Plans for giant intensive poultry unit in Norfolk overturned

Planning permission for a giant intensive poultry unit in Norfolk which was set to house 310,000 chickens has been overturned after legal pressure from campaign group Coalition Against Factory Farming (CAFF).

The development, which was set to cover an area roughly the size of seven football pitches, was granted planning permission by North Norfolk District Council in June 2025. However, the council has now reversed its decision after CAFF began legal proceedings contesting the decision.

Plans for the development included six sheds to house the 310,000 chickens, along with a biomass plant, feed silos and a number of other structures to support operations of the poultry unit. 

CAFF became aware that the plans had been approved by the council in early July, and have since argued that the decision to approve them was flawed. 

The group say that the council’s assessment of the development’s environmental impacts was deficient in a number of ways. This includes a failure to assess the impacts of dirty wastewater, as well as the impacts dust, odour and ammonia from the storage and spreading of manure and fertiliser.  

CAFF also raised concerns over a lack of regard for animal welfare in the planning application, as well as the lack of a public consultation. 

On 28 July, the group sent a pre-action protocol letter to the council, laying out its plans to file a judicial review challenge if the council did not reverse its decision.  

In early August, 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that the decision should be quashed, meaning that planning permission for the intensive poultry unit is now set to be withdrawn.  

The proposed grounds for CAFF’s claim were:

• The planning officer failed to properly assess for themselves the impact of the development on nearby protected sites.

• The impact of dirty water produced by the farm, intended to be collected for use as fertiliser, was not considered or assessed.

• The impact of dust and odour from the storage and spreading of manure was not adequately assessed.

• The planning officer failed to address comments from the council’s environmental health officer which raised concerns over the physical and chemical properties of the site’s soil and groundwater, as well as concerns regarding the proposed biomass plant being insufficient.

• The impacts of ammonia being spread on the land as fertiliser were not properly assessed.

• There was no assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the development.

• The planning officer made a legal error in not considering animal welfare concerns to be a material consideration for the development.

• The council’s publication and consultation on the planning application was unlawful, failing to publish notice or carry out a formal public consultation.

CAFF were originally supported in the case by the Environmental Law Foundation and Helen Hamilton. They are also supported by barristers, Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers and Acland Bryant of Garden Court.  

Maya Pardo, legal strategy coordinator at CAFF, said: 

“The damage factory farms cause to our waterways, ecosystems, and the wellbeing of nearby households has been ignored for far too long. 

“The planning officer also stated, mistakenly, that he could not consider animal welfare; we firmly believe the suffering of animals on these farms should be considered in planning decisions. 

“Industrial-scale farms are multiplying across Norfolk, so it's more vital than ever that councils thoroughly assess their impact, and listen to local voices before granting approvals.” 

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents CAFF, said: 

“CAFF believe that for too long the environmental impacts of factory farming have been overlooked, with local councils taking a lighter touch approach than they would to any other largescale industrial activity. They are therefore pleased that North Norfolk Council have agreed that their grant of planning permission should be quashed so that the environmental impacts of the development can be properly assessed.”