The recent High Court case Animal Equality UK v North East Lincolnshire Council & ASL New Clee Limited [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin) was concerned with a judicial review of the decision by North East Lincolnshire Borough Council (NELBC) to grant planning permission for the UK’s first large land-based salmon farm in Grimsby. The judgment dealt with the arguments brought by Advocates for Animals which acted for Animal Equality UK in the judicial review. According to its website, Advocates for Animals is the UK’s first law firm dedicated to animal protection.
During the planning process, Animal Equality UK and its supporters had focused on what it said were the risks of “catastrophic” loss of fish due to system failures; animal suffering which it said would be “monumental”; and the “apocalyptic” impact on the local ecosystem if the facility underperforms. It was argued in the judicial review that the planning officer dealing with the application had erred in law by misinforming the planning committee that these issues were not “material land use planning considerations” because they were covered off by a number of other organisations who had responsibility for issuing the various operational permits that will be required for the facility. The same comments were made in the committee discussion when the application was approved.
NELBC said that it was common ground that animal welfare issues were capable of being material planning considerations and that the case officer had not advised the committee that that was not so; he was advising the committee that, having considered all of the relevant information, it was his judgement that animal welfare issues were not a material consideration in this case.
The judge undertook an analysis of what had been said in the officer report and in the committee discussion and concluded that NELBC had been entitled to conduct itself as it had and refused the appeal. That reconfirms the planning consent which enables the development to go ahead. For anyone interested, a copy of the judgment can be read here. In commenting on the judgment, Advocates for Animals says that the case reflects “the broader tension in planning between land-use considerations and ethical objections” and that the judgment “leaves open that, in future similar cases, councils can consider animal welfare if they choose to and NGOs may wish to focus future efforts on influencing local policy and training to encourage such consideration.”
Although the approach and objectives are different from those that arose in this case, animal welfare issues have long been material planning considerations in the rural planning world. An obvious example is the need for an agricultural worker dwelling to be located within sight and sound of livestock buildings to enable animal welfare requirements to be met. Another is for the sizing of livestock buildings to meet RSPCA or Red Tractor minimum space standards.
