“Bad day for sustainable British meat” as Cranswick plans rejected
4th April 2025
Cranswick has said it is disappointed at the local council’s decision to block proposals to redevelop an existing pig farm and redundant poultry sheds.
Proposals from Cranswick to redevelop its existing pig site and redundant poultry sheds have been rejected by the local council.
With the UK importing 50% of the pork and 70% of the chicken we consume, the business said it aimed to improve animal welfare and boost British meat production.
The site, where livestock has been reared since the 1960s, is currently permitted by the Environment Agency to house 29,000 pigs. The proposal reduced this to 14,000 pigs, reared to RSPCA Assured standards.
Cranswick also wanted to build 20 state-of-the-art poultry sheds, each housing 35,700 chickens reared to standards exceeding current Red Tractor accreditation.
There was an additional request for access through a new private road and access points for an average of nine lorry movements a day.
Farms are located 1.5km away from Methwold and 1.7km away from Feltwell in Norfolk.
Application denied
However, the planning application process has been beset by delays and challenges, and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council moved to reject the proposals yesterday (3rd April).
There were a reported 15,000 complaints about the proposals – though Cranswick says the majority were not from the local area and it was unable to verify many of them.
Most of the local complaints related to traffic, waste and odour, which Cranswick’s Barry Lock said have been addressed with Highways Agency and EA, who are not objecting to the development.
Commenting on the delays, Nick Allen, CEO of the BMPA said:
“Regardless of the eventual outcome [of this site], the process should not, by any reasonable measure, be taking this long. Businesses that want to make new investments in British industry should not have to commit such a disproportionate amount of resource and time just to get a decision.
“Apart from the disincentive to invest it clearly poses, this broken system is proving a huge barrier to realising the Labour Government’s goals of growth and food security.”
A Cranswick spokesperson said of the news: “We are incredibly disappointed by today’s decision. This is a bad day for the sustainable production of British meat. We’ll now take time to review the decision and consider the options available to us.”
Response from MPs and councillors
On the council’s decision, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, Terry Jermy, who spoke out against the proposals, as well as all similar ones in the UK, is quoted by BBC Norfolk Breakfast as saying:
“Very pleased, obviously. I think it was crucial today that we put a line in the sand. If this had have been approved we would have seen more applications like this not just in Norfolk but around the country. It gives us the opportunity to have a conversation about the sort of farming that we want.”
Councillor for Methwold Tom Ryves said: “From a SW Norfolk point of view, we support the smaller farms whose values align with ours and support the inevitable trend away from factory raised livestock, and recognise the interdependence of rural communities and farmers.
“Indeed, a very recent application for a smaller local producer to upgrade capacity from 120,000 to 330,000 chickens was successful and was not opposed by the community.”
Cllr Ryves claimed: “Cranswick would have brought no benefits whatsoever to our local economy and given the very high concentration of large industrial mega farms in the East of England we are grateful to a planning regime which requires a balanced view […].”
“Proposals would have allowed for higher welfare”
Cranswick says the proposals for the poultry farm would allow for higher welfare chickens by reducing stocking density, providing higher welfare chicken called for by consumers, campaigners and retailers.
This would allow 20% more space compared to Red Tractor standards – bringing it to 30kg sq/m compared to the industry standard of 38kg sq/m.
Cranswick adds that it’s the only UK poultry producer to invest in the ‘NestBorn’ system.
100% of its chickens are born in the barn, rather than at a hatchery, which means they are not transported as live birds. They are born with instant access to feed, water, space and natural light.
READ MORE: Farming sector reacts to US import tariff
READ MORE: US trade deal rumours prompt warning from farming unions
READ MORE: Bread shortages expected as UK farmers launch milling wheat strike
The poultry farm would be Red Tractor assured and all pigs at the farm would be reared to RSPCA Assured Standards, beginning their lives outside, before moving into the new straw-based barns.
The briefing document 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.”
The news comes as President Trump announced at least a 10% tariff on all imports to the US from 5th April.
There has also been rising concerns that a trade deal with the US could see the market flooded with cheap imports, produced to a lower standard than would be permitted in the UK.
Concerns over errors in the council’s report
Cranswick says it is concerned that the council’s report on the application was “littered with basic factual errors”.
These include:
- In one key area the text had been copied and pasted across from the chicken application to the pig application
- The site is described as “a series of redundant agricultural sheds” but many of the buildings currently house pigs and it is a working farm
- There is reference to “a total of 7,500 pigs at Feltwell and Methwold Farms” but Cranswick says there are none at Methwold – this should read Airfield instead
- Six responses on sustainability that were provided within the Planning Statement are not included in the report
- Incorrect statements referencing the Finch ruling and that a climate change assessment is required. Finch requires indirect emissions that are inevitable and quantifiable to be considered
- The council did not visit the site until Wednesday morning, and the ecologists who advised on the HRA didn’t visit
- There was commentary during the committee meeting that those making a decision didn’t understand the details of what they were voting on and there was unhappiness with how the process had been managed. There was a vote to defer the application for six months that went 5-4 against, but the fact that four councillors voted to defer shows that despite the rejection it isn’t that clear cut, Cranswick comments.
Cranswick says it is also concerned that the majority of the 12,000 (or 15,000) reported objections were from people who live many miles from the local area – including from overseas, including Rome, Lisbon, California and Calgary.
Cranswick says it has not been able to verify the full 12,604 objections stated by the Council’s report, or the 15,000 referred to in significant amounts of commentary around the applications.
Of those objections identified, around 800 postcodes were unable to be verified at all.
The food business will now reflect on the ruling and consider its options going forward.
Read more livestock news.
