Legal wins mount against agribusiness polluters as Shropshire ruling caps trio of climate victories

Is the writing on the wall for UK's factory farms? 

A major High Court ruling has dealt another blow to factory farming, granting a decisive victory to campaigners Dr Alison Caffyn and River Action challenging an intensive poultry unit in Shropshire. The judgment confirms that future planning decisions must fully account for the combined environmental impacts of existing and proposed livestock operations. 

The ruling follows two other landmark wins: the rejection of the Methwold megafarm in Norfolk on climate grounds, and Herefordshire Council’s successful defence of its waste plan against the National Farmers’ Union. Campaigners are already hailing the trio of decisions as a turning point in efforts to hold intensive livestock operations legally accountable for their environmental and health impacts. 

Shropshire: Legal recognition of cumulative harm 

The case was brought by academic and local resident Dr Alison Caffyn with legal support from Leigh Day and River Action, and challenged Shropshire Council’s decision to permit a 200,000-bird poultry facility. The core argument was that the council failed to assess the full environmental consequences of the units, particularly the fate of digestate, the nutrient-rich by-product of anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion is sometimes used as a route to manage the very large volumes of waste produced by intensive poultry units. 

While the council imposed a planning condition requiring all manure to be sent off-site for treatment, the High Court ruled that the environmental effects of spreading the resulting digestate were unlawfully ignored. The judge found that digestate, like raw manure, contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus and poses significant pollution risks to watercourses if not carefully managed. 

The court also ruled that the council had acted unlawfully by failing to properly assess 'in-combination impacts' - ie the impacts of existing sources of pollution in the area, such as other intensive livestock units. They ruled that the existence of other pollution control regimes (like Environmental Permits granted by the Environment Agency), doesn't justify excluding these units from the required impact assessment. 

It's cause for real celebration - this ruling confirms that planning authorities must consider indirect but inevitable impacts, like the disposal of digestate, when assessing large-scale livestock operations. It establishes that exporting waste off-site or to an anaerobic digestion facility does not remove responsibility for assessing its environmental consequences, especially in areas already suffering from nutrient pollution. 

"There are nearly 65 chickens for every person in Shropshire and yet the council still thought we needed more.

This ruling proves what we’ve said all along: the planning system has been putting our rivers at risk. This case is a win for communities across the UK who are standing up to the environmental degradation caused by industrial factory farming."

Alison Caffyn, Legal Claimant and River Action Advisory Board Member

Methwold: A climate precedent 

In early April of this year, after years of campaigning from local activists with support from me and colleagues at Sustain and Food Rise, West Norfolk and Kings Lynn council rejected plans for one of Europe’s largest factory farms. They cited the applicant’s (Cranswick Foods) failure to provide any assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Methwold site was estimated to increase the borough’s emissions by 6 percent. 

Thanks to expert input from Ruchi Parekh at Cornerstone Barristers, who we worked with to draft our objection, the council were made aware of the legal risks of greenlighting the development. This led to planning officers making a strong case for refusal and ultimately a unanimous refusal from councillors at planning committee. Drawing on the Finch Supreme Court ruling, we argued that both direct and indirect emissions, including Scope 3, had to be factored in. The council's barrister was minded to agree and it was a turning point that made it clear: councils can, and must, say no to polluting developments that ignore climate impacts. It was the first time a UK council had rejected an intensive livestock unit on climate grounds, a potentially precedent-setting decision that is set to influence planning decisions across the country. 

What is the Finch case? 

The Finch v Surrey County Council case reached the UK Supreme Court in 2023 and set a major legal precedent for environmental impact assessments. The case concerned an oil drilling project where the council had approved the development without requiring an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from burning the oil extracted, also known as downstream or Scope 3 emissions. 

The Supreme Court ruled that the council acted unlawfully by failing to consider these emissions, confirming that planning authorities must take into account the full climate impact of a proposed development, not just the emissions from construction or operation. 

Herefordshire: Waste is waste 

Just weeks earlier, Herefordshire Council successfully defended its classification of poultry manure and slurry as waste under the law, rather than a more innocuous fertiliser. River Action acted as intervenors in the case in which the NFU had challenged the local waste plan, but the High Court upheld the council’s position, reinforcing the need for detailed and lawful plans for waste disposal from livestock units.  

The ruling is particularly potent for campaigners and local areas in areas like the River Wye, River Severn, Lincolnshire and Norfolk, where intensive poultry farming has become a major source of pollution. 

Mounting public pressure

These legal wins come amid growing public and political concern about the industrialisation of UK livestock farming. Our joint investigation with Food Rise and AGtivist, published in The Guardian, uncovered more than 700 environmental breaches by factory farms in East Anglia alone, from illegal slurry spreading to serious permit violations. In response, South West Norfolk MP Terry Jermy called for a full review of Environment Agency enforcement standards. To support communities and campaigners on the ground, we’re now developing a public-facing map tool to track environmental breaches by top polluters and expose patterns of non-compliance across the country on our factory farm fight back platform.  

Towards a new legal landscape 

"This ruling is a wake-up call.

For too long, councils like Shropshire have been rubber-stamping intensive livestock farms without fully considering the damage they do to the surrounding environment. There are already far too many chickens in areas like the Severn and our rivers are choking on chicken muck.

Today, the court drew a line: no more megafarms without looking at the bigger picture. This landmark judgment means councils across the country must take the health of the wider area into account. It’s a big win for our rivers. The reckless spread of intensive agriculture ends now."

Emma Dearnaley, Head of Legal at River Action UK

The message to councils is now unequivocal. Climate assessments, waste management, and cumulative impacts are not tick boxes to be scoped in or out at whim. They are legal requirements and a failure to address them fully has significant legal consequences.  

The courts have done their part and the law in this area has been clarified. Now it is time for government and regulators to do their part, recognise and stop the clear harm from these units, and for councils to use the many tools they have to protect their communities and nature.