High Court to hear judicial review over permission for poultry farm expansion

Members approved the planning application in June this year, after considering an officer's report that said the development would replace an ageing poultry building with a modern equivalent in the same footprint.

The report recommended approval, despite noting that the application had been the subject of a "significant” number of representations that raised concerns over traffic, pollution, wider environmental effects, and the nature of intensive farming.

Application documents suggest that the current 5,000-bird farm would be replaced by an intensive unit containing at least 26,000 birds.

The claimant, Communities Against Factory Farming (CAFF), said it also found a parallel Environment Agency (EA) permit application stating that 109,628 chickens could be housed on the site at any one time.

The campaign group's claim advances six grounds, with a central argument being whether the council should have required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or undertaken screening to determine whether one was necessary.

It argues that the council failed to properly consider whether the replacement building formed part of the wider two-house installation that would require an EIA.

Alternatively, it argues that the replacement building itself required screening under the EIA Regulations. The claim also challenges the absence of assessment of climate and carbon impacts.

The group also argues that the council unlawfully relied on the environmental permitting regime to answer matters requiring its own planning assessment, including operational scale, waste and off-site manure effects.

It challenges the failure to obtain corrected technical evidence and further advice or consultation after the applicant’s agent stated that the ammonia assessment’s description was erroneous. Ventilation details and noise, odour and dust assessments were instead left to conditions requiring later approval, according to the group.

The claim also concerns animal welfare benefits advanced in support of the application. CAFF argues that those claimed benefits (which appear to have weighed in favour of permission in the council’s view) were neither adequately assessed nor secured by the permission.

Mr Justice Mould granted permission for the claim to proceed on all six grounds. A substantive hearing is likely to occur in early 2027.

A Braintree District Council spokesperson said the local authority intends to defend the committee's decision, adding: "As legal proceedings are now active, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

Adam Carey