Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Tag: Legal action

When a fisherman must go to court to save a lough

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
By Enda McGarrity, Director at P.A. Duffy & Co. Solicitors

Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. It supplies drinking water to much of Northern Ireland and supports a unique ecosystem, a historic fishing community and livelihoods that stretch back generations. Today, this vital natural asset is in crisis.

For several summers, Lough Neagh has been smothered by severe blue-green algal blooms driven by excessive nutrient pollution. The green slicks spreading across the water are not merely unpleasant to look at. They signal ecological failure. Wildlife is disappearing, fish stocks are under pressure, and communities around the lough are increasingly concerned about the consequences of prolonged pollution.

Blue-green algal blooms in Lough Neagh ©SaveLoughNeagh

Against this backdrop, local eel fisherman Declan Conlon has brought a legal challenge against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). His case asks the courts to examine whether the authorities have fulfilled their legal responsibilities to protect Lough Neagh and those who depend upon it from nutrient pollution.

In his sworn affidavit to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Declan described the long tradition of eel fishing in his family. He told the court, “Our father James Gerard Conlon was an eel fisherman and his father Hughie Conlon before him was an eel fisherman. Going further back than that, beyond memory, my family would all have been fishermen.”

Eel fisherman, Declan Conlon arrives at the Belfast courts ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments

For families like the Conlon’s, fishing on Lough Neagh is not simply a job but a way of life built on generations of knowledge and experience. The eel fishery is internationally recognised, and Lough Neagh eel holds Protected Geographical Indication status.

 

But what Declan and many others are witnessing today is a serious decline in the ecosystem that once supported this way of life.

The algal blooms affecting the lough are the visible symptom of excessive nutrients entering the water from agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges. When nutrients accumulate in a lake, they fuel the explosive growth of algae that can damage ecosystems and threaten wildlife.

Declan has seen these changes directly. He has described a lough where the flies that once fed the eels have disappeared, birdlife has diminished, and at times the blue-green algae gives off a very bad smell, an unpleasant gassy odour. The fishing season, once a reliable source of income, has been severely disrupted.

As Declan told the court:

“My way of life has been destroyed by the blue green algae and I want the DAERA to do whatever is necessary to stop the algae and safeguard and protect Lough Neagh, the fish, the flies and the wildlife for the benefit of future generations.”

Campaigners gather in support of eel fisherman Declan Conlon. ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments.

It should never fall to a fisherman to bring a case of this magnitude. Yet Declan’s action highlights an important truth: environmental protections only matter when they are implemented effectively. When they are not, the environment and the communities dependent upon them suffer.

Northern Ireland has legal frameworks designed to protect rivers, lakes and coastal waters from pollution. River Basin Management Plans and regulatory controls on nutrient discharges are intended to ensure water bodies achieve good ecological status.

But when pollution persists year after year, and ecological decline becomes visible to those who depend on the water, it is right to ask whether those legal duties are being fulfilled.

Declan’s judicial review asks the court to examine that question.

We welcome the interventions of River Action and Friends of Earth NI in this case.

River Action has a strong track record of holding environmental regulators to account through the courts, including legal actions over pollution in the River Wye challenging the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales on nutrient pollution oversight.River Action is applying to intervene to assist the court by clarifying what constitutes a lawful River Basin Management Plan and by addressing the duty of regulators to put in place effective and enforceable measures where pollution is causing clear ecological harm.

Emma Dearlaney , Christian Fuller of River Action and Laura Neal of Friends of the Earth NI gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast in support of eel fisherman Declan Conlon’s judicial review. ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments.

This case is not about assigning blame to any single sector. Farmers, fishermen, businesses and residents all depend on the health of Lough Neagh. Rather, the case seeks clarity about whether current plans to tackle nutrient pollution are strong enough to restore the lough.

The legal question at the heart of the challenge is straightforward: when a protected water body is clearly failing, are authorities taking the steps required by law to reverse that decline?

Judicial review ensures public authorities act within the law and fulfil duties placed upon them.

This case matters not only for the Conlon family or the fishermen of Lough Neagh. It matters for everyone who depends on clean water and responsible environmental governance.

Lough Neagh is central to Northern Ireland’s landscape, culture and water supply. Allowing it to decline year after year is not inevitable, nor acceptable.

Declan Conlon has shown courage in bringing this case. His aim is not only to defend his livelihood and way of life,  but to ensure the law protects the lough for future generations.

First court hearing for River Wye pollution claim

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

A first hearing for the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim will take place at the High Court in London on Monday, 27 April 2026.  

The claim, which is the biggest ever to be brought in the UK over domestic environmental pollution, now has more than 4,500 people on board.  

The hearing next week will determine key aspects of the way the case will be managed, including a timetable and a deadline for other residents and businesses to join the legal claim.  

River Action is supporting the legal claim and is organising a show of support outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the morning of the hearing. The giant Goddess of the Wye, a large-scale puppet symbolising the river, will appear outside the court alongside clean water campaigners calling for action to protect these threatened waterways. 

The legal claim is against industrial chicken producer Avara Foods Limited and its subsidiary Freemans of Newent Limited, as well as the region’s sewerage operator Welsh Water.  

It is argued that Avara’s and Freemans of Newent’s industrial chicken operations plus Welsh Water’s management of the sewerage system have resulted in widespread pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. All three defendants have denied the allegations. 

The High Court hearing on 27 April will see the parties appear in court for the first time to argue how the claims should be managed going forwards. The claimants will argue that the community should be given a longer opportunity to join this environmental legal action, and that the poultry defendants should be ordered to disclose details of the locations of their industrial poultry operations across the region.  

The legal claim against Avara, Freemans of Newent and Welsh Water alleges that pollution has been caused by water run-off from farmland containing high levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from poultry manure spread on the land as fertiliser. It also alleges bacteria and nutrient pollution in the rivers has been caused by the discharge of sewage directly into the rivers from Welsh Water sewerage systems.  

The claim was filed at the High Court in autumn 2025.

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland, who leads the claim, said: 

“This first court appearance marks an important step in the Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim. There has been a great deal of effort put in by the community and environmental campaigners to help drive the proceedings to this point, showing the strength of feeling from those involved about the state of the rivers. They feel that the government and regulators have not done enough to prevent the deterioration of these rivers, leaving court action as their only option to pursue environmental justice. 

“In this hearing, important aspects of case management such as deadlines for the next stages and disclosure of information by both sides will be determined. We are hoping for a positive outcome, and to be able to look ahead to presenting our clients’ arguments in full to the High Court in due course.”  

River Action’s head of legal Emma Dearnaley said: 

“This case comes at a critical time for some of our most cherished rivers and the communities connected to them. We believe industrial-scale chicken production supplying major supermarkets and fast-food chains has placed immense pressure on the Wye, Lugg and Usk, driving nutrient pollution levels that these sensitive ecosystems cannot absorb. Sewage pollution must also be reduced and stopped to reverse the decline of these rivers.  

“River Action supports this claim because it gives a voice to thousands of people who refuse to accept the continued degradation of their rivers. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of sewage pollution or an intensive farming model that we believe pollutes their waterways. This action offers an important way to hold those allegedly responsible to account and secure the systemic change needed to protect and restore our rivers for generations to come.”

Fisherman launches High Court challenge against DAERA over Lough Neagh pollution crisis

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

Eel fisherman Mr Declan Conlon, whose family has fished Lough Neagh for generations, has brought a judicial review against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).

The case argues that DAERA continues to rely on inadequate plans and unenforced pollution regimes despite clear evidence of ecological collapse over several years. It raises serious questions about how agricultural pollution is addressed by DAERA in Northern Ireland. 

Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the United Kingdom and Ireland, providing approximately 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water, has suffered years of severe blue-green algal blooms and ecological decline – which can be seen from space.

In a sworn affidavit to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Mr Conlon described the deep generational connection his family has to the lough.

“Our father James Gerard Conlon was an eel fisherman and his father Hughie Conlon before him was an eel fisherman. Going further back than that, beyond memory, my family would all have been fishermen.”

“My way of life has been destroyed by the blue-green algae and I want DAERA to do whatever is necessary to stop the algae and safeguard and protect Lough Neagh, the fish, the flies and the wildlife for the benefit of future generations.”

Speaking about the legal challenge, Declan Conlon said, “I’ve fished Lough Neagh all my life, just like my father and his father before him. Now I’m watching it die in front of my eyes. This isn’t just about my livelihood – it’s about justice for the lough before there’s nothing left for the next generation.”

Enda McGarrity, Director at P.A. Duffy & Co. and solicitor for Mr Conlon, said the case reflects the lived experience of those whose livelihoods depend on the health of the lough and is about securing justice for Lough Neagh and the communities who rely on it.

“Declan Conlon has fished Lough Neagh his entire life, and what he is witnessing in recent years is a collapse unlike anything seen before.

“Where there was once abundance, there are now no flies for the eels to feed on, barely any birds, and stretches of water that smell so foul you cannot stand near them.

“He has seen the impact with his own eyes, from wildlife disappearing to reports of animals becoming sick after contact with the water. The blue-green algae is not just unsightly; it poses a real risk to health.

“Declan did not take this case lightly. He has brought this challenge because he believes the lough, his livelihood, his way of life, and the community that depends on it deserve proper protection under the law.”

River Action UK and Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland will apply to intervene in Mr Conlon’s legal challenge concerning the ongoing pollution crisis affecting the lough.

We are seeking to intervene in the judicial review to help the Court assess whether DAERA is complying with its legal duties to protect Lough Neagh. By drawing on recent legal cases addressing agricultural waste, nutrient pollution and river basin planning in England, River Action hopes to establish that DAERA must put in place clear, enforceable measures to reduce pollution and restore the health of the lough and its internationally important habitats.

River Action’s Head of Legal Emma Dearnaley said, “Declan Conlon’s case raises urgent questions about whether enough is being done to tackle the pollution driving the decline of Lough Neagh. When pollution persists year after year and ecological harm becomes impossible to ignore, it is right to ask whether the legal frameworks designed to protect Northern Ireland’s waters are being properly applied. River Action seeks to assist the Court in answering that question. 

“For too long, decision-makers have relied on plans and promises while pollution has continued and Lough Neagh has visibly deteriorated. We hope this case will help bring about the clear, enforceable action needed to reduce pollution and restore this vital ecosystem.”

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said, “As a national organisation, River Action hopes to make sure that all jurisdictions in the UK are taking a correct and consistent approach to dealing with the acute pollution crisis in our rivers and lakes. 

“They have already established important legal principles in cases brought in England, and they hope that they can bring these principles to bear in Mr Conlon’s case. This would not only be for the benefit of Lough Neagh, but also every other water body at risk of ecological collapse in Northern Ireland.”

Friends of the Earth NI has been campaigning to protect Lough Neagh for decades. Standing in solidarity with communities and grassroots groups such as Save Lough Neagh, Friends of the Earth NI is committed to seeking justice for Lough Neagh, whether that be inside our Courts or outside. 

Over 50,000 people have supported Friends of the Earth NI’s five point plan for a just settlement for the Lough. 

James Orr, Director, Northern Ireland, Friends of the Earth said, “Lough Neagh is dying and it is dying in plain sight.

“It is a sad indictment of the state of our environmental protection regime that it has taken a local fisherman to challenge government inaction through the Courts to protect the Lough.

“For generations the lough and its communities have been betrayed by those in power. Yet again, taking this case shows the leadership to protect our life support systems is coming from our local communities.” 

River Action launches legal challenge, accusing NRW of “washing its hands” of intensive poultry pollution

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

We have launched a judicial review challenging Natural Resources Wales (NRW)’ approval of three expanded poultry farms in Powys, accusing the regulator of “washing its hands” of manure pollution by taking an unlawfully narrow view of its powers.

The case focuses on whether NRW is properly using its role as environmental regulator to prevent pollution from intensive farming or whether responsibility is being passed to others while Welsh river catchments such as the Wye and the Severn continue to deteriorate. 

The legal challenge follows NRW’s decision in November 2025 to approve permit variations allowing three intensive poultry units to expand in Powys. In doing so, NRW proceeded on the basis that the environmental impacts of manure once it leaves the farm boundary fall outside permitting and should instead be addressed through the planning system, without first being satisfied that effective and enforceable pollution controls would actually be put in place elsewhere.  

We say NRW’s approach is a serious misunderstanding of the law, and that NRW misdirected itself by proceeding on the basis that it had no power under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 to assess or regulate the off-site environmental impacts of manure, and so excluded those impacts from its permitting decisions altogether. We also say NRW has misinterpreted recent court judgments – including Squire v Shropshire Council, NFU v Herefordshire Council and Caffyn v Shropshire Council – to justify its position.  

We argue that, properly understood, the law requires NRW to assess and prevent potential pollution impacts that could arise if manure is exported off-site – rather than ruling them out or passing the buck. 

This case matters because environmental permitting is meant to prevent unacceptable pollution before it happens, and Parliament specifically entrusted NRW as Wales’ environmental regulator with making those decisions, rather than deferring responsibility on a mistaken understanding of its powers or assumptions about future planning controls. 

NRW’s sister regulator in England, the Environment Agency, accepts its responsibility for preventing and controlling potential water pollution through the permitting process. We believe there is “no rational basis” for NRW taking a narrower approach in Wales and not taking responsibility. 

If left unchallenged, NRW’s approach could create a significant regulatory gap. This could allow intensive poultry units, and potentially other industrial-scale agricultural operations, to expand without effective control of one of their most environmentally damaging consequences, even in protected and sensitive river catchments such as the Wye and Severn. 

“Pollution from intensive poultry farming doesn’t stop at the farm boundary, and regulation can’t lawfully stop there either,” said River Action’s Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley. “NRW has treated the boundary of the installation as the boundary of its regulatory responsibility, even though the environmental harm caused by excess manure occurs well beyond that line.”

Manure from intensive poultry farming is a major source of nutrient pollution in Welsh rivers, contributing to algal blooms, declining water quality and ecological damage in catchments including the Wye and the Severn. River Action says that environmental permitting is a vital tool to prevent this harm, particularly where planning controls are absent, delayed or ineffective. 

“NRW exists to prevent pollution, not to pass responsibility elsewhere,” Emma Dearnaley added. “If the regulator assumes someone else will deal with manure pollution without securing meaningful safeguards, rivers like the Wye and the Severn will continue to decline.”

After months of objections, correspondence and pre-action engagement, We are asking the court to declare that NRW’s interpretation of its powers was wrong, make clear NRW must lawfully assess and regulate manure-related impacts through environmental permitting where they are a consequence of the permitted activity, and quash the three Powys permit decisions. 

The case is about ensuring environmental regulation works as Parliament intended, preventing pollution before harm occurs rather than wrongly passing responsibility to others or reacting after damage has already been done to our rivers.

Leigh Day solicitor Julia Eriksen said, “NRW’s decision to vary existing environmental permits on three intensive poultry farms will enable thousands more chickens to be housed and produce significantly more manure. River Action argues that it is NRW’s job to guard against any resulting pollution impacts.

“River Action has already secured a court ruling that rules around agricultural pollution should be properly enforced, and hopes this claim for judicial review will make it clearer still what responsibilities NRW has in this area.”

Our Pre-Action Protocol letter to NRW can be read here. NRW’s response is here. 

You can read our Statement of Facts and Grounds in full here.

Campaign update: Our legal action against Ofwat

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

We took Ofwat to court to protect customers from paying twice and our rivers from sewage pollution

 

This week, the High Court finished hearing our legal challenge of Ofwat’s approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy in its latest price review (PR24). The hearing took place over three days on 4, 5 and 17 November.

River Action, working with Leigh Day and expert barristers David Wolfe KC and Nicholas Ostrowski, brought this case to address our serious concerns about Ofwat’s approach. We argued that Ofwat’s current methods could allow water companies to charge billpayers again for environmental improvement works that they have already paid for, despite its promise that customers should not pay twice. We challenged Ofwat’s failure to require water companies to demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations as part of its price control exercise, as it said it would. We also highlighted flaws and gaps in Ofwat’s “clawback” mechanism, intended to prevent double funding when water companies fail to meet their environmental obligations.

Ofwat defended its approach, arguing that it never intended to look at actual compliance by water companies as part of its price-setting process and said that this was a reasonable approach to take given its regulatory function.  Ofwat said that its clawback mechanism did not need to be explained in PR24 and that it intended to develop a more detailed framework.

During the hearing, the court considered detailed evidence on Ofwat’s PR24 process and methodologies, including exchanges between campaigner Matt Staniek of Save Windermere and Ofwat’s CEO. The court also looked at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution’s evidence of illegal sewage discharges into Lake Windermere by United Utilities, the case study at the heart of the claim.

We think that this case has uncovered significant issues with Ofwat’s regulatory approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy, with internal documents released in response to the claim revealing gaps in Ofwat’s understanding and enforcement of water company compliance with environmental law. As well as Ofwat’s approach likely allowing some form of double funding, these shortcomings are contributing to the ongoing sewage pollution crisis.

Due to the complexity of the issues, a judgment is not expected for several weeks. We will provide a further update as soon as the judgment is handed down.

Regardless of the legal outcome, we will continue to push for regulatory reform to ensure that billpayers do not pay twice for urgently needed infrastructure improvements and that water companies are properly held to account to stop sewage polluting our rivers.

River Action launches legal challenge against the Government over Thames Water failures

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

River Action launches legal challenge over Government’s failure to explain when it will trigger special administration for Thames Water


We have filed a legal claim over Environment Secretary Steve Reed’s failure to explain when he will trigger special administration for Thames Water and other failing water companies – despite having the legal mechanism to take action, serious breaches by Thames Water, rising harm to customers and rivers, and calls from the Independent Water Commission for a clearer policy.

Our legal challenge is simple: we say that the Environment Secretary has acted unlawfully by failing to have or publish a policy on when he will use his power to ask the High Court to put a water company in the Special Administration Regime (SAR) – a mechanism under existing legislation specifically designed to enable the government to take action to deal with failing water companies.

This comes amid the deepening crisis at Thames Water, which has repeatedly breached environmental law, mismanaged its finances, failed to invest adequately in infrastructure, and shattered investor confidence and customer trust. Thames Water is on the brink of collapse with £20 billion in debt and widely regarded as no longer investable, with customers and the environment paying the price.

Steve Reed as Environment Secretary or Ofwat as water regulator (with his approval) have the power under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to ask the High Court to place a water company in special administration on either financial or performance grounds.

Special administration is a temporary insolvency and restructuring process for companies that provide essential public services like water, energy or transport. It is designed to ensure continuity of service while the company is stabilised and restructured. There is a bespoke special administration regime for the water industry, created in 1991 and designed to prioritise customers and services, putting financial interests second. Where water companies are failing, special administration can provide better, fairer and more sustainable outcomes – with the major benefit that it gives the water company the ability to recover and refinance with the opportunity for funds to be redirected away from investor profits towards the urgent infrastructure improvements needed to solve the ongoing sewage crisis, all without exposing its customers and at little cost to the public purse. Yet special administration has never been used for the water industry.

Thames Water has breached its duties and violated its licence conditions, seriously and repeatedly. It is the clearest possible case for special administration.

River Action’s legal challenge

The judicial review is concerned with the legal requirement for the Environment Secretary to have a policy for when he will trigger special administration for water companies. The claim challenges two key failings by the Government:

  1. Failure to publish a policy, breaching core public law duties.
  2. Failure to develop a policy at all, breaching obligations under the Habitats Regulations and other planning and environmental law.

Special administration is not limited to insolvency. It can also be used to protect customers and the environment when a water company is failing to meet performance standards. Our claim focuses on the Government’s approach to triggering a performance-based special administration process.

Under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991, special administration can be triggered by a water company’s failure to meet performance standards and a breach of its statutory or licence duties in ways that are “serious enough to make it inappropriate for the company to continue to hold its licence”. We believe that Thames Water clearly meets this threshold and has done so for years.

Independent Water Commission on Special Administration 

Last week, the Independent Water Commission, chaired by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Jon Cunliffe said that “the policy around SAR assessment should be set out more clearly”.  The Commission also said that “SAR should be a practical option for the regulator and government” and stressed the importance of water companies preparing a plan for SAR now.

A route to public benefit models

We believe that special administration represents the most effective and immediate means of addressing the failures within the water industry. We see special administration as the first step toward meaningful and necessary systemic reform including providing the opportunity for a shift to a public benefit model of water ownership, governance and financing, of the type seen successfully implemented across Europe.

We are calling for the urgent use of special administration procedures for Thames Water as a tool to stabilise and reset using public benefit principles, with other failing water companies to follow as necessary.

Frequently Asked Questions

 

What is the Water Industry Special Administration Regime (SAR)?

The Water Industry Special Administration Regime (SAR) was introduced in England and Wales under the Water Industry Act 1991, with detailed procedures governed by the Water Industry (Special Administration) Rules 2009 and a comprehensive modernisation of the regime in early 2024. The legislative intent behind this regime is to protect consumers, public health and the environment in the event that a regulated water or sewerage company becomes insolvent (an insolvency SAR) or fails to carry out its statutory functions or licensed activities to such an extent that it is inappropriate for it to continue to hold its appointment or licence (a performance SAR).

An application for special administration of a water company may only be made by the Secretary of State or Ofwat with the Secretary of State’s consent. This contrasts starkly with normal administration under the Insolvency Act 1986 which can be applied for by creditors, the company or a director.

Special administration allows the Government to:

  • Appoint independent special administrators;
  • Restructure failing companies and their debt (the focus of an insolvency SAR);
  • Restore and maintain performance standards (the focus of a performance SAR);
  • Ensure water and wastewater services continue without interruption.

Importantly, the special administration regime is designed to keep services running using the company’s own revenues – from ongoing customer bills – not taxpayer funding. It is intended as a mechanism for accountability and  reform, not a bailout.

What are the details of the judicial review claim?

On 7 March 2025, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“SSEFRA”) to ask whether the SSEFRA or the SSEFRA’s ministers had given consideration to whether it would be appropriate to exercise their discretionary power to apply to the High Court to have Thames Water placed into special administration in light of the contraventions of its “principal duties” in accordance with section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

In response, the SSEFRA has refused to provide details of any such policy and has simply contended that there was no requirement to have a “written document or policy”.

Accordingly, we have three grounds of review:

  • Ground 1: Failure to publish a policy. The SSEFRA has a policy on the circumstances in which he will exercise his discretion pursuant to section 24 WIA and has acted unlawfully in failing to publish that policy.
  • Ground 2: Failure to have a policy. If, contrary to Ground 1, the SSEFRA does not have such a policy, that is in breach of Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).
  • Ground 3: Failure to have a policy. If, contrary to Ground 1, the SSEFRA does not have such a policy, that is in breach of section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as amended by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023.

We are seeking a mandatory order that SSEFRA either provides details of any policy or, if there is no policy, requires a policy to be developed and published.

Why does Thames Water need to be brought into Special Administration?

  • Persistent failures: Thames Water has a long record of breaching environmental, financial, and regulatory obligations.
  • Record fine: In May 2025, Thames Water was fined nearly £123 million by water regulator Ofwat for breaches of rules relating to its wastewater operations (£104.5 million) and breaches of rules relating to dividend payments (£18.2 million). This is the largest penalty Ofwat has ever issued.
  • Investor confidence collapsing: KKR, Thames Water’s preferred buyer, pulled out of negotiations leaving its various existing lenders as the only option.  Thames Water’s creditors have reportedly demanded that the company and its management be granted immunity from prosecution for serious environmental crimes as a condition of their restructuring proposals, without which Thames Water has said it would not be “investable”.
  • Inflated cost claims: The Treasury has claimed placing Thames Water into special administration could cost up to £4 billion – with reports it told DEFRA that it would have to meet these costs from DEFRA’s annual budget totalling £4.6 billion. Independent experts such as Professor Ewan McGaughey and Professor Dieter Helm believe the £4 billion figure is overstated and politically driven, with the likely costs being much lower and likely to be recouped by the Government on exit from administration.

 

What is the Independent Water Commission’s view on Special Administration?

On 21 July 2025, Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission published its 88 final recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments for the reform of the water sector.

Two recommendations were made in relation to the special administration regime:

  • Recommendation 46: The regulator in England and Wales should continue to adopt an evidence-based process to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether it would be appropriate for a water company to transition to an alternative ownership model where they request to do so or following a Special Administration Regime.
  • Recommendation 59: The regulator in England and Wales should develop and consult on a framework for ensuring companies are prepared for SAR.

In relation to Recommendation 59, the Commission said:

“793. The Commission believes the SAR should be a practical option for the regulator and government but that it should be very much a last resort. However well prepared, a SAR would be a major exercise which carries some risk of disruption to the company’s operation. The Commission notes that lowering the threshold for SAR would increase costs to customers through higher financing given the increased risk on investors. The Commission is also mindful of the risks in creating automatic triggers – experience in insolvency and similar regimes in other sectors, including financial services, is that conditions and circumstances of individual cases vary widely and cannot be anticipated. There is a need for broad, judgement based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider. In the Commission’s view the two current tests for entry into SAR effectively balance objective and subjective factors and include an appropriate level of judgement.  It believes, however, that the policy around making the SAR assessment should be set out more clearly.

794. The Commission believes that further practical steps can be taken to ensure the SAR is a credible, but low probability, threat. In particular, as part of the SAR policy set out above, the regulator should develop and consult on a framework for ensuring companies prepare a plan for SAR. This should consider what the practical barriers to SAR might be, and how these can be mitigated in advance.”

Although the Commission’s recommendations focus on the regulator, its comments around the need for a clearer policy for special administration logically apply to both Ofwat as regulator and SSEFRA, as the two authorities with the power to petition the High Court for a special administration order.

River Action granted permission to proceed with legal challenge against Ofwat 

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

Ofwat has forced customers to pay twice for water industry failures – and we are calling for urgent regulatory reform

We are taking water regulator Ofwat to a full court hearing, to challenge the approach Ofwat took when it set the price that water companies like United Utilities can charge their customers.

Ofwat’s approach was unlawful and, as a result of regulatory failings, the financial burden of water industry infrastructure neglect has been pushed onto customers – rather than those responsible.

The case is proceeding amid intensified calls for an overhaul of Ofwat, with growing scrutiny from the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, into whether the regulator is fit for purpose. We are calling for a reform of the regulator and, in particular, for Ofwat to stop water companies passing the costs of failures on to the public.

Water bill hikes – with no guarantees for the future

At the heart of the case is Ofwat’s 2024 Price Review (PR24), which approved above-inflation water bill increases, including an average annual rise of £123 per household, without guaranteeing the money will be spent on new infrastructure rather than plugging the gaps left by decades of underinvestment.

The legal challenge follows investigations by campaigners Matt Staniek and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP), which exposed chronic sewage pollution in the Lake Windermere area and regulatory failings around PR24.

While the claim focuses on the PR24 determination for United Utilities in relation to water works in and around Lake Windermere, River Action thinks it exposes fundamental failures in Ofwat’s approach – with national implications.

Lake Windmere, Algea blooms | Matt Staniek ©

Customers are being forced to pay twice

The regulator’s decision allows water companies, such as United Utilities, to charge customers twice: first for water bills that should have covered infrastructure maintenance and then again through new hikes aimed at fixing the same problems.

In August 2024, United Utilities was granted “enhanced funding” to upgrade sewage treatment works around Windermere. This approval came despite evidence submitted to Ofwat showing over 6,000 hours of raw sewage discharges in the lake in a single year. Ofwat ignored this data in favour of hydraulic simulation modelling, which fails to reflect on-the-ground conditions.

Legal grounds: flawed modelling, weak enforcement

Permission has been granted for all of our three grounds. Represented by law firm Leigh Day, we will argue that:

  • Ground 1: Ofwat approach to its own “not paying twice” policy was unlawful because it relied on theoretical hydraulic simulation modelling instead of the reality on the ground as seen in evidence provided to Ofwat.
  • Ground 2: Ofwat lacks a meaningful clawback mechanism if water companies misuse funds.
  • Ground 3: Ofwat failed to conduct legally adequate investigations into whether its approach is adequate.

A broken system that needs reform

River Action’s Head of Legal Emma Dearnaley said,

Ricardo Gama, partner at Leigh Day, added:

River Action wins landmark High Court case against Shropshire Council over industrial chicken farm chaos

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

High Court ruling sets national precedent that marks turning point for polluting factory farming in the UK

We have won a major legal victory in the High Court against Shropshire Council today, successfully overturning the approval of a 200,000-bird intensive poultry unit near Shrewsbury in the River Severn catchment. The High Court judgment marks a pivotal moment in the movement against factory farming in the UK.

The case was brought by local campaigner and River Action board member Dr Alison Caffyn, supported by River Action. The judgment quashes Shropshire Council’s planning decision and marks a major turning point in the fight against the irresponsible and harmful spread of factory farms and the protection of the UK’s iconic rivers.

This victory sends a clear message that planning authorities must:

1)  Assess the cumulative impacts of having multiple intensive agricultural developments in one river catchment before granting permission for another.

2) Consider how livestock production units dispose of the waste from treatment facilities downstream, including from anaerobic digestion plants.

The case highlights systemic failures to account for the environmental toll of having clusters of industrial-scale poultry farms in one area causing “ecological death by thousands of tonnes of chicken muck.”

It has shone a light on the problems with the planning system when it comes to agricultural developments in precious and protected environmental sites, such as the River Severn and River Wye catchments.

This case has importantly clarified the approach that local authorities across the country will need to take to properly assess the cumulative and downstream environmental impacts of any future intensive farming developments in protected areas. This will mean taking a combined approach when assessing new intensive agricultural developments instead of viewing them as being unconnected to what is already there.

A watershed moment for rivers

The judicial review focused on Shropshire Council’s failure to lawfully assess the environmental impact of the development, including the widespread and damaging practice of spreading poultry manure or digestate on surrounding land.

Key issues upheld by the court included:

  • Failure to assess cumulative impacts: The council failed to assess the total impacts of the development alongside other existing ones (including increases to chicken numbers consented through environmental permits instead of planning permissions).
    Failure to assess indirect environmental impacts: The council failed to lawfully assess the downstream impacts of the development, in particular the spreading of digestate on land.

Legal significance

The tide of megafarm pollution is turning

This judgment follows several recent challenges against industrial agriculture. In March, the High Court ruled in The National Farmers’ Union v Herefordshire Council that farming manure constitutes industrial waste in law, with significant implications for the sustainable management of manure-as-waste across the UK. Earlier this year, a proposed megafarm in Methwold, Norfolk was rejected over environmental concerns including the need to take full climate impacts into account when deciding whether to grant permission and the need to properly manage waste to prevent air and water pollution.

With the future of megafarms and our iconic rivers at a crossroads, the government now needs to drive industry-wide reform.

We hope that today’s victory will be a turning point in agricultural planning and policy, putting environmental health at the heart of decisions, stopping the spread of unsustainable megafarms and delivering proper protection for our rivers.

The grant of planning permission was quashed by the court.

Shropshire Council will not be appealing the decision.

Read the full judgment here.

Severn in crisis: Why we took Shropshire Council to the High Court

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
By Emma Dearnaley, Head of Legal, River Action

Last Wednesday and Thursday, we went to court to challenge Shropshire Council’s approval of yet another huge intensive poultry unit (watch the highlights in the video below). Our aim: to stop the unsustainable spread of factory farming across the county as part of River Action’s nationwide campaign to prevent further devastating river pollution from industrial agricultural practices.

 

The counties of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Powys are home to more than 50 million chickens at any one time, placing huge ecological pressures on the rivers Wye and Severn. The enormous quantities of manure produced by intensive livestock farming results in significant air and water pollution due to ammonia emissions and the deposition of nitrogen and phosphorus. For years, Shropshire Council has been approving application after application, allowing the significant expansion of intensive poultry units in the Severn catchment area. And, although measures outside the planning regime regulate certain activities that are carried out at poultry units (such as the spreading of manure on farmland), they have not been able to protect designated sites from the environmental impacts of manure. As the judge noted in the recent case of NFU v Herefordshire Council (in which River Action successfully intervened), non-planning measures have “beyond any doubt… failed to protect the environment from harm”.

Put simply, there are too many chickens located in precious and protected river catchments such as the Severn – causing ecological death by thousands of tonnes of chicken manure. My colleague Drew talks more about this problem in his blog. 

The case we launched last week concerns the Council’s decision to grant permission for LJ Cooke & Son to build a unit housing 200,000 chickens in Felton Butler – right in the centre of the Severn catchment close to ecologically sensitive Ramsar sites and only 400 metres from an existing site holding nearly 500,000 birds – despite increasing concerns about the environmental impacts of this development and others like it.

We brought this legal challenge with River Action board member Dr Alison Caffyn to try to stop the new Felton Butler site. The case also has the potential to set a national precedent for how planning decisions are made by ensuring the environmental impacts of new intensive farms are properly assessed in combination with the impacts of existing ones. This is really important when the reality is that pollution extends beyond one individual agricultural development and impacts the wider area. A whole catchment approach to planning, management and enforcement is needed to address the issues facing our severely polluted rivers. This case seeks to develop the law and raise awareness to make the necessary systemic changes happen.

Dr Alison Caffyn (centre left, next to our CEO, James Wallace), River Action team and activists outside court

Before the hearing

Outside the legal process, we gathered early last Wednesday morning in front of the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre as part of River Action’s community-led demonstration – a visual representation of ‘too many chickens’ and an opportunity to bring the issues at the centre of the case to regional and national attention.

In a career first (but hopefully not last), I experienced a beautiful and moving water ceremony. A vial of water from the River Severn and the legal team were blessed in a ceremony led by Vey Straker as Lady Wye and Kim Kaos as Goddess of the Severn, with each of us choosing a word to describe a quality of the River Severn to evoke – with clarity, transparency, health, renewal and rebalance among those taken with us into the courtroom.

Water cermony performed by the ‘Lady of the Wye’ to our legal team

During the hearing 

The two-day hearing involved complex legal arguments, with the judge asking detailed questions of counsel for each of the parties involved.

The case is a significant test of the legal principles governing environmental impact assessments (and, in particular, the assessment of indirect effects as recently considered in the cases of Squire and Finch), the use of planning conditions and the Habitats Regulations in the context of intensive livestock farming.

In court, David Wolfe KC representing Alison – with the vial of Severn water carefully placed on his desk – argued that Shropshire Council had failed to lawfully assess the effects of manure being taken off-site, acted unlawfully by imposing a condition which failed to prevent the spreading of manure on land and failed to carry out a lawful assessment of the development’s environmental impacts. He argued that a holistic approach needs to be taken to properly assess the cumulative effects and ecological damage of having many poultry units across the same river catchment.

In response, Shropshire Council and LJ Cooke & Son argued that impacts are controlled by the Farming Rules for Water (the regulatory regime found to be lacking in NFU v Herefordshire) and that the condition to take manure away to be processed on third-party land was required because the proposed new development was not large enough to handle the amount of manure that would be produced.

Ricardo Gama, solicitor at Leigh Day next to our CEO, James Wallace and Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley

After the hearing

Whichever way the judgment goes (and judicial review cases are never easy to win), this case raises urgent and national-level questions: Should planning permission be granted for new factory farms near protected sites? Can local councils rely on promises from developers without enforceable safeguards or meaningful oversight? And are current environmental rules enough to protect our rivers from the proliferation of industrial-scale agriculture?

At the heart of this case is the crucial issue of whether environmental protections are being taken seriously in planning decisions — or whether councils long-term ecological risks are being undervalued in favour of short-term agricultural expansion. The outcome of this case could influence not only the fate of the Felton Butler site in Shropshire but also planning and environmental policy across the UK.

If the decision goes in our favour, councils will have more power to protect rivers from the growing pressures of agricultural pollution. This case could set a national precedent requiring more robust scrutiny of factory farming proposals – particularly in areas where multiple intensive livestock units operate within the same river catchment. It could also compel developers to produce more robust and enforceable waste management plans – building on the recent NFU v Herefordshire Council ruling, in which the High Court provided welcome clarification that livestock manure can be legally classified and treated as waste.

Some councils, like King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, are already rejecting factory farm proposals on environmental and climate grounds. I hope that this case will further empower councils to hold agricultural polluters to account. Now is the time to raise the bar for environmental protection – not lower it.

Following the hearing, Alison returned home to Shropshire – and the blessed vial of water to its rightful place in the River Severn. A decision in this case is expected in the next few weeks.

Our beautiful River Severn

Megafarms, Meet the Rule of Law: Why Methwold Matters

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
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.

Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.