P Nash (trading as RG Nash & Sons) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
[2024] UKFTT 584 (GRC)
Stephen William Towse v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
5 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 174 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A farmer challenged the government's decision to label his land as a 'polluter' due to high nitrate levels in nearby water. The farmer argued the government's science was flawed. The court decided the government's methods, while imperfect, were good enough to justify the label. The farmer's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against designation of land as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) under the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015.
- •Appellant, Mr. Towse, is a farmer whose land is proposed for inclusion in NVZs S249 and S250.
- •Appeal decided without a hearing based on written submissions.
- •Appeal concerns the accuracy and methodology of Environment Agency's assessment of water pollution and NVZ designation.
- •Appellant raised concerns about the Weibull and Quantile Regression methods, the 95th percentile calculation, sewage contamination, sandy soil composition, and the Nitrate Leaching Tool (NLT).
Legal Principles
Regulation 4(2) of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 requires the Secretary of State to monitor nitrate concentration in freshwaters and designate land contributing to pollution as an NVZ.
Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015, Regulation 4(2)
Regulation 5 requires the Secretary of State to publicise NVZ proposals and notify landowners/occupiers.
Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015, Regulation 5
Regulation 6 allows appeals on the grounds that the relevant holding does not drain into identified polluted water (Type A) or that the Secretary of State should not identify water as polluted (Type B).
Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015, Regulation 6
The Secretary of State's decision is based on Environment Agency analysis.
Case Law
Outcomes
The appeal is dismissed.
While acknowledging some shortcomings in the Environment Agency's methodology, Mr. Towse failed to demonstrate that the Agency's approach was flawed or that the Secretary of State was not entitled to rely on its assessment.
Similar Cases
DE Smith v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2023] UKFTT 789 (GRC)
AC Atkin v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2023] UKFTT 788 (GRC)
DE Harris & Partners v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2023] UKFTT 423 (GRC)
Martin David Boynton v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2023] UKFTT 787 (GRC)