The number of intensive farms in Norfolk has shot up by 20% over the past decade, with the county now dubbed the ‘megafarm capital of Europe’. Figures from campaign group Compassion in World Farming show there are now 147 industrial-scale farms housing 25,873,309 animals in Norfolk.
The pace of development has spurred Norfolk MP Terry Jermy to lead a call to stop megafarms “dominating the industry and the landscape”. And in just a few weeks the West Norfolk Council (WNC) planning committee will vote on plans to create a new industrial farming site, which would be nearly twice the size of any of those currently in operation.
Megafarms on the rise
Terry Jermy, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, highlighted the rising number of megafarms during a recent debate in Parliament, calling the county the “megafarm capital of Europe”. He spoke to oppose proposals to create one of the biggest intensive livestock farming sites in Europe in two villages near Thetford, Methwold and Feltwell. The controversial scheme is to be decided next month by WNC’s planning committee.
Cranswick, the firm behind the farms – which will house thousands of pigs and millions of chickens a year – says its plans meet all the statutory environmental requirements. But Mr Jermy, who has joined 15,000 others in opposing it, fears the climate impact has not been properly assessed.
During a debate in the House of Commons, he said: “Residents in my constituency are very concerned about the increasing number of intensive farms and how these are contributing to biodiversity loss, as well as climate change and water pollution. The effect of the proposed site could cause an unknown quantity of carbon emissions and risks water quality degradation.
Jermy is concerned the proposed plant would be placed near groundwater sources and the rare chalk streams in the area. “We cannot allow megafarms to dominate the industry and the landscape.”
His comments follow campaigners, including experts from the Worldwide Fund for Nature, arguing Cranswick has failed to properly assess the amount of carbon emissions it will produce.
Landmark court battles
Last week, officers recommended the scheme is refused, on the grounds it could harm sensitive wildlife sites. And recent court decisions have helped to bolster the legal justifications to refuse it and could pose problems for other future megafarm bids
Earlier this month, judges ruling over a court case brought by River Action decided farming manure – one of the biggest sources of water pollution in the UK – should be classified as waste. It follows the ecological crisis in the River Wye, believed to be caused by chicken excrement.
Charles Watson, chairman of River Action, said: “We believe the ruling clarifies once and for all that the intensive factory production of livestock is clearly an industrial manufacturing process, and the often toxic waste it produces must be treated as such.”
River Action believes the decision has set a precedent for planning authorities to require stricter controls and protections for handling waste at intensive farms. It is estimated that the Methwold and Feltwell farms would create 13,000 tonnes of manure and slurry every year.
Supreme Court weighs in
A recent Supreme Court case in July last year also has major implications for council planning departments. Judges overturned permission for a new oil well in Surrey after local campaigners argued the Environmental Impact Assessment submitted for the scheme did not consider indirect carbon emissions, making it illegal. The implications of this decision, known as the Finch ruling, mean planning officials must fully consider both direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions when making decisions.
Intensive livestock farming produces significant amounts of waste, which is often spread on nearby land, causing air and water pollution and odour and dust nuisance.
Alun Ryves, WNC councillor for Methwold, believes it may have major implications and says it was a “clear win” for common sense and realism. “Historically,” he says, “developers often argue environmental consequences will be dealt with by other regulators and so should not be the subject of planning controls.”
A spokeswoman for Cranswick said: “If we want to produce more British food, to a higher welfare standard, we need farms like this. A farm has been operating on this site since the 1960s. Our plans involve modernising the site, ensuring high standards of animal welfare, including lower stocking density for chickens and more space to roam.
Cranswick says that by redeveloping this farm, they will provide a strong supply of “sustainable, affordable, high-quality” British pork and chicken. “This will reduce the need for more foreign food imports and reduce emissions from the production and transportation of foreign pork and chicken into the UK.”
The rapid rise of megafarms in Norfolk raises urgent questions about the cost of cheap food. Intensive livestock farming may meet demand, but at what environmental price? From water pollution to biodiversity loss, the evidence is stacking up against these industrial-scale farms. As councils, courts and campaigners push back, we must ask ourselves: is this really the future of food production we want?
