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.