Court rules HRBMP must include water body specific measures

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2918 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R (on the application of Pickering Fishery Association by Martin Smith) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs delves into the nuanced responsibilities laid out in environmental law, particularly in relation to river basin management. This analysis explores the pivotal legal principles employed in the judgment, particularly the interplay between river basin management plans (RBMPs), Programmes of Measures, and environmental objectives as prescribed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its transposition into the domestic law of England and Wales.

Key Facts

The case centres on the Humber River Basin Management Plan (HRBMP) approval by the Secretary of State (SoS), challenged by the Pickering Fishery Association through Martin Smith. The claimant argued the updated HRBMP failed to meet legal requirements, specifically not setting out water body specific measures necessary for achieving environmental objectives under the WFD and the associated domestic Regulations. The judicial assessment involves the scrutiny of consultation processes, evaluation of Programs of Measures, and interpretation of the statutory obligations at an individual water body level versus a more generalized approach.

Several key legal principles emerge from the case law content, including:

  1. Framework of the WFD and Environmental Objectives: The WFD sets out a framework for the protection and improvement of water bodies, requiring states to establish Programmes of Measures for achieving environmental objectives specific to each water body.

  2. Duty to Review and Update Programmes: The WFD imposes an obligation to periodically review and update Programmes of Measures to achieve the objectives, which the claimant argued must be at a water body level.

  3. Consultation and Public Participation: Under WFD provisions and domestic regulation, there is a right to public consultation and access to background documents used in developing RBMPs, fostering transparency and the ability to respond intelligently to proposals.

  4. Statutory Interpretation: The court’s task was to interpret the statutory provisions in question, namely whether the Programme of Measures included in the HRBMP needed to be water body specific, as argued by the claimant.

  5. Practicality and Administrative Workability: The SoS and the EA argued that requiring water body specific measures was administratively unworkable, which the court had to take into account when considering the intention behind the legislation.

  6. Distinction Between Planning and Implementation: The EA posited a distinction between strategic planning (RBMP) and specific operational implementation (actions at water body level), arguing that the HRBMP process was not intended for detailed, individualized management.

Outcomes

The judgment concluded with Mrs Justice Lieven accepting the claimant’s interpretational stance—agreeing that the Programme of Measures as per the WFD and Regulations indeed required specificity at the individual water body level to fulfil environmental objectives. This implies that the HRBMP could not be so generic as to exclude actual measures tied to specific water bodies. Furthermore, the judgment considered the EA’s management to be sufficient only where such measures were set out and thus actionable at the individual water body level.

Conclusion

The court’s ruling in Martin Smith, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has crystallized the statutory expectations surrounding environmental objectives within RBMPs. The decision underscores the imperative of specificity in Programmes of Measures to effectively address each water body’s unique conditions and targets. In resolving this legal interpretation, the court has set a precedent that emphasizes precision in environmental management plans and the legal necessity of detailed approaches tailored to individual water bodies, also affirming the fundamental role of public consultation in the river basin management planning process.