Intensive Chicken Shed Planning Permission Overturned Following Legal Challenge

• Planning permission for two poultry houses at Willoughbridge Lodge Farm, on the Staffordshire-Shropshire border, has been overturned after legal pressure from campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming (CAFF).

• The sheds would have housed around 70,000 broiler chickens at a time, with total annual production of approximately 525,000 per year. [1]

• Despite nearly 1,000 objections to the application, the development was granted planning permission by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council on 9 October 2025. The council has now reversed its decision after CAFF began legal proceedings contesting it.

• CAFF says that the council’s assessment of the development’s environmental impacts was deficient in a number of ways, including breaches of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. 

• CAFF also raised concerns over a lack of proper regard for animal welfare in the planning application.

On 16 October 2025, CAFF sent a pre-action protocol letter to Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, laying out its plans to file a judicial review challenge if the council did not reverse its decision. In early November 2025, the council responded to CAFF and conceded that the decision should be quashed, meaning that planning permission for the intensive poultry unit is now set to be nullified by the High Court.

Grounds for CAFF’s claim included that the Planning Officer failed to adequately consider the Schedule 3 factors required under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. In particular, CAFF argued that the EIA screening unlawfully overlooked cumulative odour, pollution, nuisance, and water-abstraction impacts when assessed alongside the neighbouring intensive dairy unit, as well as downstream effects such as manure-related water and air pollution, dust, and project-specific greenhouse gas emissions. CAFF further argued that these omissions rendered the screening incomplete and unlawful, and that a councillor also misdirected himself in believing he could not take into consideration the Animal Welfare Charter, and by extension animal welfare. [2]

Earlier this month, the resident dairy farmer at Willoughbridge Lodge Farm was ordered to pay £40,000 as a result of slurry pollution in January 2023. [3]

Acland Bryant of the Garden Court Environmental Law & Climate Justice Team acted for the successful claimant, Coalition Against Factory Farming (CAFF), and was instructed by Matthew McFeeley at Richard Buxton Solicitors, on behalf of Maya Pardo at CAFF. CAFF was originally supported in the case by the Environmental Law Foundation.

Maya Pardo, legal strategy coordinator at CAFF, said: 

 “We are so pleased that the council has acknowledged its decision couldn’t lawfully stand. Councils have full discretion to consider animal welfare — and it’s time they used it. Factory farms cause intense animal suffering: overcrowded sheds, crippling growth rates, and conditions no animal should endure. These harms must carry real weight in planning, not be brushed aside.

Building new intensive farms is a step in the wrong direction, not only for animal welfare, but also for tackling the escalating challenges of climate change, river pollution, and bird flu.

The Willoughbridge community stood up for their environment and for the animals whose suffering is too often ignored. CAFF will continue backing communities who won’t let cruel factory farming expand unchecked.”

Sandra Daniels, resident of Willoughbridge, said:

“The residents of Willoughbridge and beyond are delighted that sense has finally prevailed and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has overturned their decision and rejected the proposal to allow intensive chicken farming near to our homes. 

“Over 900 objections to the proposal were received. They identified that risking a major ecological catastrophe with pollution to the River Tern and beyond, building close to a historic site, quite apart from these appalling farming practices, was never going to be acceptable. 

“The residents feared a new Big Stink, similar to Whalley’s Quarry, which would damage the environment, cause visitors to internationally renowned Dorothy Clive Garden to stop coming, and risk both jobs and mental health. It was never going to be a price worth paying. 

“We are grateful to CAFF for supporting our campaign. We are both delighted and relieved that sense has prevailed.”

Matthew McFeeley partner at Richard Buxton Solicitors, who represented CAFF in this challenge, said: 

 “We are pleased to secure this result for CAFF, which shows the importance of councils complying with the Environmental Impact Assessment regime. An intensive poultry unit can have significant environmental effects, and it is essential that screening decisions are available to the public for scrutiny. This result is a clear reminder that those requirements are not optional.”

A spokesperson for the Environmental Law Foundation said:

“When CAFF got in touch with ELF about this planning application, we were extremely concerned about the disregard of the environmental impacts. 

Intensive livestock development like these are high emitters of greenhouse gases. They are sites of intense suffering for the animals who live in deprived conditions, subjected to cruel treatment. These developments create masses of nuisance and pollution, burdening the health of local communities and environment.

The above is common knowledge and our legal framework places requirements on LPAs to take these issues into account. Despite this, ELF sees LPAs continually failing to take these issues into account when making decisions on livestock development. This case was no different, where we saw both outright omissions in considering certain environmental impacts and misdirection by the planning officer when dealing with concerns raised on environmental and animal welfare issues.

The case law is growing in a way to reflect the need for public bodies to take these issues into account, as seen in recent judgements like Finch and Animal Equality. LPAs now need to keep up. ELF was delighted to be a part of this case and hope it serves as a reminder to LPAs that failure to adequately scrutinise the impacts of these major farming developments will leave them open to legal challenge.”

Notes To Editors:

[1] https://publicaccess.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SV4K76BMK2Z00 

[2] The proposed grounds for CAFF’s claim were, in summary:

• There was a failure to publish the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion and matrix. 

• The Planning Officer (“the Officer”) did not have sufficient information to screen out the Proposal for EIA.

• The Planning Officer failed to adequately consider the factors in Schedule 3 of the EIA regulations, as part of the EIA screening process, with regard to (i) the cumulative odour, nuisance, pollution, and water abstraction impacts of the proposal taken together with the existing intensive dairy farm and (ii) there was a failure to consider the indirect and downstream impacts of manure on water pollution, air pollution, odour, and dust, and (iii) there was a failure to assess the downstream and project specific indirect greenhouse gas emissions, as part of the EIA screening, and (iv) the Officer failed to assess and consider the direct , cumulative, and indirect effects of water abstraction. The EIA Screening was therefore incomplete and unlawful. 

• The Planning Officer misrepresented whether water abstraction concerns had been addressed. 

• The Planning Officer misdirected the Council that they could not consider the downstream, cumulative, and indirect environmental impacts of the Proposal. 

• A councillor misdirected himself that he could not consider the Animal Welfare Charter, and by extension, animal welfare.

• The Officer did not use the correct legal and policy test when concluding that the project was a sustainable development. 

[3] https://www.shropshirelive.com/news/2025/11/07/shropshire-farmer-to-pay-nearly-40000-for-dairy-slurry-pollution-incident/