Today the High Court has handed down its decision on the lawfulness of Ofwat’s approach to its policy that water company customers should ‘not pay twice’ for sewer overflow upgrades to achieve environmental compliance and reduce pollution of our waterways. Although River Action’s claim was dismissed, the case has resulted in important clarity and should result in a better regulatory approach.
Ofwat is responsible for regulating water companies and controls what they can charge customers through its five-year price reviews, with Ofwat’s Price Review 24 (PR24) exercise setting charges for the sixteen largest water companies from 2025-2030. Following investigations into water company compliance after widespread sewage discharges were revealed in 2021, Ofwat promised that customers would not pay twice for environmental improvement works that had previously been funded and should already have been delivered.
Last year, River Action took forward this case because investigatory work by Save Windermere and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution identified potential systemic failures in how Ofwat oversees compliance across the entire water industry and how it routinely signs off funding that could allow water companies to use customers’ money to rectify their own past non-compliance. As well as ensuring customers do not pay twice, the key issue from River Action’s perspective is the significant long-term failures of water and sewerage companies to upgrade storm overflows, sewage treatment works and pumping stations to comply with environmental law because the sewage pollution that results from those infrastructure failures is causing harm to our rivers and lakes.
Internal documents that only emerged as a result of this litigation revealed significant confusion at Ofwat, indicating Ofwat may have failed to follow its ‘not paying twice’ policy because, as it admitted privately but not publicly, “some historical investment programmes now appear to fall short of what should have been required to comply”. Those documents showed that Ofwat did not know whether there was full compliance and whether customers would ultimately pay twice in some instances because Ofwat had failed to look at Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (UWWTR) compliance as well as environmental permit compliance. This is a major mistake that, unless monitored closely in the future, could result in billions of pounds of investment being spent on environmental improvements that should already have been delivered.
At the hearing, River Action argued that Ofwat’s approach was flawed and unlawful because:
Ground 1: Ofwat’s approach to implementing its ‘not paying twice’ policy was unreasonable because to actually show that customers would not pay twice (1) water companies needed to demonstrate current compliance (namely the reality on the ground, not simply assuming or modelling compliance) and (2) water companies needed to demonstrate customers would not pay twice for improvements that should have already happened. Essentially, our complaint was that Ofwat had publicly said that companies would have to demonstrate compliance but then dropped that requirement without explaining why.
Ground 2: Ofwat’s ‘clawback’ mechanism is flawed and incomplete because it is limited to double funding of permit compliance and does not deal with double funding of UWWTR compliance, despite Ofwat’s internal documents revealing both are required. This means it falls short of operating to ensure that customers will not pay twice.
The High Court has today ruled that Ofwat’s approach was lawful because Ofwat’s evidence provided a ‘sufficient logical basis’ for its approach. In reaching its decision, the Court said that Ofwat has ‘significant latitude’ when looking at the legality of its decisions relating to price controls and compliance because of its role and responsibilities as a regulator.
But the Court did not fully grapple with River Action’s case, focusing on whether Ofwat’s use of modelling data was in line with its ‘not paying twice’ policy but not addressing our key argument that Ofwat’s policy also requires companies to actually show permit compliance. The Court has also not addressed the regulatory gap that exists between Ofwat and the Environment Agency when looking at permit compliance.
There was a positive outcome on the issue of the ‘clawback’ mechanism (intended to prevent double funding when water companies cannot provide evidence of promised improvements towards the end of a price review period). At the hearing, it became clear that Ofwat has yet to settle the rules that will decide whether any clawback should occur, meaning this argument was found by the Court to be ‘premature’. This was a welcome clarification and leaves the issue open so that the clawback mechanism can be fixed and used by Ofwat to make sure customers do not pay twice.
Essentially, in dismissing River Action’s claim, the Court has said that it thinks Ofwat’s approach is good enough because in theory Ofwat might be able to ‘clawback’ money that is spent in breach of Ofwat’s ‘not paying twice’ policy.
That does not mean the water regulator should not do better. It can and it must.
Our legal challenge has shone a light on problems with Ofwat’s regulatory approach and highlighted the urgent need for reform. Going forward, the regulator must not allow customers to pay twice by ensuring that water companies comply with both permit compliance and compliance under the UWWTR. Ofwat must also settle the clawback mechanism so that it works in relation to both permit schemes and UWWTR schemes.
While we waited for judgment, in December 2025, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) published notices and reports finding that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra failed to properly enforce the law relating to sewage discharges from combined sewer overflows. The OEP’s findings show that Ofwat did not understand for decades that it had a duty to enforce environmental compliance under the Water Industry Act and the UWWTR, only recognising in June 2022 it had this important enforcement function in addition to ensuring assets comply with their permits. This supports our case that Ofwat has not required full compliance in past price reviews and was trying to play catch-up in PR24, while claiming publicly that it only needed to look at permit compliance despite knowing that was only part of the picture.
This judgment and the OEP’s findings are timely as, following the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, this Government now looks to overhaul the water sector including by creating a new integrated regulator to replace Ofwat and bring together economic, environmental and water quality regulation. The Independent Water Commission also made recommendations relevant to regulatory gaps in holding water companies to account for the delivery of infrastructure projects and customers not paying twice.
Whatever form the future regulator takes, its approach on this fundamental issue should be clear, transparent and fully compliant. Customers must not compensate water companies for poor performance by paying twice for improvements that have not been delivered. And the regulator must hold water companies fully accountable by enforcing all relevant laws.
We will not be appealing the decision. Our focus now is on continuing to push for the major regulatory reform needed to ensure real oversight and enforcement, so water companies are properly held to account and sewage pollution is stopped for good.
Tag: Legal
River Action launches legal challenge, accusing NRW of “washing its hands” of intensive poultry pollution
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.
The “Make a Nuisance” Campaign: Using the Law to Speak Up for Our Rivers
By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator at River Action
When River speaks, what does River say?
When River is harmed, how does a body of water make its cries heard?
And when we step in to speak for River, through our human legal systems, whose voice do we really use?
At River Action, we recently helped amplify a cry for the river through the launch of the ‘Make A Nuisance’ campaign. The campaign creates a way to speak through the law. Working alongside Friends of the Thames and 15 people from 13 different areas across the Thames catchment, we supported local residents to submit Statutory Nuisance complaints about Thames Water to their local authority. The aim of the campaign is to create a collective noise, which further holds Thames Water to account by enabling community members to take direct action using a powerful legal tool.
Statutory nuisance law is a long standing area of UK law which requires local councils to investigate harms from pollution or noise. If the pollution is found to be causing a problem, the council enforces the polluter, Thames Water, to seize and desist the action, sewage pollution, through Abatement Notices.
In order to ensure the letters were rooted in real life experiences of pollution, the participants were responsible for gathering stories and data to evidence their complaints. This included photos of sewage smears on rowing boats, data from nutrient and pathogen tests, and testimonies from local people who had become sick from swimming. This was complimented by compelling evidence on failing sewage treatment works gathered by River Action’s Campaigns Analyst Dr Samir Seddougui. Their letters were accompanied by an attachment outlining the relevant legal procedures, prepared by our Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley, alongside lawyers from Leigh Day.
Using statutory nuisance as a campaigning tool is powerful, as it uses the law to allow local people to have their voice heard. This is useful where previously the community’s lived experience of the sewage crisis has been dismissed and sidelined. The campaign challenges this by forcing responsibility back into a system where regulation repeatedly stalls and accountability slips. The process creates formal records, duties, and pressure. It is slow, procedural, and intentional — not a protest stunt – however, it has the potential to make substantial change.
Statutory nuisance as a form of protest offers a unique way to demand action, however, when used to speak for nature, we must consider its limits. Statutory nuisance is unapologetically human-centred. The law exists to protect residents from activities that interfere with their health, comfort, or enjoyment of their home or local environment, and it places a duty on local councils to investigate and act when such interference occurs. It fundamentally is concerned with human’s experience of the environment, not the environment’s own experience. The river has no legal standing without humans.
This is not to say this is the perception across the world. The Whanganui river is often cited in nature writing as an example of a river with legal personhood. The river was granted personhood in 2017 after 140 years of negotiations fought by the Māori group of Whanganui, who consider the river as their ancestor. With personhood status, if the Whanganui river is harmed, the law recognises this as a harm to the Maori group. The group and the river are one connected being. In the UK, we do not have the same recognitions in place; in legal standing what harms nature does not harm us. Lawfully, we are not one and the same with the world around us.
Despite these legal limitations, the people who wrote nuisance complaints are deeply connected to the Thames and its tributaries. They are rowers, swimmers, house boat dwellers, kayakers, and citizen scientists. They rely on the river for community, exercise, business, as well as spiritual and mental wellbeing. And despite its limitations, the campaign is genuinely exciting, as a community-led action, with people taking initiative to use law as something real; not a distant inaccessible tool, but something that propels momentum and possibility for change.
This connection is reflected in the experience of campaigner Blake Ludwig, who took part in the Make A Nuisance campaign on the River Kennet:
“We have to see that water isn’t simply a dead material for us to use at our leisure, or as a waste receptacle… Through collecting evidence and building a nuisance complaint, I’ve come to understand how invisible pollution can be — and how only long-term relationship, observation and care allow us to really see what’s happening to our rivers.”
What the system of nuisance complaints tells us is that we live in a climate which recognises people and nature as separate. We have not retained the historic kinship between human and nature which the Maori people have. In our social system a person is legible through documents, numbers, and certificates. Personhood is administrative. Within this system, the river’s voice is only heard when it passes through us. So we therefore have a duty to nature to ensure that nature’s voice is heard.
And how do we do that authentically? By knowing a river as we might know a family member, and caring for it as we would a friend. And all the while recognising that a river is not human at all. A river is a living system with its own rhythms, flow, and resilience, deserving of respect not because it resembles us, but because it exists in its own right.
When I talk about sewage pollution, I am often asked by wild swimmers if they should stop their beloved sport. The answer is no. Not because the dangers aren’t present, they are, but because connection matters. By spending time and interacting with the river, we are able to create a deep and intimate relationship with the river.
The power of the Make a Nuisance campaign has come from people who live entwined, not separate, from the river. So the work, for now, is slow, careful and continuous. Keep swimming, keep connecting, keep being with the river. Speak to the river, and the river may well speak through you.
Meet Christian Fuller, River Action’s new Legal Coordinator
Q1. Tell us about yourself
Hi, I’m Christian, and I’ve recently joined River Action as Legal Coordinator.
I grew up in Conwy, where the Eryri National Park was a constant part of my life. Those early experiences shaped my relationship with nature: not something to dominate, but something we live alongside and have responsibilities towards.
Before joining River Action, I worked across environmental law, political monitoring, and campaigning, most recently at Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Alongside this, I’ve been involved in political and environmental campaigning through SERA, Labour’s environment campaign. I’ve just moved back to the UK, and I’m really excited to be putting my skills to use protecting rivers and supporting the communities that depend on them.
Q2. What first sparked your interest in protecting rivers and freshwater ecosystems?
I am lucky to have spent a lot of time kayaking and swimming in rivers and lakes. As I got older, seeing those same rivers increasingly affected by pollution, sewage discharges, the climate crisis and ecological decline made the crisis feel both urgent and personal. Historically, geographically, and politically, rivers are meeting points in the British Isles. Rivers are the places where the climate and biodiversity crisis, corporate exploitation and weak enforcement meet, but they are also the space where we can come together to write something new.
Q3. You have just spent 6 months at Greenpeace International. Can you describe the work you did there, the campaigns you were involved with, and what you learned from that experience?
After completing a Masters in International Environmental Law at Utrecht University, I joined the Greenpeace International Legal Unit in Amsterdam for a six-month internship. What stayed with me most was seeing how powerful the law can be when it’s used alongside campaigning and political pressure. I supported strategic litigation across several campaigns: challenging unlawful deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction; pursuing accountability for forced labour at sea in corporate supply chains; and using European law to resist a multi-million-dollar SLAPP suit brought by a US oil company against Greenpeace. I was also lucky enough to attend the International Court of Justice’s historic Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and to scope future climate litigation to build on 2025’s historic legal victories.
Q4. You serve as an executive committee member at the Socialist Environment and Resources Association (SERA). Could you tell us more about that role, what the organisation does, and how that experience shaped your approach to environmental advocacy?
SERA is Labour’s environment and climate organisation, working to strengthen ambition across the movement by connecting grassroots members, trade unions, NGOs and parliamentarians, and putting climate, nature and environmental justice at the centre of political power. As an executive committee member, I contribute to strategy, governance, fundraising and campaign development. I also founded and led Our Earth in 2050, a youth-led initiative amplifying young people’s voices within Labour’s environmental agenda – defining its purpose, securing resources, coordinating volunteers and building partnerships. This experience has shaped my approach to environmental advocacy by highlighting the importance of coalition-building, clear strategy, and political judgement – an approach I now bring to my work at River Action, where legal accountability, community mobilisation, and political engagement are combined to protect rivers and the communities that depend on them.
Q5. Looking ahead to your new role as River Action’s Legal Coordinator, what will you be focusing on, and what can people expect to see from you in 2026?
My role focuses on using the law as a lever for change. That includes supporting River Action’s strategic litigation, producing legal research and briefings, monitoring legal and policy developments, and working closely with colleagues and communities to ensure legal action feeds into wider campaigns.
A key part of the role is helping connect legal expertise with grassroots action – ensuring communities have the tools, information, and confidence to challenge pollution and hold decision-makers to account.
I’m particularly excited to contribute to legal strategies that are scalable and catalytic, such as catchment-based approaches that stops pollution at source, strengthens enforcement, and supports community-led action. There’s huge potential to use the law creatively and collaboratively, and I’m looking forward to helping develop that work.
Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?
We need to move from a system that tolerates pollution and decline to one that actively prevents it. That means deliberate decision-making, stronger enforcement, real consequences for polluters, and communities having access to information, tools, and legal leverage. It also means recognising rivers as living systems that deserve protection in the public interest.
We have to shift legal and governance systems, move the markets, and empower communities. I’m excited to join River Action, whose approach, combining law, campaigning, and community action, gives me a lot of hope.
River Action granted permission to proceed with legal challenge against Ofwat
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.
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 Launches Legal Challenge Against Ofwat Over Water Bill Hikes
River Action has filed a landmark legal challenge against Ofwat, accusing the regulator of unlawfully allowing water companies to pass the cost of their own failures onto customers. The case comes as water bills rise by an average of £123 a year, forcing households to pay for decades of underinvestment by the water industry.
The challenge, filed with the support of Leigh Day law firm, targets Ofwat’s Price Review 2024 (PR24), which granted enhanced funding to water companies like United Utilities without sufficient safeguards to ensure the money is spent on new water and sewage projects. Instead, River Action warns that customers will be left footing the bill for past infrastructure neglect, paying twice for the same failing systems.
Paying Twice for Polluted Water?
The legal action stems from investigations by environmental campaigners Matt Staniek and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP), which exposed severe regulatory failings.
In August 2024, United Utilities requested extra funding to upgrade treatment works and pumping stations in the Windermere area, following 6,000 hours of raw sewage discharges into the lake that year alone. Ofwat approved the request under PR24, but River Action argues that the regulator:
- Relied on hydraulic simulation modelling rather than real-world pollution data, which failed to reflect the true environmental damage.
- Ignored key evidence of widespread sewage discharges when assessing funding needs.
- Lacked a clear mechanism to regain funds if companies misused the additional investment.
As a result, customers could be forced to pay twice: first through water bills that should have covered infrastructure maintenance, and again through new hikes aimed at fixing the same problems.
A Call for Reform
River Action is demanding urgent regulatory reform to stop water companies from passing the cost of their mismanagement onto the public. The financial burden of repairing the UK’s crumbling water infrastructure must fall on the companies and their investors, not customers.
Emma Dearnalely, Head of Legal at River Action, said:
Holding Ofwat Accountable
River Action’s legal challenge also raises broader concerns about Ofwat’s oversight and accountability, questioning whether the regulator has the necessary powers or will to prevent water companies from profiting at the public’s expense.
Ricardo Gama, solicitor at Leigh Day, commented:
Fighting for Clean Water
River Action’s legal challenge is part of its broader mission to hold water companies and regulators accountable. The group continues to campaign for stronger enforcement, greater transparency, and a financial and governance model that prioritises people and the environment over profits.
Thames Water’s £3bn bailout signals urgent need for Government action on failing water companies
STATEMENT:
Responding to the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold Thames Water’s £3bn rescue plan River Action’s CEO said:
“This decision is a disaster for Thames Water bill payers and the environment. Customers will now have to pay the price for the failing water company with about a third of their increased water bills paying for massive interest payments while our rivers remain choked with sewage.”
“Instead of allowing this interim plan to cause further financial and environmental damage, the Government must urgently seize the opportunity to place Thames Water into Special Administration before even more investor-centric restructuring plans are rolled out later this year. The current privatised system is a failed experiment, putting financial interests ahead of the needs of consumers and the health of our environment. Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate this corporate takeover of the lifeblood of our economy and land. The government can and should step in now.
“The onus is now on the independent Water Commission to propose a viable alternative financial and governance model for the water industry that puts people and the planet first. This is not just about managing a crisis; it’s about fixing a broken system that has allowed private companies to profit at the expense of public well-being.”
ENDS
For media enquiries, contact Amy Fairman at media@riveractionuk.com
High Court ruling adds weight to challenge to intensive poultry unit in Shropshire
A judicial review case supported and funded by campaign group River Action as part of its drive to limit the uncontrolled growth of large-scale intensive poultry production farms has been strengthened by an important High Court ruling this week.
A judge has allowed further grounds to be added to the claim brought by River Action advisory board member Dr Alison Caffyn. It is challenging Shropshire County Council’s planning permission for the construction of a large-scale intensive poultry unit.
Granting permission, the judge said that there is ‘wider interest’ in the court hearing the extra two grounds at the substantive hearing due in the coming months, and emphasised that it would be helpful to have the court’s authority on the issues raised.
The case is now set to be heard on four grounds when it is presented to the High Court at a hearing in March or April 2025.
The legal action aims to stop the spread of intensive poultry production in Shropshire and the River Severn catchment area, and is part of a nationwide campaign by River Action to prevent river pollution caused by intensive agricultural practices.
An application for the poultry production unit by developer LJ Cooke & Son was approved by Shropshire Council in May 2024 after it had initially been rejected, with the site located north-west of Shrewsbury at Felton Butler.
In July 2024, a legal challenge opposing the poultry unit was launched by Dr Caffyn, who lives in Shropshire and is a member of River Action’s advisory board.
The case argues that the decision to grant permission failed to account for the cumulative impact of the rapid and uncontrolled increase of intensive poultry units being constructed within specific river catchments. It is argued that the effect of spreading manure and the emissions from burning biomass is causing severe concentrations of river and air pollution.
Following the recent severe pollution of the neighbouring catchment of the River Wye, which is believed to be because of the expansion of intensive poultry production, the case argues that the catchment of the River Severn is now being subject to similar environmental threats.
Follow the High Court ruling, the expanded grounds being argued in the March judicial review hearing are:
- A failure to assess the effects of spreading manure and the emissions from burning biomass, which as indirect effects of the development, needed to be assessed.
- A failure to impose a lawful planning condition on manure processing that would mean that the development would not cause groundwater pollution.
- A failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment as required by the Habitats Regulations to ensure that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of a designated protected habitat – an area with special status due to its natural importance.
- A breach of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations, which requires the council to take steps to avoid the deterioration of protected habitats.
The first two grounds were given permission in October 2024, with permission for the third and fourth grounds being given permission at a hearing in February 2025.
The proposed poultry unit would house 200,000 birds and include four poultry rearing buildings each over 100 metres long, as well as a biomass store with boilers. It would be located 400 metres from an existing poultry site, which is thought to hold nearly 500,000 birds.
Permission for the unit was initially refused after Natural England advised that three nearby protected sites, Shrawardine Pool, Lin Can Moss and Fenmere, could be impacted by aerial pollutants.
Council officers also raised concerns over the lack of detail on how the development would handle chicken manure without an anaerobic digester – a large sealed vessel used to break down organic materials.
However, the plans for the development were approved after LJ Cooke & Son proposed exporting manure to a third party anaerobic digestion unit.
Chairman and founder of River Action, Charles Watson, said:
“Like an appalling car crash in slow motion, exactly the same set of tragic events is now unfolding in catchment of the River Severn as has happened recently in the neighbouring catchment of the River Wye. We believe the waving through of permission for ever more giant intensive poultry units by Shropshire County Council is environmentally reckless. We are determined to do whatever it takes to support this critically important legal claim to end the ecocide which we say is being perpetrated upon our most iconic rivers by uncontrolled intensive agricultural practices.”
Dr Alison Caffyn said:
“It’s really encouraging that the two extra grounds have been approved. We’re looking forward to demonstrating next month how inadequate Shropshire Council’s processes have been in granting planning permission for this industrial chicken operation. Shropshire has some really special countryside and habitats and local people need to be sure that the Council is protecting these and the River Severn catchment”
Leigh Day environment solicitor Ricardo Gama said:
“Our client is delighted that the court has allowed two further grounds to proceed to a full hearing. This means that the hearing will now encompass the detrimental impact our client says the poultry unit will have on nearby protected habitats, as well as from the negative effects of pollution from manure and burning biomass. We look forward to arguing the case in the High Court, as part of River Action’s wider campaign to protect rivers from pollution caused by intensive agricultural activity.”
ENDS
River Action to sue Ofwat over water bill rises
River Action is to take legal action against Ofwat, the water regulator, accusing it of unlawfully making customers pay for decades of neglect by the water industry.
A legal claim will be filed this month, arguing that bill rises for customers that have been approved by Ofwat could be used to fix infrastructure failures that should have been addressed years ago.
We’re calling for immediate regulatory action to ensure water companies stop passing the cost of failure onto customers – and start taking responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused.
WHAT IS OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST OFWAT?
Our legal challenge focuses on funding allocated for wastewater treatment works and pumping stations by United Utilities in and around Lake Windermere.
The case is being taken after detailed investigations were carried out by Save Windermere and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which revealed significant and systemic flaws in Ofwat’s approach.
We’re taking legal action to compel Ofwat to reassess its PR24 determination for United Utilities in relation to Windermere and to encourage Ofwat to reassess other water company schemes wherever there are concerns that customers are unfairly covering the cost of past failures.
WINDERMERE: A DAMNING EXAMPLE OF REGULATORY FAILURE
United Utilities, currently under fire after evidence obtained by Save Windermere, revealed 6,000 hours of raw sewage was discharged into Windermere last year, and is a case in point. We have commenced legal action claiming Ofwat has allowed the company to divert funds meant for future projects to deal with past failures—rather than investing in vital improvements to wastewater treatment and pumping stations around the lake.
A SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST THE PUBLIC
We believe Ofwat has acted unlawfully by approving these funds without ensuring they are spent on genuine improvements to essential infrastructure. Instead, this so-called ‘enhanced funding’ is being allowed to be used to cover up years of failure.
Effectively, Ofwat has signed off on a broken system where customers are being charged again for services they have already funded—while water companies continue to mark their own homework and pollute for profit. This scandal must be addressed. The cost of fixing the UK’s crumbling water infrastructure should fall on the companies and their investors—not on the British public.
We are calling for immediate regulatory action to ensure water companies stop passing the cost of failure onto customers—and start taking responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused.
High Court ruling declares farming manure as ‘waste’ in major victory for River Action in its fight against industrial-scale poultry production in Wye Valley
Landmark court ruling declares farming manure as ‘waste’ in major victory for River Action in its fight against industrial-scale poultry production in Wye Valley and exposes the failure of a regulatory regime that has failed to protect the environment
In a huge boost for River Action’s campaign against industrial scale poultry production, the High Court has today ruled that chicken manure can be classified as ‘waste’ and a council was entitled to require it to be disposed of under council waste rules. The Judgment has huge implications for handling manure on farms everywhere.
Pollution from agriculture, much of it from manure from animals on farms, is the biggest source of water pollution in the UK.
Following the adoption of Herefordshire County Council’s (HCC) Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) in March 2024, the National Farmers Union (NFU) mounted a judicial review challenge arguing that manure produced by agricultural developments like intensive Poultry Units (IPUs) is an agricultural “by-product” and should not be classified as ‘waste’ under the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Before the court, the NFU did not dispute that chicken manure is the main source of nutrient pollution causing an ecological crisis in the River Wye. But it still argued that none of the controls on waste handling should apply and that HCC could not deal with it through a policy (policy W3) its MWLP.
In its intervention, River Action said environmentally damaging algal blooms in the River Wye have arisen as a result of livestock manure causing excessive phosphates to build up in the soil, which then runs off and leaches into waterways. River Action argued that manure should be classified as ‘waste’ at least until its point of use under the WFD, and that controls need to be in place to ensure that waste producers take responsibility for disposing of waste in a lawful way.
The Hon Mrs Justice Lieven agreed that it cannot be assumed that manure will be used in an environmentally safe way. She then agreed with River Action that, given the environmental problems caused by chicken manure in the Wye catchment area with narrow and specific exceptions, manure is ‘waste’ in law up to the point it is sold or transferred to a third party. This means that chicken producers in Herefordshire will have to provide a detailed plan at the planning application stage to ensure chicken manure can be disposed of safely, including full transparency on the manure’s destination and application. They cannot rely on wastewater rules monitoring.
The judge also comprehensively rejected the NFU’s argument that HCC had to assume that the Farming Rules for Water (FRfW) – which regulate the spreading of manure on fields – were operating effectively to combat water pollution, so that no harm would be caused to the Wye by additional chicken manure – when all parties accepted that that was not the case. She observed that the FRfW are “a regulatory regime which beyond any doubt had failed to protect the environment from harm” and that HCC was justified in adopting a policy that recognised the FRfW were failing to operate effectively.
That is a clear win for common sense and realism given that historically developers often argue in planning cases that environmental consequences will be dealt with by other regulatory regimes, and so should not be the subject of planning controls. The judge was clear that planning authorities did not have to make any such assumption, where there was clear evidence that other regimes were failing, as is all too often the case.
River Action chair Charles Watson said:
”This historic court ruling marks a major victory both for the River Wye and rivers generally across the nation and it exposes yet another attempt by the NFU to push back on important initiatives intended to end the blight of agricultural pollution in our rivers.
We believe the ruling clarifies once and for all that the intensive factory production of livestock is clearly an industrial manufacturing process, whereby the often-toxic waste that it produces must be treated as such.
This landmark ruling should set a vital precedent not just for other planning authorities to embed similar enhanced protections into all planning applications for livestock production developments. It also demonstrates that our environmental regulators need to now take urgent action to enhance pollution regulations to reflect the serious threat that intensive livestock production clearly poses to the health of our rivers.”
River Action was represented by Carol Day, Ricardo Gama and Julia Eriksen of Leigh Day and David Wolfe KC (Matrix Chambers) and Peter Lockley (11 King’s Bench Walk).
Leigh Day environment team solicitor Carol Day said:
“The NFU sought to challenge common-sense policies in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan requiring new poultry units to have a detailed plan for disposing of chicken manure on the basis that the manure is not waste in law and therefore not covered by the MWLP.
“The judge resoundingly agreed with River Action that chicken manure is classified as ‘waste’ in law. This judgment vindicates HCC’s approach and is a victory for the River Wye and the wider environment.”
This means that people proposing new Intensive Poultry Units in Herefordshire will need to put in place proper arrangements for dealing with the huge volumes of manure that is produced. The judgment should also now mean that proper environmental controls are put in place across the country to oversee the production and handling of manure from animals on farms.”
—ENDS–
You can read the full judgment from the High Court, here.