Tribunal Upholds NVZ Designation in Towse v Secretary of State: Key Legal Principles and Outcomes

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 174 (GRC)
Judgment on


In the matter of Stephen William Towse v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs ([2024] UKFTT 174 (GRC)), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) addressed an appeal concerning the designation of certain lands as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) under the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015. The case delves into the complexities of environmental regulatory compliance and engages with the methods utilized by environmental bodies to monitor and assess nitrate pollution. This article provides an analysis of the case law, elucidating the legal principles applied and their direct linkage to the parts of the case summary provided.

Key Facts

Mr. Stephen William Towse appealed against the Secretary of State’s proposal to designate his occupied land within NVZs S249 and S250. The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 require monitoring of nitrate levels and allow for the designation of NVZs if lands contribute to pollution. Grounds of appeal permitted under the regulations challenge whether the lands drain into polluted waters. Mr. Towse’s appeal was multifaceted, arguing against the validity of the NVZ designations and the methodologies used to determine such designations.

The Tribunal reviewed several legal principles associated with the designation of NVZs under the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015.

  1. Regulatory Framework: Regulation 4(2) of the 2015 Regulations establishes a duty on the Secretary of State to monitor nitrate concentrations, and Regulation 5 sets out the procedural requirements for publicizing proposals and notifying affected parties.

  2. Grounds for Appeal: Regulation 6 outlines the grounds for appeal against the designation of NVZs, focusing on the accuracy of identification and the continued identification of land as draining into polluted waters.

  3. Use of Statistical Methodologies: The Tribunal evaluated the appropriateness of statistical methods such as the Weibull method and Quantile Regression for the estimation of nitrate levels. The acceptability of using a 95th percentile statistic for setting precautionary standards was also considered.

  4. Evidential Standards: The case touches upon the evidential standards required for designating NVZs, discussing the acceptable threshold for nitrate levels and the sufficiency of evidence needed to establish pollution levels.

  5. Human Rights Considerations: Human rights implications under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights were briefly considered and found to be justifiable in the context of preventing nitrate pollution.


The Tribunal systematically dismissed each of Mr. Towse’s arguments, upholding the Secretary of State’s decision to designate the land as part of NVZs. Specifically, the Tribunal found:

  1. The data and analysis supporting pollution levels were reliable.
  2. The chosen statistical methodologies were appropriate for drawing reasonable conclusions.
  3. The potential influence of upstream discharges did not substantively challenge the designation.
  4. Any imperfections in the nitrate leaching assessment tools did not undermine their contribution to overall evidence.
  5. No arguable human rights violation was established.
  6. Any legislative changes following the UK’s departure from the EU did not impact the legality of NVZ designations.


The decision in Stephen William Towse v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs illustrates the judicial deference to specialized administrative bodies in environmental matters, particularly regarding the technical and complex assessments necessary for designating NVZs. The case reaffirms the legitimacy of using established statistical methods and evidential standards when it comes to regulatory compliance under environmental law. Moreover, the Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal highlights the principle that the lack of absolute certainty in pollution assessment methods does not intrinsically undermine the raison d’être of such regulatory measures, which is to offer precautionary environmental protection.

Related Summaries