Image from Google Jackets

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Alford

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 36 EG 278-281(4)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWHC 808 (Admin), 5 May 2005. Considers whether a farm owner who applied manure to neglected grazing moorland without applying for or having the consent of the SoS, had contravened the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001. Appeal by farm owner (A) against the decision that the land in question fell within the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas description in the 2001 Regulations and that the manuring came within the intensive agricultural purposes definition in reg. 2(1) of the Regulations. A appealed by case stated. The issues were: (1) whether the manuring process came within the intensive agricultural purposes definition either because it increased the productiveness of the land or it intensified the agricultural purpose to which the land was put ;(2) whether A's project amounted to an intervention in the natural surroundings involving the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural purposes for intensive agricultural purposes. "Held": appeal allowed. The volumes of manure applied used were not calculated to raise the productivity of the land above the normal productivity of the land if it had not fallen into a state of neglect. The work carried out could not be described as an intervention for intensive agricultural purposes.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article L131006 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 131006-1001

[2005] EWHC 808 (Admin), 5 May 2005. Considers whether a farm owner who applied manure to neglected grazing moorland without applying for or having the consent of the SoS, had contravened the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001. Appeal by farm owner (A) against the decision that the land in question fell within the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas description in the 2001 Regulations and that the manuring came within the intensive agricultural purposes definition in reg. 2(1) of the Regulations. A appealed by case stated. The issues were: (1) whether the manuring process came within the intensive agricultural purposes definition either because it increased the productiveness of the land or it intensified the agricultural purpose to which the land was put ;(2) whether A's project amounted to an intervention in the natural surroundings involving the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural purposes for intensive agricultural purposes. "Held": appeal allowed. The volumes of manure applied used were not calculated to raise the productivity of the land above the normal productivity of the land if it had not fallen into a state of neglect. The work carried out could not be described as an intervention for intensive agricultural purposes.