19 June 2025 update

Regular readers will know that we’ve been keeping a close eye on the proposal to build a chicken farm in Marsh Benham in addition to the mobile one that already exists. See below or the archive section (link at the foot of the post) and, like a child on a chocolate Easter hunt, search for “eggs” to find the various references.

If you want to have your say, click here and enter the reference 24/02641/FULMAJ.

You may have read elsewhere in the past that nimby-ism was the main fuel in the objecters’ tank: this is to miss the point. The main concern is about damage of the SSSI-protected River Kennet. This is not a hypothetical case and I’d like to summon as my first witness the River Wye which is being killed by large-scale poultry farms in the area. You can read more on this pressure group’s website.

Protection hasn’t hitherto been provided by the planning authorities on this issue so objectors have turned to the courts. In March 2025, the High Court agreed with the NFU and ruled that Herefordshire Council needed to regard chicken poo as waste rather than as a benign agricultural bu-product which would demand policies and conditions being imposed on applicants.

Only this week, there was a further victory, this time brought by River Action against Shropshire Council. As the appelants’ website put it, this decision “quashes Shropshire Council’s planning decision [for a 200,ooo-bird intensive farm] 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.”

After the March verdict, I understand the West Berkshire Council’s planners felt that this would have no influence on their decision. Can they ignore the second one as well? As Oscar Wilde pointed out (in a rather different context), to do so would look uncomfortably like carelessness. Certainly if the application is approved, these two judgements will give opponents encouragement for an appeal, and the courts evey reason to allow it. I don’t get the impression that the opponents are likely to give up and walk away.

So far as I’m aware, this environmental point is the one that mainly worries them, not some more general and emotive concern about a change to the character or appearance of the area. As these court cases are showing, the environmental aspect is also the one that’s more likely to produce the desired results.

5 June 2025 update

Those opposing application 24/02641/FULMAJ (click here and enter the reference to see the documents and to have your say) for the egg farm at Bradford’s Farm in Marsh Benham will have been heartened by the recent response from the Environment Agency, one of the consultees.

This objects to the proposal “due to its likely effect on The River Kennet Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Chalk River priority habitat” and goes on to say that “the additional information provided in support of this application does not satisfy our concerns” and that it feels the reports submitted to date are “insufficient”.

“Furthermore,” the document continues relentlessly, “we feel that the existing groundwater quality is inadequately understood, and that the risk of pollution from the poultry units via the hydraulic connectivity between groundwater and the river Kennet, has not been addressed.” This is followed by similarly disparaging comments about the manure management plan and the groundwater report.

To address these, the EA requests a number of measures, including several specific management plans. These seem quite onerous for the applicant: others might agree they seem reasonable.

The response ends with what sounds like a warning, though I don’t know how far the EA can insist upon this: “If you [ie WBC] are minded to approve the application contrary to our objection, please contact us to explain why material considerations outweigh our objection. This will allow us to make further representations.”

It has certainly set WBC’s planners the job of justifying this point. If it comes to it, I’m sure the objectors will be quick to study WBC’s reasons for an approval, despite these comments.

The EA wasn’t quite finished. “Should our objection be removed,” it concludes, “it is likely we will recommend the inclusion of condition(s) on any subsequent approval.” And these, of course, would need to be enforced.

Therein lies the problem. This is clearly a complex application, despite its seeming simplicity. To mitigate its effects, the EA says that a number of measures need to be put in place and conditions imposed. That all looks great on paper – but who will enforce them?

WBC currently has only two enforcement officers. They’re over-loaded already and they become more so with every condition on every new decision notice. The issues here are particularly technical. The EA may insist on them but, their having been added, it will not be responsible for ensuring they’re followed. That will be left to WBC’s planners, even if they lack the necessary detailed knowledge.

The safest thing for all concerned is to refuse applications where there’s a real risk that the mitigations will prove to be ineffective. That seems to be a real risk here. The EA’s letter has, moreover, probably given WBC all the ammunition it needs to turn it down. After all, if the Environment Agency says that something is likely to be bad for the environment – which is really the only basis of the objection – then who are we to argue. They should be the experts: the clue’s in the name.

It’s certainly good to see the the Environment Agency growling about this important matter. Time will tell if it has sharp teeth to match.

Brian Quinn

More information about Newbury and the surrounding villages can be found in Penny Post’s Newbury Area Weekly News column, updated every Thursday evening and at other times as necessary. This includes news stories, events, information on voluntary and community groups and updates from the town and parish councils.