The National Farmers’ Union v Herefordshire Council & Ors

A minerals and waste local plan may regulate agricultural waste and livestock-unit proposals where the planning authority is lawfully addressing environmental harm. The statutory definition of waste does not, without more, limit the authority’s power to include such a policy. Material excluded from waste controls by the Waste Framework Directive remains subject to the environmental-harm and sufficiently-certain-reuse qualifications.

A policy requiring whole-unit waste-management information for major or EIA development may fairly relate to the development because it addresses cumulative and indirect environmental effects. A nutrient-neutrality requirement must, however, be read as applying to the proposal, not automatically to the whole agricultural unit. Failure to consult at regulation 19 will invalidate a plan only where substantial prejudice is shown.

The National Farmers’ Union challenged the lawfulness of Policy W3 in Herefordshire’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The policy required waste-management method statements for livestock-unit proposals, imposed wider requirements for EIA development, supported anaerobic digestion in specified circumstances, and required nutrient neutrality for relevant proposals within the River Wye and River Clun SACs.

Five grounds alleged unlawful extension beyond the statutory concept of waste, breach of the [1981] AC 578 principles, irrational nutrient-neutrality requirements, failure to consult at regulation 19, and inadequate reasons. The Secretary of State had found the plan sound subject to modifications. The central issues were whether Policy W3 was within the planning authority’s powers, how its supporting text should be interpreted, and whether the consultation error caused substantial prejudice.

1. Claim dismissed. The court held that the planning authority was not legally required to confine the plan to material falling within the statutory definition of waste. The legality of Policy W3 depended on whether the authority was entitled to include it, not on the plan’s title.
2. The exclusions in Article 2(1)(f) of the Waste Framework Directive remain qualified by the requirement that use does not harm the environment. Where manure is to be reused as fertiliser, the principles in Commission v Spain and Brady require sufficiently certain reuse, with the relevant land identified where appropriate. At policy stage, uncertainty about the manure’s destination and environmental effects justified regulation.
3. The requirement in Policy W3(1)(b) for a method statement covering waste generated by the whole agricultural unit was lawful. EIA development would ordinarily be major development with significant environmental effects, and the requirement addressed cumulative and indirect impacts. It therefore fairly and reasonably related to the permitted development under [1981] AC 578.
4. Policy W3(3) applied to the development proposal, not the agricultural unit as a whole. Paragraph 6.2.25 of the supporting text could not enlarge the policy. If read as doing so, it was to that extent impermissible; the policy remained lawful without striking out the paragraph.
5. The authority was entitled to adopt nutrient neutrality across the River Wye catchment. Natural England’s advice was an important consideration, but it left the local authority’s wider approach open and the authority had cogent evidence concerning declining water quality.
6. The regulation 19 consultation error was accepted, but no substantial prejudice was established under section 113(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The NFU had raised the material issues at earlier and later stages, and there was no realistic prospect that further representations would have altered the examination outcome.
7. The reasons were legally adequate. The Inspector’s Report could properly be read with the background documents, and local plan inspectors were not required to answer every representation individually.