High Court Blocks Plans for Shropshire Mega Poultry Farm Over Environmental Concerns
A landmark ruling in the High Court has halted proposals for a vast poultry complex in Shropshire that would have housed up to 200,000 chickens, casting a critical spotlight on the planning process for intensive farming operations. The judgement, handed down at Cardiff’s High Court on Tuesday, 17 June 2025, quashed Shropshire Council’s planning approval for the development, signalling a significant moment for environmental campaigners and local residents alike.
The proposed site at Felton Butler, near Shrewsbury, had been earmarked for four large poultry housing units across a nine-hectare expanse. Operated by L J Cooke and Son, the farm’s location—2.6 kilometres from the River Severn—raised serious environmental questions relating to the handling and disposal of agricultural waste, particularly manure.
Legal action was instigated by Dr Alison Caffyn, an independent researcher who voiced grave concerns about the fate of nitrogen and phosphate-rich waste generated by such a large concentration of poultry. Dr Caffyn argued that the runoff from the spread of poultry manure could pollute the river catchments, exacerbating water quality issues that already trouble the local ecosystem. Her campaign, supported by monitoring and research, brought the issue to court after approval was first granted in May 2024.
During an April hearing, the High Court was presented with arguments highlighting the need for rigorous assessment, not just of the obvious environmental impacts, but so-called “indirect effects”—such as what happens when leftover organic matter, or digestate, from the farming process is used as fertiliser on third-party land.
Delivering the court’s decision, Mr Justice Fordham was unequivocal in his assessment, stating that Shropshire Council had “failed to carry out a legally adequate assessment” regarding the consequences of spreading digestate. While planning officers appeared to consider the effects of raw manure, there was, according to the judgement, an absence of scrutiny concerning how digestate applied elsewhere could impact the wider environment.
As a result of the ruling, the council will be required to pay £35,000 in legal costs to Dr Caffyn. Her reaction was one of vindication, highlighting the high density of poultry farms already present in Shropshire. “There are nearly 65 chickens for every person in Shropshire, and yet the council still thought we needed more,” she observed. Dr Caffyn described the judgement as validation for campaigners who have long argued that the planning system overlooks the risks posed to Britain’s rivers by industrial farming practices.
Further endorsement of the ruling came from River Action, with the group’s head of legal, Emma Dearnaley, calling the court’s decision a “wake-up call.” She said: “For too long, councils like Shropshire have been rubber-stamping intensive livestock farms without fully considering the damage they do to the surrounding environment. There are already far too many chickens in areas like the Severn, and our rivers are choking on chicken muck.”
Dearnaley stressed that the decision sets an important precedent for local authorities across the UK, making it clear that the indirect and cumulative impacts of agricultural waste must be factored into all future planning applications. “Today the court drew a line: no more mega-farms without looking at the bigger picture,” she stated.
The ruling comes amid increasing scrutiny of the environmental consequences of intensive animal agriculture, particularly its contribution to river pollution linked to excessive nutrients from manure and fertiliser. Campaigners have long argued that unchecked expansion of such farms threatens habitats, fisheries, and the wider public’s access to clean water.
This case is likely to reverberate far beyond Shropshire, with planning authorities and agricultural businesses under renewed pressure to demonstrate robust environmental assessments for new developments. The High Court’s verdict underlines the need for transparency, accountability, and a balanced approach to rural economies and environmental stewardship.
As the dust settles on this high-profile legal battle, attention will now turn to how local councils, farming businesses, and environmental groups respond. For many, the decision represents not only a legal victory, but also a call to revisit the practices and priorities that shape the British countryside.