Applying the Supreme Court decision on downstream emissions to the food sector? Rejection of farm planning applications in Norfolk

Two connected planning applications (Feltwell (pigs) and Methwold (poultry)) for what would have been one of the largest industrial farms in the UK were recently denied for a number of reasons including, notably, the alleged failure of the applicant to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the impact of the development on the environment and climate change. 

Food producer Cranswick Country Foods PLC had applied to redevelop an existing pig site and redundant poultry sheds in Norfolk and replace these with 20 new chicken sheds as well as 14 new buildings for pig rearing and worker accommodation. Had the application been approved, it would have created a farm with capacity for 714,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs. 

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council’s planning committee refused permission, on the basis that

1. the applicant fails to demonstrate that the development would not result in significant adverse effects on [environmentally] protected sites”; and 
2. there was “insufficient environmental information to enable the council to reach a view” on the impact of the development on the environment and climate change.

We note that the applicant stated that it had not been given the opportunity to address the alleged deficiencies in the application. 

We have previously written about the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Finch (see our publication here) and the principle established in the case of when an Environmental Impact Assessment for a project must address downstream emissions. The judgment in Finch confirmed that, contrary to the previously understood legal position, indirect emissions that are quantifiable and inevitable must be included within an environmental statement. The subsequent application of this principle to other projects such as the Whitehaven coal mine and the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas consents has been limited to fossil fuel related infrastructure.

Whilst noting that the refusal of these applications was made on the basis that the Council were unable, based upon the information supplied, to assess and consider the impact of the development on the environment, the treatment of the applications appears to extend the application of the Finch principle to the food sector, in asserting the importance of considering climate change in the evaluation of planning applications.

It will be interesting to watch how the principles in Finch may be applied to similar applications in future, in respect of the food sector and beyond. Clearly, it is vital to give careful consideration to the impact of any development on climate change, especially where upstream and downstream emissions can be quantified.  

This article was written by Fraser Campbell, Christopher Wenn and Victoria Barnes.