Fight over risk to river of muck spreading from new chicken mega-farm heads to High Court
A row over whether chicken manure will be spread on fields near the River Severn and pollute the waterway is being taken to the High Court.
Alison Caffyn, a board member of campaigning group River Action, has been given the go-ahead for a legal challenge against Shropshire Council for approving a mass chicken farm on land that feeds into the river.
The campaigners fear it will lead to too much chicken poo being spread on nearby fields, in such a way they say has already caused dangerous water pollution in the nearby River Wye.
The farm would house 230,000 birds at a time at Felton Butler, near Shrewsbury, and is 400m from an existing chicken farm.
It was approved by Shropshire Council in May, with planning documents saying it would bring “economic and social benefits” to the area.
River Action says allowing too many mega-farms around the River Severn would amount to a “death sentence” for the waterway.
Read more: Farmers told to ‘do better’ on river pollution
Charles Watson, chairman and founder of River Action said: “Like an appalling car crash in slow motion, exactly the same set of tragic events” are unfolding around the River Severn as they have in drainage basin for the River Wye.
Datawrapper This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies. To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies. You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once. You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options. Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies. To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only. Enable Cookies Allow Cookies Once
“By recklessly waiving through permission for ever more giant intensive poultry units, Shropshire County Council is effectively pronouncing the death sentence on yet another iconic British river,” Mr Watson added.
The council says the farm, proposed by LJ Cooke & Son, was approved after detailed checks on the environmental impacts, and that the manure would not be spread on the land, but transported and disposed of elsewhere.
But the High Court granted the judicial review on the campaigners’ argument that the council had failed to take into account the effects of spreading manure.
They also say the council failed to properly assess the emissions from burning biomass or impose a planning condition on manure processing to stop it from seeping into the water underground.
Dr Alison Caffyn said: “The chicken population has grown so much that there are now nearly 65 chickens for every person in Shropshire.
“And it appears that the council has not been properly assessing the impacts of all that extra manure and ammonia emissions on our rivers and special habitats.”
The ammonia drives algal blooms that choke oxygen supplies to the river and harm wildlife and plant life, River Action says.
In May, River Action lost a separate legal challenge over the River Wye, on different grounds, relating to how well the regulator, the Environment Agency, was forcing farmers to comply with rules to protect water.
A spokesperson for Shropshire Council said: “The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which included detailed assessments of the likely impacts of the proposal on the environment.”
It said the planning application process from LJ Cooke & Son consulted bodies like the Environment Agency, Natural England, and the Council’s Ecology and Public Protection teams.
They added: “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.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Tap here
LJ Cooke & Son – which is not a defendant but resisting the claim as an “interested party” – declined to comment while the litigation was ongoing.