Megafarms, Meet the Rule of Law: Why Methwold Matters

By: Lily O’Mara – Climate Justice Fellow and Ruth Westcott – Campaign manager. Both from Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming.

Finally holding livestock corporations to account

The landmark rejection of the Methwold Megafarm means livestock corporations must come clean about their climate impacts. With the recent victory for Herefordshire Council and River Action’s challenge of another chicken megafarm in Shropshire coming up, is legal action finally meaning we can hold intensive livestock corporations to account?

Cheers erupted in King’s Lynn town hall on 3rd April as it was announced that the council had unanimously said no to one of the largest megafarms in Europe. The community have been fighting against the plans for nearly three years, and the planning team were unequivocal in their recommendation to Council: Reject the application or risk legal action.

When Sustain first looked into the plans in 2023, it was clear there was no assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions – a huge omission. This concern was shared with the Council. Emissions from these units don’t come just from the animals themselves, but from manure, feed, transport, processing, and everything that happens after the animals leave the site.

The application wasn’t unusual, others for intensive livestock units (ILUs) have gone through the system without serious consideration of their climate impact. Local planning authorities (normally local councils) make planning decisions based on the environmental information presented to them, and that has routinely excluded greenhouse gas emissions. Councils have essentially been left in the dark on one of the most significant impacts of these facilities. In the Methwold case, the developer was alerted to the need to include a greenhouse gas assessment, and they still refused.

We argued, alongside local residents, other civil society organisations and lawyers, that this wasn’t just an oversight, but a legal failure. The planning officers agreed. They recommended the application be refused, saying councillors couldn’t make a lawful decision without understanding the likely climate impacts. The precedent they drew on was established in the Finch case back in June 2024, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a decision to build an oil field was unlawful because it failed to consider the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

It sets a precedent in planning

This ruling is huge. It sets a precedent in planning: You can’t build a megafarm in the UK without showing and considering how it would affect the climate.

The opportunities for councils from this ruling are huge. 75% of the councils in the UK have declared a climate emergency – an amazing sign of leadership. There is also local and national policy encouraging councils to make planning decisions on climate grounds. The National Planning Policy Framework for England says that planning decisions ‘should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’ (para 161) and that ‘The need to mitigate and adapt to climate change should also be considered in preparing and assessing planning applications, taking into account the full range of potential climate change impacts’ (para 163). Add to this that the UK’s latest carbon budget says we need to reduce livestock numbers by 39% to reach climate targets.

Intensive livestock units have colossal climate impacts. We estimated that the Methwold Megafarm alone would increase the borough’s total emissions by 6%. The bulk of these are ‘scope 3’ emissions which are indirect impacts like feed production, transport and processing. Avara Foods, one of the largest chicken agribusinesses in the UK, estimates their scope 3 accounts for 95% of total emissions. For pork giant Cranswick, it’s even higher – 96% – according to FAIRR.

As part of objecting to the Methwold Megafarm, we were also able to talk about the incredibly timely precedent set in the case brought by the National Farmers Union against Herefordshire County Council which clarified that manure from industrial agriculture should be handled as industrial waste. Referencing this case, planners in the Methwold case judged that the waste plan wasn’t comprehensive enough. They said; “The lawful application of pig slurry, pig manure and poultry litter to land requires that where they are used as a soil fertiliser to the benefit of crops, the land to which the effluent is to be applied is identified in advance and the effluent not to be ‘overspread’ based on the needs of that land.”

Looking ahead, the legal challenges are continuing. River Action has a hugely exciting judicial review hearing coming up, which will consider whether councils are required by law to take into account the pollution already being caused by livestock units in an area when deciding whether new units are permissible, particularly in already polluted catchments. The hearing is on 30th April and 1st May in Cardiff. It is hoped that this will further clarify the scrutiny that can and should be in place before ILUs are given the green light.

What can councils do now?

The two groundbreaking rulings from the last couple of months have rightly empowered councils and communities. But what’s next? Well, these aren’t unique cases and councils should look at applications that are in train. These rulings say that to be lawful they must contain:

• A comprehensive greenhouse gas impact assessment, including direct and indirect emissions, so that climate change can be taken into account
• If you are in an area in which river or soil pollution is an issue, the manure and slurry plan must identify where and how waste will be disposed of, demonstrating that there is a need, and won’t be overspread
• Should the case being brought by River Action against Shropshire Council set a precedent, the cumulative environmental impact of developments must be properly considered.

To make sure applications are compliant when submitted, guidance on the above should be included in planning policy and guidance, and councils and communities that would like support can get in touch with either of us, ruth[at]sustainweb.org or lily[at]sustainweb.org

The actions of communities and councils to stand up to intensive livestock corporations is inspirational. These legal wins happened because people spoke up and councils listened, and councils recognised that they have power. They came from persistence and strategic planning – both from the community groups involved and NGOs. But we can’t rest on our laurels. If we want to keep this momentum going, campaigners must help by pushing councils to demand proper climate and waste assessments, backing communities resisting new factory farms, and making sure national planning policy reflects these new legal precedents. The tools are there now – what matters is how we use them.

River Action are currently raising funds to finance their legal future legal action. The Big Give are currently matching all donations, so all contributions will go twice as far. You can donate here.