ONFPPB 2002

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, shifting the onus to the respondents to prove their operation was a normal farm practice.

The central issue was whether the respondents' two hog barns complied with Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines.

The Board determined the existing capacity of the respondents' prior beef facility using the Hugh Fraser guidelines and found that both hog barns complied with MDS II.

The Board also noted that the respondents' operation was exemplary and utilized state-of-the-art technology.

The Board concluded the operation was a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance.

However, the Board determined that the respondents' operation complied with the Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines, based on the existing capacity of a prior beef feeder operation on the site.

The Board concluded that the respondents were carrying on a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who resides adjacent to the respondent's dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of odours and flies emanating from a barnyard paddock used for pasturing and feeding cattle.

The Board found that while the applicant was directly affected by some odour and flies, the respondent's farm operations were consistent with normal farm practices for a dairy farm in a rural area.

The Board accepted evidence from neighbours that the odours and flies were not significant and noted that garbage on the applicant's own property likely contributed to the issue.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant neighbour complained of disturbances including odour, flies, dust, and noise resulting from the respondent's agricultural operation, which involved the transportation, storage, and spreading of liquid and solid vegetable wastes on farmland.

The respondent acknowledged the disturbance but argued the activities constituted a normal farm practice.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that while the application of such waste is generally a normal farm practice and the respondent complied with existing protocols and certificates of approval, the lack of a coordinated Nutrient Management Plan meant the practice was not currently a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondent to obtain an approved Nutrient Management Plan by a specified date, failing which the waste spreading activities must cease.