Shut-down abattoir in Warwickshire that scaled up slaughtering 10-fold is denied permission for work already done

North Warwickshire Borough Council’s planning and development board, the panel of councillors tasked with taking the decision, voted unanimously to say no to the scaling up of what used to be a butcher’s shop on Ansley Lane, Arley.

That and the work already being completed opened up the question of whether enforcement action should follow, something that was discussed in a behind-closed-doors session after the meeting.

The site has been at the eye of a storm with locals for some time with covert footage taken by animal rights activists preceding its closure by the FSA on “animal welfare grounds”.

Long-time objector Carolyn McKay, flanked by so many supporters that the public gallery was beyond capacity, wept when the verdict came in.

Under previous ownership, the business had done its own slaughtering but the council’s planning report said that an average of less than 3,900 animals per year were killed there over a 14-year period.

A certificate of lawful use was issued in November 2023 but the takeover over by Dr Arhfat Ahmed's T & S Investment Group led to more than ten times the volume of animals being slaughtered there – more than 39,000 – in the year from March 2024.

Slaughtering took place across four days instead of one and for longer hours and formed part of the council’s recommendation for refusal, the increased activity causing “significant and demonstrable harm to residential amenity and highway safety”.

The case was delayed in May because the firm had put forward information and amendments to address issues.

Despite those revisions, Warwickshire County Council – the body responsible for highways advice on planning matters – said that a road safety audit would be required due to concerns over the volume and safety of lorry movements. North Warwickshire’s environmental health experts also wanted an adequate noise management plan and remained concerned by smells and visual intrusion.

In his introduction, head of development control Jeff Brown said that the applicant had submitted more information two hours before the meeting.

“I will leave that with the board as to how you are going to resolve that,” he said.

“My own view, based on the information you have within the published reports, the recommendation (to say no) can remain.

“At that stage, the highways authority continued to object and my environmental health colleagues still felt very, very uncomfortable with the application.”

Ms McKay said that the images submitted by T & S did not reflect the size of the vehicles accessing the site, putting at risk pedestrian safety, and argued air conditioning would “further industrialise the building”. She added that the size of the tank that animal blood drains into was insufficient and that the turning space for lorries was not safe.

“The residents were not regarded whatsoever in the decision to industrialise the site,” she said.

“The owner stated that he has long-term involvement in the slaughter of animals so very well knew the level of foul odour and disruption it would cause us.

"The fact he went ahead regardless confirms not only his disregard but his disrespect for the people who live here and have invested in homes in a lovely rural setting whose mental health and wellbeing has been severely affected by this disrespect.”

Gulraiz Siddique represented the applicant, saying that the road safety audit was underway and that vehicle tracking information had shown HGVs could “safely and effectively exit the site”.

He said that submissions had been made after the May meeting but that both councils then asked for more information.

“This was how quickly we could get it,” he said, confirming that more was still outstanding, including a noise management plan that his client was “actively working to provide”.

Mr Siddique said another deferral was “reasonable and necessary” to address the remaining concerns, adding: “This would allow for the time for the preparation and submission of requested documentation, ensuring that both environmental and highways concerns are addressed in full.

“We strongly believe that deferring the application rather than reaching a premature decision is in the best interests of all stakeholders and would allow for a comprehensive and informed evaluation, ensuring that the final determination is fair and based on complete and accurate information.”

Councillors were not won over.

Councillor Margaret Bell (Con, Hartshill) replied: “You will remember we were very reluctant to defer at the last meeting because the information was late.

“We made it very clear that we would not be happy to do that again. To my knowledge, there have been three or four highway objections going back a long way, you have had a lot of time to respond to highways.”

In response to another question, Mr Siddique said the additional information had only been requested on Thursday (June 5).

Councillor Micheal Jackson (Lab, Arley & Whitacre) spoke against the plans.

“This is a small village, not an industrial estate,” she said.

“Such traffic movements are entirely inappropriate. Lorries are frequently blocking access for other traffic causing disruption and frustration for residents just trying to go about their daily lives.”

She also raised “significant concern” over the certificate of lawfulness.

“It is understood that this was granted on the basis of the current use being a continuation of the previous business,” she said.

“I find this statement was misleading, false or incomplete. The council has the power to revoke the certificate.

“This must be taken seriously and I ask that if there is any doubt at all, this committee resolves that the matter is investigated thoroughly and referred to the relevant authority.

“This community has come together, not out of resistance to change but a shared belief in the safety, identity and wellbeing of our village.”