One of the most controversial planning applications ever to appear in Norfolk has been blocked in what could be a watershed moment for the farming industry. Food-giant, Cranswick, has been denied permission to build two massive sites in the villages of Methwold and Feltwell, which would have been amongst the biggest in Europe.
The so-called “mega farm” would have housed around 714,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs but it was rejected due to environmental concerns. This suggests the tide has turned against factory farming on this scale, with developers being held to stricter expectations to prove new sites will not harm the environment through pollution and carbon emissions.
Following the decision, South West Norfolk MP Terry Jermy, who has been campaigning against the scheme, said: “I am very pleased with this unanimous result – it shows there is no ambiguity. If this was approved, it will have led to many more applications like this. This was a test case and the fact that this was refused gives us an opportunity to have conversations about the sort of farming we want in this country.”
The decision by West Norfolk Council (WNC) follows a huge amount of opposition from global environmental activists and worried locals. The application generated 15,000 objections, with 42,000 people also signing a petition against it.
However, the decision this week may not be the end of it, as Cranswick could consider appealing to government officials. A Cranswick spokesman said: “We are incredibly disappointed. This is a bad day for the sustainable production of British meat. We’ll now take time to consider the options available to us.”
Huge backlash
Protestors were gathering outside King’s Lynn Town Hall yesterday morning (Thursday, April 3) to voice their opposition to the farms, some travelling from as far as Sussex and Yorkshire. Security was on hand throughout the proceedings and portraits inside the hall were covered in plastic – perhaps to avoid the risk of being covered in paint by activists.
It was a tense debate during which members of the planning committee heard from a number of objectors. Martin French, chairman of Methwold Parish Council, pleaded with councillors to refuse the scheme. He said: “We plead with you to object these two applications due to the effect it will have on our community will be horrendous – please, please, refuse it.”
Tom Ryves, district councillor for Methwold, said: “This is just too big and will bring no benefit to the local community.” Locals were worried about the increased traffic, odours from the site and the potential for nearby nature areas to be harmed.
However, Barry Lock, a representative for Cranswick, argued that sites like this were vital to ensure Britain’s food security, helping to reduce reliance on imports of foreign pork and chicken. He said this farm would be a state-of-the-art modern facility with higher welfare standards than other farms currently in operation.
Nick Allen, a spokesman for the British Meat Processors Association, added: “Units like the proposed are the future of farming.”
Lock also said much of the opposition came from outside the local area, claiming 90% of people lived outside Norfolk, with objectors living as far away as California. But this comment was met with jeers from the public gallery, with dozens of people local to the sites attending the meeting.
Why was it refused?
Officers at WNC warned councillors it would be at risk of acting unlawfully if it was approved, as Cranswick had failed to submit enough evidence to prove it would mitigate the environmental impact of the sites. This included indirect greenhouse gas emissions produced through traffic, manure and other factors. The farms would also operate close to a number of European protected sites which are of international importance due to the rare wildlife and flora they support.
During the discussion, a number of councillors had called for the scheme to be deferred, arguing Cranwick should be given more time to provide more information as to how it could mitigate the effect it will have on the environment.
However, the council’s ecologist, Claire Wiggs, warned that ammonia levels are already at high levels and that the farms would cause levels to exceed limits. Officers also argued they had already been given three years to provide this information and had failed to do so.
During this discussion, Pallavi Devulapalli, an independent, said: “We can’t carry on trashing the air, our water supplies and soil and leave nothing for our future generations. This habitat loss is irreversible.”
Ultimately, the scheme was refused unanimously by councillors. Sue Lintern, chair of the planning committee, said after the vote: “This was a big application and we needed to ensure all the processes were correctly followed. While our policies support farming development, we have to be mindful of local concerns and the environmental impact, especially Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Watershed moment
Campaigners have called the decision “monumental” as it sets a precedent for councils to reject industrial-scale farming projects on the grounds of environmental and climate concerns.
Ruth Westcott, of Sustain, an environmental charity, said: “This is monumental because it was rejected on climate grounds. Every council should now feel powerful and have a new set of issues with which they can challenge the impact of aggro-business and protect against corporate greed.
Jake White, head of legal advocacy at the Worldwide Fund for Nature, added: “This case is clearly symbolic of broader issues at play across the UK. When considering the most sensible use of our limited land, we must prioritise protecting and restoring nature and supporting farmers to produce healthy, sustainable food.”
It follows recent landmark court decisions following the ecological disater in the River Wye, which called for animal manure to be classed as “toxic waste”, requiring stricter rules for its disposal.
The decision also reflects the recent Finch ruling, which set a legal precedent that requires new developments to assess the indirect carbon emissions they will produce.
This article is by the Local Democracy Reporting Service
