21/08/2026
Please read this. It’s for a new broiler facility
If you can find it in your heart please put in an objection before 3rd September
HOW TO OBJECT THIS IS STATED BELOW
The key application is LA01/2026/0065/F, at land approximately 225m south-east of 9 Tirmacoy Road, Ballykelly, Limavady. It is for two broiler poultry sheds housing 56,000 chickens, together with four feed bins, two gas tanks, an underground wash tank, concrete apron, ancillary building, parking, site works and an upgraded access.
( I CANT FIND THE OTHER PLANNING APPLICATION TO TAKE THE NUMBER UP TO 85 000 🤔)
PLEASE SHARE & FOLLOW THESE STEPS BELOW TO OBJECT AGAINST THIS
Planning Application – Proposed broiler poultry sheds for 56,000 chickens, approximately 225m south-east of 9 Tirmacoy Road, Ballykelly, Limavady
GO TO THIS LINK BELOW AND ENTER
PLANNING APPLICATION
LA01/2026/0065/F
https://planningregister.planningsystemni.gov.uk
CLICK ON SITE INSPECTION COMPLETE
CLICK ON APPLICATION ACTIONS
CLICK ON COMMENT
THEN FILL IN THE FORM
CLICK OBJECT
SOME REASONS TO PUT INTO OBJECTION I HAVE PUT BELOW
PLEASE PUT IN YOUR NAME ADDRESS POSTCODE OR YOUR OBJECTION WILL NOT BE COUNTED!!!
1. Ammonia emissions and nitrogen deposition
DAERA/NIEA identifies livestock installations, including indoor poultry-rearing facilities, as developments which commonly have the potential to cause significant effects on designated sites and priority habitats through ammonia emissions.
I therefore request confirmation that NIEA has undertaken a site-specific assessment of this proposal and that all relevant designated sites and sensitive habitats within the applicable screening distance have been identified.
The assessment should disclose:
- existing/background ammonia concentrations;
- relevant critical levels for ammonia;
- existing nitrogen deposition and relevant critical loads;
- the predicted process contribution from this development;
- cumulative/in-combination contributions from existing and proposed intensive livestock installations; and
- whether critical levels or loads are already being exceeded at any affected receptor.
Where a protected European site could be affected, the Council must satisfy itself, as competent authority, that the proposal complies fully with its obligations under the Habitats Regulations.
Where adverse effects on site integrity cannot be excluded on the basis of objective scientific evidence, permission should not be granted.
2. Cumulative and in-combination effects
It would be inappropriate to consider 56,000 additional broiler places solely in isolation.
I request that the Council specifically assesses the cumulative environmental burden arising from this proposal together with existing, approved and reasonably foreseeable intensive poultry and other livestock developments in the surrounding area.
This assessment should include cumulative ammonia emissions and nitrogen deposition as well as poultry litter, nutrient loading, odour, dust and traffic.
I request that the Planning Authority clearly identifies which other agricultural installations have been included in its cumulative assessment and the methodology used.
3. Poultry litter and nutrient pollution
A unit housing 56,000 broilers will produce a substantial quantity of poultry litter over successive production cycles.
DAERA's own guidance identifies contaminated runoff from manure/slurry/litter and nutrient leaching to watercourses and groundwater as environmental considerations associated with agricultural developments.
I therefore request detailed evidence regarding:
- the estimated annual quantity of poultry litter produced;
- where that litter will be stored;
- where it will ultimately be spread, exported or otherwise utilised;
- whether sufficient suitable land is available to receive it;
- how phosphorus and nitrogen loading will be controlled;
- how pollution of groundwater and surface water will be prevented; and
- how litter will be handled during clean-out, loading and transportation.
Any Nutrient Management Plan, Manure/Litter Utilisation Plan or export/contractual arrangements relied upon by the applicant should be robust and enforceable rather than based simply upon future intentions.
4. Water environment and drainage
I request a comprehensive assessment of the risk of contaminated runoff from poultry houses, concrete aprons, wash-water facilities and areas used for loading and handling litter.
The development should demonstrate that it will not adversely affect groundwater, nearby watercourses or downstream aquatic habitats during either routine operation or accidental pollution events.
The capacity and design of the proposed underground wash tank and drainage arrangements should be demonstrated to be sufficient for the development.
5. Odour, dust and air quality
DAERA identifies odour and dust as relevant impacts associated with intensive livestock developments.
Given the proposed number of birds, I request that the Council considers the worst-case effects upon nearby residents and other sensitive receptors.
Assessment should include periods of maximum bird weight and ventilation, poultry-house clean-out, litter removal and loading, feed delivery and other activities capable of producing elevated emissions.
Any reliance on ventilation design or other mitigation should be supported by evidence demonstrating that the mitigation will remain effective throughout the lifetime of the development.
6. Pollution Prevention and Control requirements
DAERA's published guidance identifies 40,000 poultry places as the threshold relevant to intensive poultry installations under the Pollution Prevention and Control regime.
This proposal is for 56,000 birds.
I therefore request that the Council satisfies itself that all relevant pollution-control requirements have been addressed and that the environmental information relied upon in the planning process is consistent with information submitted through the applicable environmental permitting regime.
The existence or potential granting of an environmental permit should not, however, replace the Planning Authority's own responsibility to assess the land-use and environmental consequences of the proposal.
7. Traffic and road safety
The operation will generate repeated vehicle movements associated with:
- delivery of chicks;
- feed deliveries;
- collection and transportation of mature birds;
- poultry litter removal;
- fuel/gas deliveries;
- maintenance and servicing; and
- other operational movements.
I request that DfI Roads assesses whether the surrounding rural road network and proposed access can safely accommodate these movements, including during periods when multiple HGV movements may occur within a short time during stocking or clearance.
The assessment should consider road width, visibility, junction safety, passing opportunities and cumulative agricultural traffic.
8. Residential and rural amenity
The Planning Authority should fully consider the potential effect upon people living in the surrounding countryside arising from odour, noise, dust, lighting, ventilation equipment and increased HGV movements.
The fact that a development is situated within the countryside should not mean that existing rural residents are expected to accept an unreasonable deterioration in their residential amenity.
9. Precautionary approach and previous Council poultry decision
I would draw the Council's attention to its consideration of LA01/2017/1162/F, another intensive poultry proposal within the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough.
In that case the Council recognised its responsibility as competent authority under the Habitats Regulations and concluded, following Habitats Regulations Assessment, that a significant impact upon a European designated site could not be ruled out.
I appreciate that each planning application must be determined on its individual circumstances. However, the same rigorous and precautionary approach to ammonia, nitrogen deposition and protected habitats should be applied to the present application.
Conclusion
Northern Ireland already faces a serious ammonia pollution problem and many sensitive habitats are exposed to ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition above levels at which ecological damage may occur.
Against that background, I do not believe a development introducing 56,000 additional broiler places should be approved unless the Planning Authority can demonstrate, using robust and current scientific evidence, that it will not result in unacceptable environmental effects either individually or cumulatively.
I therefore formally object to planning application LA01/2026/0065/F and request that planning permission is refused unless the Council can establish that all environmental, ecological, pollution, traffic and residential amenity concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
I also request that this representation is placed on the planning file and taken into account by the case officer and Planning Committee before any decision is made .
Plans for 56,000-bird Ballykelly broiler sheds submitted to Council.
