Claimant given permission to bring judicial review over expansion of intensive poultry industry in River Severn catchment
A River Action board member has been granted permission by the High Court to challenge Shropshire Council’s approval of a large-scale poultry production unit in the River Severn catchment.
Dr Alison Caffyn, represented by law firm Leigh Day, argues that the council failed to take a number of issues into account, including the effects of spreading manure and the emissions from burning biomass.
Shropshire said the proposed development would not result in any manure being spread on land, and that “technical advice” has been sought from consultees including the Environment Agency and Natural England.
Leigh Day noted that in May, the council approved an application by LJ Cooke & Son for a poultry production unit at Felton Butler, north-west of Shrewsbury.
The law firm said: “The unit would house 230,000 birds, with Dr Caffyn arguing it is imperative to prevent ‘giant clusters of polluting poultry units’ from being built.”
The High Court has granted permission to bring judicial review on the following grounds:
- A failure [by the council] to assess the effects of spreading manure and the emissions from burning biomass, which as indirect effects of the development, needed to be assessed.
- A failure to impose a lawful planning condition on manure processing that would mean that the development would not cause groundwater pollution.
However, Leigh Day revealed that campaign group River Action plans to appeal the High Court’s decision not to allow the judicial review action also to be argued on the following grounds:
- A failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment as required by the Habitats Regulations to ensure that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of a designated protected site.
- A breach of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations, which requires the council to take steps to avoid the deterioration of habitats at protected sites.
Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama, said: “The court’s decision to grant permission on two grounds is a crucial first step. However, the fact that permission was refused on Ground 3, which addresses the most pressing concern around protected sites, only strengthens our client’s resolve to see this fully challenged.
“So far, the approach adopted has allowed industrial concentrations of poultry and livestock to be reared in highly sensitive countryside locations, with devastating impacts on local ecosystems. Our client hopes that this legal challenge will set a strong precedent for local authorities nationwide, urging them to reassess the cumulative environmental impacts of developments like these. It’s clear there needs to be a complete rethink of how such planning decisions are made, especially where protected sites are at risk.”
The legal action is part of a wider campaign by River Action to use the law to prevent river pollution by intensive agricultural practices across the country.
A spokesperson for Shropshire Council said: “The planning application was for the erection of four poultry rearing buildings and associated infrastructure. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement which included detailed assessments of the likely impacts of the proposal on the environment.
“As part of the planning application process, technical advice was sought from consultees including the Environment Agency, Natural England, and the Council’s Ecology and Public Protection teams. The biomass boilers are intended to be used for heating the poultry buildings. These are low capacity and would not output emissions that would cause a significant effect on the environment which would need to be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
“The proposed development would not result in any manure being spread on land. It would instead be transported off-site to an anaerobic digester or other suitable disposal or treatment facility.”
LJ Cooke & Son has been approached for comment.
Lottie Winson
