Cranswick unveils briefing slamming West Norfolk Council ‘errors’ ahead of decision day on Feltwell and Methwold megafarms

A food producer has unveiled its final arguments ahead of a fateful day which will determine whether it can construct two megafarms in our area.

Cranswick, which is seeking permission to build the farms at sites in Methwold and Feltwell, has prepared a briefing ahead of a special West Norfolk Council planning committee meeting this Thursday.

It says that the business would erect 20 “state-of-the-art poultry sheds” each housing 35,700 chickens.

Meanwhile, the site is already permitted by the Environment Agency to house 29,000 pigs. The application aims reduce this to 14,000 pigs reared to RPSCA standards.

The borough council’s officers have recommended the scheme for refusal, arguing the farms would lie within “close proximity to a number of European protected sites” and citing the “significant effects of the project on the environment”.

But ahead of the meeting, at which councillors will have the final say, Cranswick is “making clear that this application is about producing more British food, to higher welfare standards, through the redevelopment of existing farms”.

The company has claimed the council’s report is “littered with basic factual errors”, with some of it “copy and pasted”.

Its briefing says: “At a time of rising prices, trade wars and escalating international tensions, now is the time Britain needs to produce more food at home, using modern, efficient and sustainable forms of farming.

“Not doing so will have a detrimental impact on UK economic growth, on food prices for consumers locally and nationally, and on direct and indirect employment opportunities, within Norfolk and across the wider UK.”

Livestock has been reared on the site since the 1960s.

Cranswick argues that the farms will align with the Government’s National Food Strategy, which is currently in the works and will back British food.

“The proposals we have shared are not for a new farm, but for the redevelopment of farms that already exist,” the briefing adds.

“A farm has been running on this site since the 1960s and part of the site at Feltwell is already operational as a pig farm, with a permit to house 29,000 animals at any time.

“Our proposals are to house less than half that number of pigs and 714,000 chickens in newly built and more sustainable housing.

“The farmland on the Methwold site is currently home to old pig sheds which we will redevelop into higher welfare, bio-secure poultry barns. We will also bring the other sheds on the Feltwell site up to the very latest standards of modern pig farming and production.

“Although we will be investing significantly in the sites to deliver these improvements, the new farm will not look particularly different to other farms which can be seen across Norfolk.

“The word ‘megafarm’ has been used to describe this application, but on that basis, that would also apply to many hundreds of farms which already exist across the region, several of which were approved by this committee without any notable delay.”

The document points out that all chickens would be born on the site, rather than being transported from other locations - making Cranswick the only UK provider to follow this procedure.

On the perceived errors in the council report, it says: “After over three years of patient engagement with the council on this application, we cannot understand how these and other errors have been included and published in the planning report.

“We are concerned about the committee’s ability to judge the proposals impartially based on the inaccuracies reported.

“We do not ask for this application to be waved through without due scrutiny. But we do ask that the application is judged in line with the way that other farms have been assessed nearby and that the committee fully takes into account the reasons why this development is needed in the first place.”

A borough council spokesperson retaliated by saying: “As with correspondence from any party received after a planning report is published, the applicant’s comments will be communicated to members as ‘late representations’, along with officer responses, in line with usual planning committee procedure.

“The applicant will also have the opportunity to address members on the matters they raise at the planning committee meeting on Thursday.

“Our planning committee members will hear what they have to say and consider the applications professionally and objectively on the planning issues, as they would any other application.”

Jake White, head of legal advocacy at wildlife charity WWF, has reaffirmed the organisation’s objections to the scheme.

He said: "You can’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse - particularly not with a megafarm. The facts here have not changed, and the council’s planning officer report could not be more clear.

“Despite many opportunities to do so Cranswick have not submitted sufficient environmental information about the site and have not demonstrated how they will protect local nature sites from damage.

“The council have followed a robust process to balance local views, the future of our environment and the asks of business, and for this they should be commended.

“This site is not only unlawful and highly unpopular with local residents, it is clearly environmentally unsustainable and we trust that the council will now follow the advice of their own officers and refuse permission."