Comparative Studies / Projects
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY and NATURAL ENGLAND-v-JOHN PRICE
SENTENCING REMARKS
IN THE KIDDERMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT
89EA19528407
River Ludd Case
Deer management grants: UK
Deer exclosures
Only on woodland, wood pasture, scrub, heathland, and moorland or grassland restoration to protect regeneration of woody species from deer browsing.
It will protect areas of woodland that are approximately 16 square metres in size from deer browsing. This will allow monitoring of the area’s regeneration potential and the impact of browsing.
Agreement holders are likely to need to:
- erect a deer exclosure plot that is at least 1.5m high by 4m by 4m, or if you’re applying for WS1 (Deer Supplement) you can agree alternative specifications with your local deer officer
- make sure the fence meets the specifications set out in the Forestry Commission Forest Fencing Technical Guide, but with no gates
- make sure the fence is inspected at least once a year
- maintain the fence so that deer cannot enter the site for the length of the agreement
- make sure that stakes are large enough to support the exclosure plot for the length of the agreement
- replace any stakes or fencing materials that become damaged during the term of the agreement
- clear debris from the line of the fence
- make the line of the fence smooth enough that the bottom of the fence sits with the ground (there must be no gaps that deer can get through)
What the management plan needs to include
The management plan needs to identify that deer are present on the site and are a threat to it.
Do not:
- cut any vegetation inside the plot
Keeping records
Agreement holders are likely to need to keep the following records and supply them on request:
- any consents or permissions connected with the work
- receipted invoices, or bank statements where a receipted invoice is unavailable
- Forestry Commission Management Plan approval letter if required
More Details:
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/deer-exclosure-plot-fg11
Deer control and management
£90 per hectare (ha)
Where to use this supplement
It’s available for Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier on whole or part parcels where deer have been identified in the Woodland Management Plan. Deer should be identified as a threat to semi-natural woodlands, regeneration and/or where deer browsing negatively impacts on woodland features, ground flora or structure.
If you include this as part of your Higher Tier application, the Forestry Commission will assess your application for this option before you are offered an agreement.
How this supplement will benefit the environment
Effective use of this supplement will:
- reduce deer browsing and grazing impacts to woodlands, ground flora and vulnerable features in the wider landscape enabling damaged ecosystems to recover
- improve woodland structural and species diversity helping to increase resilience to climate change, pests and diseases
- make sure the population of deer is sustainable for the appropriate habitat
Aims
Achieve effective deer management, where deer have been identified as a threat to semi-natural woodlands, regeneration and/or where deer browsing negatively impacts on woodland features, ground flora or structure.
Requirements
- In addition to P2015 under WD2 (baseline option), you should use the Deer Management Plan (DMP) Guide to produce a DMP in collaboration and agreement with your local Deer Officer/Woodland Officer and submit it by the end of year 1. Your DMP should show that you have carried out a baseline deer habitat impact and activity assessment to inform your deer management planning. Your DMP will build on the draft plan that you submit with your Initial Application documents
- In year 1 of your Higher Tier Agreement you should commence erecting additional deer monitoring exclosures. The number and location of deer exclosures will be agreed with the Deer Officer or Woodland Officer. Follow the advice and specifications in Forestry Commission operations note 59 to erect monitoring exclosure plots. You must send photographic monitoring evidence of these plots to your local Deer officer/Woodland officer when you erect them in year 1, 3 and 5 of your agreement
- Carry out agreed levels of culling activity (as agreed with Deer Officer/Woodland Officer in your Deer Management Plan). Provide evidence of culling activity and cull returns to the Deer Officer/Woodland Officer annually, following the guidance and template provided at Forestry Commission operations note
- Provide a report to show annual habitat impact assessments following the guidance and templates. This should include a graded (high/medium/low) impact and activity summary and photographic evidence of the survey. You should carry out habitat impact assessments in all significant woodland habitats and structure types of each woodland across the landholding within the agreement as soon as possible in year 1 (to support the DMP) and then in years 3 and 5.
Keeping records
You must send the following with your application:
- a draft Deer Management Plan (DMP) – send this with your Initial Application Documents
You must keep the following records and supply them on request:
- a Forestry Commission approved management plan that justifies the need for this option
- a Deer Management Plan in place by the end of the first year
- monitoring reports for year 1, 3 and 5 of the agreement to confirm progress (for example providing before and after photographs, a record of the number of deer culled, and the results of squirrel monitoring)
- evidence of activities undertaken through monitoring, photography and marking
- any bank statements, receipted invoices, consents, or permissions connected with the work
- records of all management activity on the option area for each parcel, including an operational site assessment (or similar) to show UKFS compliant operational activities
Additional guidance and advice
Deer Officers will:
- publish and maintain templates for deer habitat impact assessments, cull data, and Deer Management Plans in conjunction with the National Deer Advisor
- offer support and advise applicants (individually or through group events) to successfully deliver the supplement
- offer awareness sessions on deer management requirements, and training in the use of habitat impact monitoring (deer impact and activity assessments). Applicants should expect to be invited to attend one of the sessions held. These will be organised and run at several locations during each year. For specific details, contact your local deer officer/woodland officer.
Read Forestry Commission operations note 59 for specifications on deer exclosure plots. For specialist advice contact your local deer officer/woodland officer.
More details
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/ws1-deer-control-and-management
Deer Fencing
Available for Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier and Higher Tier Capital Grants but only on woodland.
It is also available for Countryside Stewardship Capital Grants (SFI pilot) to help you undertake the SFI pilot Farm woodland standard, but only if you also apply for TE4 (Supply and plant a tree) and locate the deer fencing on arable land or improved grassland used for the optional ‘Expand your woodland’ action.
How this item will benefit the environment
It will protect newly created or existing woodland from deer browsing as part of a wider woodland creation or woodland management project.
Requirements
For new agreements you must:
- Meet the fence specifications set out in the tables below (and in the Forestry Commission: Forest Fencing Technical Guide). As an alternative to wooden fence posts, you can use metal fence posts. For Higher Tier you need to agree this with your Natural England Adviser or Forestry Commission Woodland Officer
- Clear debris from the line of the fence
- Make the line of the fence smooth enough that the bottom of the fence sits with the ground (there must be no gaps that deer can enter through)
- Make sure the fence is regularly inspected
- Maintain the fence so that deer cannot enter the land until the trees are large enough that they no longer need to be protected
Specifications for the fence’s woodwork
| Species of deer | Endposts and turning posts (metres by centimetres) | Struts (metres by centimetres) | Intermediate stakes (metres by centimetres) | Maximum stake spacing (metres) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roe | 2.8m by 10 to 13cm | 2.5m by 8 to 10cm | 2.5m by 5 to 8cm | 10m |
| Muntjac | 2.8m by 10 to 13cm | 2.5m by 8 to 10cm | 2.5m by 5 to 8cm | 10m |
| Red/sika/fallow | 2.8m by 12 to 18cm | 2.5m by 10 to 13cm | 2.6m by 8 to 10cm | 10m |
Specifications for the height of the fence and the size of the mesh
| Species of deer | Minimum fence height (metres) | Maximum mesh size (millimetres) |
|---|---|---|
| Red and sika | 1.8m | 200 by 300mm |
| Fallow | 1.8m | 200 by 220mm |
| Roe | 1.5m | 200 by 150mm |
| Muntjac | 1.5m | 75 by 75mm |
What the management plan needs to include
You can only use this option on an existing woodland site if your management plan clearly identifies that deer are present and pose a threat to the site. You do not need a woodland management plan where this item is being used to protect newly planted trees using capital item TE4 – Supply and plant tree.
If you have an existing agreement, you must continue to follow the specifications in that agreement.
Keeping records
You must keep the following records and supply them with your payment claim:
- photographs of the completed work
You must keep the following records and supply them on request:
- any consents or permissions connected with the work
- receipted invoices, or bank statements where a receipted invoice is unavailable
- Forestry Commission Management Plan approval letter
The detailed requirements for this item will be tailored to the Higher Tier site. If you are a Higher Tier applicant you should discuss and agree these requirements with your adviser.
Please see the record keeping and inspection requirements as set out in the relevant Higher Tier or Higher Tier Capital Grants guidance for more detail. You can find the latest guidance at Countryside Stewardship: get funding to protect and improve the land you manage.
More Details
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/deer-fencing-fg9
Deer high seats
£265 per unit.
Where to use this item
Available for Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier, Higher Tier Capital Grants and Woodland tree health.
Where this item cannot be used
Where deer fencing has already been erected to keep deer out of the area.
How this item will benefit the environment
It will provide a safe, temporary vantage point from which to cull deer, reducing the impact their browsing has on the land.
Requirements
Agreement holders are likely to need to consider:
- the health and safety of non-authorised users of the seat – eg prominently display British Standard signs prohibiting public access
- the health and safety of authorised users – eg make sure the seat has safety bars, is of an adequate size, and is securely attached to the anchor point
- the protection of the tree, if a tree is used as an anchor point – eg use webbing strops, rather than wire and nails, to attach the seat to the tree
The high seat must be portable, free-standing and made from galvanised tubular or box-section steel.
What the management plan needs to include
The woodland management plan identifies deer are a threat to the woodland’s condition.
Keeping records
Agreement holders will need to keep the following records and supply them on request:
- any consents or permissions connected with the work
- receipted invoices, or bank statements where a receipted invoice is unavailable
- Forestry Commission Management Plan approval letter
Please see the record keeping and inspection requirements as set out in the relevant Higher Tier, Higher Tier Capital Grants or Woodland tree health guidance for more detail. You can find the latest guidance at Countryside Stewardship: get funding to protect and improve the land you manage.
Agreement holders will need to keep the following records and supply them with the claim:
- photographs of the completed work
The detailed requirements for this item will be tailored to the Higher Tier site. Higher Tier applicants should discuss and agree these requirements with their adviser.
Further information
Find more information about constructing high seats in The Deer Initiative’s best practice guide.
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/deer-high-seat-fy1
Guidance on Developments on Peatland (Scotland)
North Devon Priority Focus Area
TIMOTHY CHARLES HARRIS & Anor v THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
[UK Water Abstraction Case]
Date: 6 September 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The claimants, Angelika and Timothy Harris, live in the Norfolk Broads. They are concerned that water abstraction is causing irremediable damage to the environment, including ecosystems that are legally protected. Their intervention was instrumental in the decision of the defendant, the Environment Agency, not to renew two abstraction licences. The claimants believe that the Environment Agency ought to review more broadly the impact of water abstraction to decide whether other licences should also be withdrawn or altered. They challenge, by judicial review, the Environment Agency’s refusal to expand the scope of an investigation that it conducted into the effect of 240 licences for abstraction. That investigation concerned the effect of abstraction on just three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (“the three SSSIs”).
The claimants’ case is that:
(1)
the Environment Agency is in breach of an obligation under article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (“the Habitats Directive”) to avoid the deterioration of protected habitats and disturbance of protected species.
(2)
The obligation under article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive has effect in domestic law by reason of regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations”) which requires the Environment Agency to “have regard” to the Habitats Directive.
(3)
Irrespective of the effect of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations, article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive is enforceable by the domestic courts.
(4)
The Environment Agency’s decision not to conduct a more expansive investigation into the impact of licenced water abstraction is irrational.
The Environment Agency accepts that it must have regard to article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. It maintains that it has done so and that it has, after taking it into account, reasonably decided to limit its investigation of the impact of the 240 licences to the three SSSIs. It disputes that article 6(2) has direct effect in domestic law beyond the obligation to “have regard” to it. In any event, it maintains that it is acting compatibly with the requirements of article 6(2).
[The Claimants] have been concerned for many years about the condition of fenland in the area where they live and own land. They are particularly concerned about the impact of the abstraction of groundwater for agricultural and other purposes.
Habitats Regulations require […] a precautionary approach and to take action to reduce abstraction where there was a risk that abstraction might cause such adverse effects.
Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Case C-127/02) [2005] 2 CMLR 31
The Habitats Directive must be interpreted in accordance with the precautionary principle
Anticipatory measures are required to prevent deterioration before it occurs: Case C-418/04 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-10997 at [207]-[208]
Where it appears that there is a risk of deterioration of a protected habitat, article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive requires that “appropriate steps” are taken to avoid that deterioration: Case C-399/14 Grüne Liga Sachsen eV v Freistaat Sachsen EU:C:2016:10 [2016]
This means that where it becomes apparent that there may be a risk to a protected habitat or species as a result of the licenced abstraction of water, article 6(2) imposes an obligation to review the applicable licences: Grüne Liga at [44]. The review must be sufficiently robust to guarantee that the abstraction of water will not cause significant damage to ecosystems that are protected under the Habitats Directive: Grüne Liga at [53].
The claimants’ case is that the Environment Agency acted unlawfully by limiting its investigation to the three SSSIs. They say that once it decided to review the 240 abstraction licences, it was required to consider their impact across the entirety of the SAC. Further, once the Environment Agency was aware of potential risks to other sites, it was obliged to address those potential risks.
Water abstraction involves the taking of water from the underlying aquifers and thereby potentially reduces the through-flow of base-rich water which is a key characteristic of the SAC. It also potentially changes the ground chemistry, impacting on surface ecology.
There is therefore the clear potential for water abstraction to cause damage to wetland ecosystems.
The Environment Agency has a broad discretion as to the steps that should be taken to achieve that end. The cost of different options is a relevant factor that can legitimately be considered. A court will be slow to question the Environment Agency’s expert assessment as to the steps that should be taken. It is, however, not open to the Environment Agency to take no steps – that is a breach of article 6(2).
The Environment Agency must act unless it is satisfied that there is no risk of significant damage.
Environment Agency cannot absolve itself from compliance with article 6 by pointing to work done by other public authorities.
Although it has taken account of article 6, it has not justified its failure to take steps in respect of the risks (particularly risks posed by abstraction in accordance with permanent licences), and it is therefore in breach of its obligation under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations. The claimed lack of resource does not justify these breaches.
The Environment Agency has not undertaken any sufficient analysis of the steps needed to address the impact of abstraction in accordance with permanent licences.
The Environment Agency must (by reason of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations) have regard to the requirements of article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. It must therefore be in a position to justify any departure from those requirements.
It follows that the Environment Agency must take appropriate steps to ensure that, in the SAC, there is no possibility of the deterioration of protected habitats or the significant disturbance of protected species as a result of licensed water abstraction. The Environment Agency has discharged that obligation in respect of three sites of special scientific interest. But it has not done so in respect of all sites within the SAC. That is because its review of abstraction licences was flawed and (at least in relation to permanent licences) it has not conducted a sufficient further review to address those flaws. It is therefore in breach of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations and article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive.
Net Zero & Livestock – how farmers can reduce emissions
April 2002
Moving to more sustainable methods of slurry application: implications for water quality of waterbodies and water protected areas
This report is a quick scoping review (QSR) of peer reviewed and grey literature to provide an evidence-based comparison of different low emission slurry spreading (LESS) approaches in terms of farming practice, ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions and risk of water pollution from slurry spreading to inform farmer-focused guidance on LESS. The work is focused on slurry-borne contaminants that are relevant to the water quality objectives under the river basin management plans (RBMP) set by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), such as nitrate, phosphorus and faecal indicator organisms (FIO).
The key question addressed by the project is ‘What are the effects of low emission slurry spreading (LESS) approaches on water quality?
This QSR showed that the key factors influencing the impact of LESS approaches on losses of slurry-borne pollutants to water are precipitation, soil moisture, soil permeability and drainage, and presence of vegetation, be it crop, grass or vegetated buffer strips. The role of these factors has already been captured in the current regulatory framework, stipulating specific obligations for farmers under GBR18 and The Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008. The already existing guidance is still valid to protect water quality. However, the choice of LESS approach should be determined by environmental designations and account for the most vulnerable environmental component (soil/atmosphere/ waterbodies) of the agro-ecosystem. Guidance to farmers should also consider a compromise between feasibility, cost, and environmental and agronomic objectives.
Bowston weir removal project
South Cumbria Rivers Trust project to remove Bowston weir, on the River Kent at Bowston near Burneside in South Cumbria. It is funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
Noteworthy project due to the level of transparency on the project