear. But again, if it is to assist in cleaning the water, then it should be carefully designed. If it is a landscape feature then it is possible that a copse of trees would provide greater environmental benefit. In conclusion, the enabling and linked development involving the funds generated from a proposed new housing development at Cowley Farm House being used to improve the dairy unit at Cowley Farm is fully supported by the RES Group. This support is based on the need to improve the dairy buildings at Cowley Farm to meet modern efficient standards. The future of the Roseland herd is important to the sustainability of the Island’s dairy industry and the envisaged building project is required to replace the dilapidated infrastructure which has been in constant use for the last 37 years. The redevelopment of Cowley Farm also provides an opportunity to significantly improve the environment surrounding the farm including screening, hedges and associated wildlife projects which will benefit the whole area.” Environment (Ecologist) in their letter dated 30/07/07 state”Although access could not be gained to the cattle housing buildings, it was apparent during the site visit that there may be swallows’ nests in use in the building to the south of the slurry store. Swallows and sparrows are protected under the Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000 and their nests/roosts are protected when they are in use. The works should ideally be carried out after September and completed before the following April before any birds return to any vacant nests. If works are not completed, then the building should be made secure to prevent the birds from re-entering. It is recommended that provisions are made for the birds to return post-development to find suitable nesting space within the buildings where development has caused the removal of old nests. Appropriate mitigation would include erecting the Schwegler No9A, 9B and 10. Other successful measures include placing small elbow joints to give the birds purchase when they construct their own new nests from mud. These measures would ideally be in place by April in preparation for the returning birds following the development’s completion. In respect of landscaping, the applicant has suggested that the trees to the north of the Dutch barn may have to be removed as part of the development. The applicant should be reminded that all species of bats, squirrels and all species of birds (apart from feral pigeon, magpie, crow and starling) are protected species and should any trees house their dreys or nests, then they cannot be felled. Careful checking by a professional arboriculturist during site works is imperative to prevent any damage to possible dreys or nests. If nesting birds, bats or squirrels are found to be present, then the tree work should not commence, or if the tree surgery has already started and nests are then discovered, then the work should stop immediately and be rescheduled for later in the year. Although these trees are somewhat isolated at present, they have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the landscape when considered together with the planting plans proposed by the applicant in that area as part of the proposed development. It is recommended that the trees are retained. It is also recommended that the hawthorn hedge adjacent to La Rue du Pont is retained as part of the development for its wildlife value. Regarding landscaping, a list of mixes is suggested, which are of particular relevance to Jersey because not only do they support a wide range of plant species, they provide a dispersal habitat for a range of wildlife and reduce fragmentation of the landscape.” H&SS in their letter dated 21/9/07 state “Although Health Protection recognise that the existing milking parlour and dairy building is to be retained, we would strongly recommend that as part of the re-development of the site, outstanding structural non-compliances found during an inspection in July 2007 are addressed to meet the standards of the Milk and Dairies (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 1992. These include: The dairy room, where the holes in the floor must be filled to allow proper drainage and cleaning. During the last inspection, mouse droppings were observed on a work surface in the dairy where the bulk milk tank is located. The area should be proofed and rodents kept out of the dairy room to minimise contamination. The areas of the milking parlour walls are damaged. These areas must be rendered smooth to enable effective cleaning. During the last inspection, pigeons were observed roosting in the milking parlour and bird droppings on the parlour floor. The area should be proofed and pigeons kept out of the parlour to minimise the risk of contamination. The proposals must not give rise to noise or odour nuisance to neighbouring residential properties.” Jersey Water in their letter dated 13/8/07 state “The proposed development lies within the Water Pollution Safeguard Area (WPSA) and within the catchment area of Grands Vaux Reservoir. We are pleased to note the application includes the provision of additional slurry storage, which will enable future compliance with the Jersey Agricultural Code for Water, which is aimed at preventing the pollution of water resources.” We have no comments to make on this particular application. All consultations are attached with the background papers | 
gov.je