Challenge to poultry development at Hubbards Farm

The High Court has granted permission on all grounds in a challenge to planning permission for a replacement poultry building at Hubbards Farm, Shalford, Essex. The claim raises concerns about the Council relying on inconsistent information (and bare assurances from the applicant) regarding the scope of the proposed operation, as well as its inadequate consideration of environmental impacts and animal welfare.

We are instructed by Communities Against Factory Farming (CAFF), a not-for-profit grassroots organisation supporting communities opposing the expansion of factory farming. The challenge concerns Braintree District Council’s decision of 19 June 2026 to grant planning permission for the development.

The Council assessed the proposal as a replacement building with no increase in bird numbers or intensification of the existing operation. However, the applicant’s ammonia assessment described replacing a barn housing 5,000 turkeys with a controlled-environment building housing 26,219 broiler chickens. The Council appears to have relied on unsupported assurances from the applicant’s agent that the ammonia assessment’s description was erroneous and that the operation would remain at 5,000 turkeys, without obtaining the promised corrected ammonia assessment or securing that restriction by condition.

Separately, an Environment Agency permit issued shortly before the planning committee meeting authorised a two-house installation with capacity for 109,628 broilers. CAFF argues that the Council failed to resolve these conflicting descriptions (each of which would likely result in different conclusions on impacts of the development) before granting permission, which also contains no condition limiting bird numbers or species.

A central issue is whether the Council should have required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or undertaken screening to determine whether one was necessary. CAFF contends that the Council failed to consider properly whether the replacement building formed part of the wider two-house installation which would require EIA. Alternatively, it argues that the replacement building itself required screening under the EIA Regulations. The claim also challenges the absence of assessment of climate and carbon impacts.

CAFF further argues that the Council unlawfully relied on the environmental permitting regime to answer matters requiring its own planning assessment, including operational scale, waste and off-site manure effects. It challenges the failure to obtain corrected technical evidence and further advice or consultation after the applicant’s agent stated that the ammonia assessment’s description was erroneous. Ventilation details and noise, odour and dust assessments were instead left to conditions requiring later approval.

The claim also concerns animal welfare benefits advanced in support of the application. CAFF argues that those claimed benefits (which appear to have weighed in favour of permission in the Council’s view) were neither adequately assessed nor secured by the permission. A further ground challenges the adequacy of the Council’s reasons.

On 9 October 2026, Mr Justice Mould granted permission to proceed on all six grounds.  A substantive hearing is likely to occur in early 2027.

Acland Bryant of Garden Court Chambers is instructed as counsel in the case.