Ieuan Joyce (RM & CF Joyce) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
1. Regulation 4(2) of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 (“the Regulations”) requires the Secretary of State to monitor the nitrate concentration in freshwaters over a prescribed period. The nitrate must be measured in order to identify water that is affected by pollution (or could be if the controls provided by the Regulations are not applied), and then to identify...
Calcul en cours · 0
1. Regulation 4(2) of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 (“the Regulations”) requires the Secretary of State to monitor the nitrate concentration in freshwaters over a prescribed period. The nitrate must be measured in order to identify water that is affected by pollution (or could be if the controls provided by the Regulations are not applied), and then to identify land which drains into those waters and that contributes to its pollution. If necessary, such land may then be designated as a “nitrate vulnerable zone” (“NVZ”). 2. On 12 May 2025 the Secretary of State sent written notice to the Appellant under regulation 5(3)(b) of the Regulations that one or more of their relevant holdings falls wholly or partly within an area that the Secretary of State has identified as an NVZ. 3. The Regulations define “a relevant holding” as land and any associated buildings used for growing crops in soil, or rearing livestock for agricultural purposes, that fall wholly or partly in an NVZ. 4. The Appellant has appealed against the notice under regulation 6(2)(a) of the Regulations on the grounds that two fields have been included within the NVZ that do not drain into water which the Secretary of State has identified as polluted. This is known as a “Type A” appeal. The Appellant stated that previous appeals had been made and upheld each time against the inclusion of the fields within the NVZ. 5. The Environment Agency has responded to the appeal on behalf of the Secretary of State. It confirms that the appeal is not opposed because the two fields identified by the Appellant do not drain to a polluted water. The evidence supplied by the Appellant had previously been reviewed by the Environment Agency and it was agreed that the land identified should be removed from the NVZ. 6. The Environment Agency considers that the designations made by the Secretary of State should be amended to remove the land identified by the Appellant in this appeal from “NVZ ID number: G4”. Given this concession, the appeal is allowed. 7. Pursuant to regulation 6(3) of the Regulations, where the Tribunal upholds an appeal on a Type A appeal the Secretary of State must treat the relevant part of the holding in respect of which the appeal is upheld as not draining into the water concerned.
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...