Moy Park pays £52,500 for chicken plant’s foul smell
Local residents told Lincoln Magistrates’ Court they were often forced to stay indoors to avoid the strong smells, were unable to have visitors around and suffered dry throats.
The chicken processor was convicted of breaching the condition of its environmental permit by failing to ensure its site’s emissions were free from odours at levels likely to cause annoyance to those outside the site.
In a statement issued to FoodManufacture.co.uk, a spokeswoman for Moy Park said: “We are disappointed by this ruling, which relates to historical events from 2009 and 2011. We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and strive to be a good neighbour. We believe we have taken all appropriate measures to mitigate potential odours at Heale Farm.”
94 complaints of smells
The trial took nine days to convict the company of breaching its environmental permit conditions, which authorised intensive poultry rearing of up to 156,200 broiler birds on a 37-day cycle. The permit contains conditions to protect the environment and local communities and requires appropriate management systems and infrastructure.
The Environment Agency told the court that 94 complaints of smells were made between July 2008 and September 2011.
It said it had exchanged numerous letters with Moy Park, which notified the company of the problems with odours and highlighting the need to make changes.
The Agency’s officers visited both Heale Poultry Unit at Kirkby on Bain and the homes of complainants on many occasions to investigate reports of smells. Officers reported varying levels of odour and experienced dry throats to feelings of nausea.
‘Depressed by the smells’
Nearby residents had reported feeling “depressed” by the smells, which affected homes and nearby camp sites.
The Environment Agency said: “Moy Park declined voluntary interview under caution with Agency officers so, on February 5 2010, two employees were required to answer questions under the Agency’s statutory powers under the Environment Act 1995. Both said they occasionally monitored odours but did not keep records.”
Further complaints were received by the Agency over the following 11 months.
The court heard that, since February 2011, stocking levels had been reduced by one-third and changes had been made to the feed, litter and misting system. No breaches of the odour condition had been substantiated since the measures were put in place.
A spokeswoman for Moy Park said: “Over the past four years we have invested £400,000 on implementing a series of measures to reduce or eliminate any potential odours. We have repeatedly asked the Environment Agency for advice and guidance on what further measures they would like to see us employ, but none have been provided.
“In delivering his judgement, the judge gave credit to Moy Park for our genuine attempts to resolve odour issues at the farm and to the endeavours of the Moy Park employees involved in striving to find a solution to the issue.”
