Wildfish Conservation, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2285 (Admin)
Pickering Fishery Association by Martin Smith, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
15 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2918 (Admin)
High Court
A fishing group sued because a water plan didn't have enough detail about how to clean up a specific polluted stream. The judge agreed the plan was too vague and that the public wasn't properly consulted, so the plan needs to be redone.
Key Facts
- •The Pickering Fishery Association challenged the Secretary of State's approval of the Humber River Basin Management Plan (HRBMP).
- •The Claimant owns fishing rights on the Upper Costa Beck (UCB), a heavily modified water body (HMWB).
- •The key issue is whether the HRBMP must set out water body-specific measures to achieve environmental objectives, or if basin-level measures suffice.
- •The Claimant argued that the SoS misdirected herself in law by approving a plan lacking UCB-specific measures.
- •The Defendant and Interested Party argued that a water body-specific approach is administratively unworkable.
- •The UCB's ecological potential is currently classified as 'moderate', not meeting the 'good' target.
Legal Principles
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve the aquatic environment through specific measures.
WFD Article 1
Member States must prevent deterioration of all surface water bodies' status (unless a derogation applies).
WFD Article 4, Umwelt v Germany (C-461/13)
Programmes of Measures must achieve Article 4's environmental objectives, reviewed every six years.
WFD Article 11, Regulations 12(6), 16(7)
Consultation must allow for 'intelligent consideration and response' to proposals.
R v Brent LBC ex p Gunning [1985]
Courts presume Parliament did not intend unworkable or impracticable statutory consequences.
R (Edison First Power Ltd) v SSEFRA [2003]
Outcomes
The claim succeeded.
The court found that the SoS erred in law by interpreting the Regulations to exclude water body-specific measures from the Programme of Measures. The Programme of Measures must contain measures relating to specific water bodies to achieve environmental objectives. While the RBMP can be strategic, the underlying Programme of Measures needs water body-specific detail.
Ground Five (failure to lawfully consult) also succeeded.
The consultation was unlawful due to the lack of legally required information in the HRBMP and the late provision of crucial water-body specific data (the CPS).
Similar Cases
C G Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1622 (Admin)
River Action UK, R (on the application of) v The Environment Agency
[2024] EWHC 1279 (Admin)
Dr Rosalind Bradbury, R (on the application of) v Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)
[2024] EWHC 1242 (Admin)
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)