“3.7 The Environment Agency’s risk-based approach to regulation would be the basis for enforcement of the new rules. Where farmers did not comply with the rules, we propose to focus enforcement efforts on priority catchments. This would normally be an advice-led approach at first. Farms remaining non-compliant could then expect to receive formal warnings and potentially a fine. Prosecution would generally only follow in the case of the more serious offences where there had been a failure to respond to those warnings. This staged approach is designed to avoid placing a disproportionate burden on farm businesses.”
“there is evidence of widespread agricultural diffuse pollution by phosphorus but no mandatory controls in place to tackle it”
“In line with government policy, the Environment Agency will make best use of the data and technology available to them to build upon and refine their risk-based approach to enforcement. This means that the Environment Agency can focus on catchments where agriculture is known to be having an environmental impact, associated higher risk farming activities and non- compliant farmers. Farmers who have demonstrated good environmental practice through a farm accreditation scheme, for example, are less likely to receive a compliance visit. Where a suspected breach is visited and confirmed by the Environment Agency or found during inspection, the Environment Agency will work with farmers to agree which changes need to be made to come into compliance and the timescale to achieve them. A follow up visit or evidence provided by the farmer, such as photographic evidence of a change, may then be used to verify compliance. If there is a high risk of pollution or if pollution is already occurring, then the Environment Agency may immediately initiate enforcement action in line with its enforcement and sanctions policy.”
“agricultural diffuse pollution” means the transportation of agricultural pollutants into inland freshwaters or coastal waters, or into a spring, well or borehole where – a. the transportation occurs by means of soil erosion or leaching, and b. the agricultural pollutants may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems”
“(2) References in these Regulations to “application” in relation to organic manure or manufactured fertiliser – a. include – i. spreading on the surface of the land, ii. injection into the land, and iii. mixing with the surface layers of the soil, and (b) does not include the direct deposit of excreta onto land by livestock.”
“4 – Applying organic manure and manufactured fertiliser to agricultural land (1) A land manager must ensure that, for each application of organic manure or manufactured fertiliser to agricultural land, the application – (a) is planned so that it does not – (i) exceed the needs of the soil and crop on that land, or (ii) give rise to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution, and (b) takes into account the weather conditions and forecasts for that land at the time of the application. (2) When planning under paragraph (1)(a)(ii), the land manager must ensure that any factors which mean there would be a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution from the application are taken into account, including – (a) the slope of the land, in particular if greater than 12 degrees, (b) any ground cover, (c) proximity of the land to inland freshwaters, coastal waters, wetlands, or to a spring, well or borehole, (d) the soil type and condition of the land, and (e) the presence and condition of any agricultural land drains. (3) In addition to paragraphs (1) and (2), the land manager must ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to prevent agricultural diffuse pollution resulting from applications. (4) Without limiting what may otherwise be done to comply with paragraph (3), examples of reasonable precautions must include – (a) checking spreading equipment for leaks and correct calibration, (b) incorporating organic manure and manufactured fertiliser into the soil within 12 hours of, or as soon as possible after, its application, and (c) checking the organic matter content in, and moisture levels of, the soil. 5. In this regulation- "spreading equipment" means any machinery used for the application of organic manure or manufactured fertiliser to agricultural land and includes precision spreading equipment; "wetlands" means land that is covered with or saturated by water permanently or for a significant part of the year.”
“5. Applying organic manure and manufactured fertiliser to cultivated agricultural land 1. When planning an application under regulation 4(1)(a) to cultivated agricultural land, a land manager must ensure that the results of soil sampling and analysis are taken into account. 2. The results of the soil sampling and analysis – (a) must include the pH of the soil and the levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, magnesium and potassium present, (b) must be no more than 5 years old at the time of application, and (c) may have been collected before the date on which these Regulations come into force, including by another land manager. (3) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), nitrogen levels may be determined by means of assessment of the soil nitrogen supply, rather than the sampling and analysis of the soil. (4) In this Regulation, “cultivated agricultural land” mean agricultural land which has been cultivated – (a) by physical means (including ploughing, sowing or harvesting) at least once in the previous year, or (b) by chemical means (including the application of organic manure or manufactured fertiliser) at least once in the previous 3 years.”
“14. Enforcement The Agency has the function of enforcing these Regulations. 15. Guidance to the Agency (1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the Agency with respect to the exercise of the Agency’s functions under these Regulations. (2) In the exercise of its functions, the Agency must have regard to any guidance issued under paragraph (1). (3) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under paragraph (1) on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.”
“- be proportionate to the needs of individual circumstances, informing decisions about applying organic manures and manufactured fertilisers - show an assessment of the crop nutrient requirement for each cultivated land parcel that should be informed by one of the following: - a manual such as AHDB’s nutrient management guide (RB209) (https://ahdb.org.uk/nutrient-management-guide-rb209) - farm software such as PLANET or nutrient management tools such as those provided by Tried and Tested - a suitably qualified professional, such as an agronomist or FACTS advisor - take account of the results of soil sampling and analysis - take account of the nutrient content of the applied organic manures and manufactured fertilisers.”
“2.2 Assessment of crop and soil need when planning Land managers should plan to avoid significant risk of diffuse agricultural pollution. This includes not exceeding the needs of the soil and crop on the land. Land managers should consider soil and crop need for Nitrogen (N) based on an annual crop cycle. As a general guide, land managers should plan to avoid applyingorganic manures that raise the Soil Phosphorus Index (soil Pindex) above target levels for soil and crop on land over a croprotation, unless they can demonstrate that: - it is not reasonably practicable to do so - they have taken all appropriate reasonable precautions to help mitigate against the risk of diffuse agricultural pollution Examples of when it would not be reasonably practicable to do so include if a farm: - produces and applies its own organic manure to its own land and cannot reasonably take measures to treat or manage the manure (for example, if it exports it) to avoid applications that risk raising the soil P index level of soil above crop and soil need target levels over a crop rotation - imports organic manure as part of an integrated organic and manufactured fertiliser system and cannot reasonably import organic manures that would not risk raising the soil P index level of the soil above crop and soil need target levels over a crop rotation.” (Emphasis added)
“2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitat of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.”
“(3) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions, a competent authority, in exercising any of its functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Directives so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions.”
“82. Here, the natural and conventional approach to the “have regard” duty is that it means that the Environmental Agency is obliged to take account of the requirements of the Habitats Directive but may depart from its requirements if there is good reason to do so. In other words, it must take account of the Habitats Directive but is entitled not itself to discharge all of the requirements of the Directive where that can be justified. 83. It is, however, relevant (when considering whether a departure can be justified) that the object of the “have regard” duty is “requirements”, rather than advice or guidance. Advice or guidance is not, ordinarily, mandatory. The “requirements” are set out, in mandatory terms, in a Directive which the Regulations themselves transposed. In this context, there is not the same broad scope for taking something into account, but then deciding for good reason to depart from it, as there is in the case of non-binding guidance. 84. There is an important part of the regulatory context which helps explain the different language as between regulations 9(1) and 9(3). Regulation 9(3) is concerned with a “competent authority”
“103. That leaves over the question of permanent licences. In his witness statement, Mr Pearson says that the ongoing work includes “adjusting permanent licences shown to be seriously damaging, either through voluntary action or by using our powers provided undersection 52 of the Water Resources Act 1991 ”
“These results suggest that in most seasons it would not be possible to spread organic materials without significant risk of soil compaction and runoff until April in most English regions. This is likely to delay applications to winter cereal crops until stem extension which typically begins in early April. For slurry and liquid digestate applications made using band-spreading equipment, this may still practically be possible. However, for solid manures, the possible physical damage caused to the plants along with potential crop contamination issues is likely to make topdressing to cereal crops in spring impractical. Topdressing bulky organic materials to growing cereal crops is likely to result in reduced nutrient use efficiency; soil and crop damage; and reduced crop yield and quality compared with autumn applications.”
“9.3 Conclusions A large proportion (up to 70%), of solid, low RAN [readily available nitrogen] materials are currently applied and incorporated in the autumn-sown cereals. The modelling undertaken as part of this study has shown that the EA’s interpretation of Rule 1 of the FRfW will: - reduce nitrate leaching losses by c.60% (1.5% decrease in the total loss from agriculture) - increase in ammonia emission by c.10% (2% increase in total emissions from agriculture) - increase in P loss by c.30% (5% increase in the total loss from agriculture) - increase solid manure storage requirement by 7 million tonnes and slurry by 3million m 3 The increase in ammonia emissions and P losses is largely due to the inability to incorporate solid manures in spring, which is an important mitigation method for controlling loss of N by ammonia volatilisation and P via surface runoff. P losses are also likely to be higher from spring applications as soils are usually closer to field capacity than in autumn increasing the risk of surface runoff after application. For livestock manures, these impacts are likely to be greatest in the East of England where most pig and poultry manures are currently applied ahead of autumn cropping. The FRfW aim to ensure that “all reasonable precautions” are taken to prevent diffuse pollution following the application of organic manures and manufactured fertilisers, stating that materials should not be applied “if there is a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution”
“Manufactured nitrogen fertilisers should be applied at or just before rapid periods of crop growth to minimise the risks of N losses to the environment. Phosphate and potash fertilisers feed the soil rather than the crop. In most situations once soil P and K levels are at target index applications can be managed to replace P and K offtakes over a rotation rather than annual applications. Where responsive crops are grown P applications in the seedbed or at planting are recommended. Applications of organic manures have to be managed differently to manufacture fertiliser applications because of fundamental differences in the materials. The physical nature of organic materials, the potential for water and air pollution and the uncertainty over the crop available nutrient supply following application will require application timings that are appropriate for soil, organic material and crop type as well as soil and weather conditions. E.g. top dressing solid manure to growing crops in spring increases the risk of crop damage, odour and ammonia emissions. On medium/heavy soils that are drained spring application timings pose a significant risk of phosphorus, ammonium and BOD contamination of drainage water. Incorporation of solid manures following applications to stubbles in the autumn reduces the risks of ammonia emissions to air. A risk-based approach to organic manure application timing that accounts for soil type, manure type, crop type and soil nutrient status based on the application matrix published by Bhogal et al. (2021) will help minimise the risks of diffuse pollution and maximise the benefits from the application of organic materials in agricultural systems.”
“9. Because we only have limited quantities available, at Turns of Bytham we apply FYM [farmyard manure] strategically, preferring to focus on two main areas of production. The first is to incorporate it in September into seedbeds immediately prior to winter wheat being sown. FYM has relatively low level of Readily Available Nitrogen (“RAN”) and consequently the rate of release is well matched to the low demands of the crop for nutrients at that point of growing season. … 11. We also found that it was difficult to predict the rate and duration of growth of autumn sown crops due to the increasingly unpredictable weather patterns. As a result, we now only apply sufficient manures in the autumn to cover the period of growth for the crop up to middle of November and no further. 12. The second phase of our FYM application is undertaken in spring and this happens in a number of different ways. It is applied to previously (autumn) sown ‘green manure’ cover crops, typically mustard, ahead of them being mulched and incorporated as part of the preparations for spring-sown crops. These cover crops act as a “bank” which then subsequently release their nutrients for the benefit of the following cash crop. The important role of cover crops is now recognised and financially supported in the new DEFRA Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS). We pay particular attention to the vigour of winter wheat crops where we are trying to boost the quality for milling and where we feel it would be beneficial, apply a light (3 tonnes per hectare) rate of composted manure at a point between the second and last week in April. We follow the application of composted FYM with a light harrow to incorporate it into the top layers of the soil and minimise losses of nutrients to the atmosphere. In split-field trials that we have conducted, we have found no detectable impact in terms of yield loss due to any short-term plant damage in applying FYM at this stage and it does increase protein levels in the grain between 0.5% and 1.0%. Finally, we also apply composted FYM to grassland that is used for conserved forage. We ensure that the FYM is applied at least 4 weeks prior to cutting the grass in order to avoid contamination of the conserved forage and for that purpose we also use the grassland harrow to help disperse any clumps of manure. As a general rule, we apply around 15% of our composted FYM into autumn seedbeds and 85% in the spring months between late February and mid-May. 13. To minimise compaction, we always take into account the soil conditions and use relatively light equipment that is fitted with low ground pressure tyres. In organic farming systems, the effects of compacted soils are more apparent than in non-organic counterparts because they are not masked by chemical fertilizer inputs. As a result, we know with a high degree of confidence that finding suitable conditions to apply FYM without any impact on soil connection is not an issue. The soils on our farm range from boulder clay to alluvial sand and gravel. Consideration of alternative ways of using and disposing ofslurry or manure 14. For some large-scale poultry farmers, the slurry/manure is seen as a liability rather than an asset and that tends to be reflected in the way that it is treated. There are a number of ways that farmers are responding to this which I set out below. Investment in slurry storage 15. The Government has responded to the challenges of managing slurry over the closed periods by introducing grant funding for livestock (i.e. beef cattle, dairy and pig) farming businesses wishing to install storage capacity. The scheme, which is administered by Rural Payments Agency (RPA) opened for its first round in 2022 and the second round of funding has just reached the end of its application period.”
“(1) Any person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must have regards to the principles in subsection (2) in the exercise of the function. (2) Those principles are that – (a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent; (b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed.”
“3.1 Act proportionately We will act proportionately when we apply the law. We will take account of and balance the: -risk posed to people and the environment -seriousness of the breach of the law -impact on the environment, people and legitimate business -cost of taking enforcement action against the benefit of taking it -impact on economic growth”
“4. Enforcement and sanction penalty principles When we carry out any enforcement activity we aim to: -change the behaviour of the offender -remove any financial gain or benefit arising from the breach -be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the particular offender and regulatory issue, including punishment and the public stigma that should be associated with a criminal conviction -be proportionate to the nature of the breach and the harm caused -take steps to ensure any harm or damage is restored -deter future breaches by the offender and others.”
“7. What does the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance allow land managers to do? The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance is not law. The guidance outlines criteria that the Environment Agency should consider when it is determining if it should take enforcement action under the FRfW. FRfW require that each application of organic manure or manufactured fertiliser to agricultural land is planned so that it does not exceed the needs of the soil and crop on the land or give rise to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution. The Environment Agency’s interpretation is that crop available nutrients should be applied at a time of immediate crop uptake. However, the Statutory Guidance provides for land managers to have planned applications of organic manure to agricultural land that do not exceed the crop and soil needs for nitrogen over an annual cycle and that avoid raising the soil phosphorus index above target levels for soil and crop over a rotation. The Environment Agency will consider whether formal enforcement of Regulation 4(1)(a) (i) and (ii) going beyond providing advice and guidance is appropriate including where the requirements of the Statutory Guidance are met and for as long as the Guidance in place. We will discuss how the land manager can come into compliance within a reasonable timescale and we will continue to work with them to help them do so. However, we will use our enforcement powers where action isn’t taken or if there is a significant risk of pollution. The FRfW do not make reference to either crop cycle or crop rotation; the Statutory Guidance does. A crop cycle is the time between the start of one crop and the start of the next. A crop rotation is the practice of growing a different crop on a given land area every growing/planting cycle and season. Crop rotations may take a number of years. Land managers need to follow the Statutory Guidance and be able to demonstrate that they are doing so. In all cases land managers must take all appropriate reasonable precautions, to help mitigate against the risk of diffuse agricultural pollution. There is no finite list of appropriate reasonable precautions to help mitigate against the risk of diffuse agricultural pollution, however examples are present within the guidance. … 10. If I follow the Secretary of State’s Guidance, will I be compliant with all the Farming Rules for Water? A land manager’s compliance with the FRfW will depend upon the individual circumstances. The Statutory Guidance outlines criteria that the Environment Agency should consider when they are determining if they should take enforcement action under the FRfW. It does not amend or relax the rules, only the way in which Regulations 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii) could be enforced. It is possible for a land manager to act in accordance with the guidance and be non-compliant with the Environment Agency’s interpretation of the FRfW. For example, a land manager may choose to spread manure in autumn when there is no immediate crop need for nitrogen in accordance with the Statutory Guidance. However, this activity would not be in compliance with the Environment Agency’s interpretation of the FRfW because there is no crop need at the time of application. 11. Will I face criminal sanctions if I follow the Secretary of State’s guidance? If there is evidence that land managers have followed the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, but are operating outside of compliance with the FRfW, then the Environment Agency is not normally expected to take formal enforcement action. Where a land manager has acted in accordance with the Statutory Guidance, we will consider enforcement action and discuss how the land manager can come into compliance with Regulation 4(1)(a) within a reasonable timescale and we will continue to work with them to help them do so. However, we will use our formal enforcement powers where action isn’t taken or if there is a significant risk of pollution.”
“32. If I applied slurry in January to a silage crop and could show that the crops dry matter production was greater in March than on non slurried crop, would crop and soil need be demonstrated? FRfW require that each application of organic manure or manufactured fertiliser to agricultural land is planned so that it does not exceed the needs of the soil and crop on the land or give risk to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution. The Environment Agency’s interpretation is that crop available nutrients should be applied at a time of immediate crop uptake. However, the Statutory Guidance allows land managers to have planned applications of organic manure to agricultural land that do not exceed the crop and soil needs for nitrogen over an annual cycle and that avoid raising the soil phosphorus index above target levels for soil and crop over a rotation. The Environment Agency will consider whether formal enforcement of Regulation 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii) going beyond providing advice and guidance is appropriate including where the requirements of the Statutory Guidance are met and for as long as the Guidance is in place. We will discuss how the land manager can come into compliance with Regulation 4(1)(a) within a reasonable timescale and we will continue to work with them to help them do so. However, we will use our enforcement powers where action isn’t taken or if there is a significant risk of pollution. Under the FRfW, provided the activity does not give rise to significant risk of diffuse pollution, and what is applied does not exceed the needs of the soil and crop on the land, it is allowed. It is recommended that no applications of slurry are made to land until after 31 January to avoid nitrate-nitrogen pollution. This is a specific regulatory requirement in NVZ for organic manures with a highly readily available nitrogen content on non-sandy and shallow soil. Notwithstanding that, nitrate-nitrogen is only one risk factor, other factors need to be considered and reasonable precautions, such as those set out in the FRfW, taken to ensure applications do not give rise to the wider significant risk of diffuse pollution.”
“102. In all cases the farmers have received advice and guidance on measures needed to comply with the law. This advice will have been given orally whilst an officer is on site with the farmer but will also be followed in the post inspection report, which sets out which Regulations have been breached, the improvement actions that are needed to come into compliance and a date which the Environment Agency requires them to be completed. This is generally effective to secure compliance with the Regulations. As Table 5 demonstrates, however, where it is not the Environment Agency can and will take more formal enforcement action, for breaches of regulation 4(1)(a)(i). The first stage of such action is usually to send a formal warning letter, identifying the offences it believes has been committed and indicating that although the Environment Agency does not propose taking further action with respect to those offences at that time, if the land manager continues to commit offences (or if earlier offences have been committed or the environmental impacts of the offences identified should prove to be greater than it then understood them to be, it reserves the to prosecute. In the overwhelming majority of cases, compliance is achieved once such a letter has been sent. Where is not, the Environment Agency where appropriate, seek an enforcement undertaking or bring a prosecution.”
“The Statutory Guidance expects us not to carry out enforcement under the FRfW where nutrient applications in excess of soil and crop need are identified, provided that the conditions set out in that guidance are met. On some fields, your soil phosphorus index level is already greater than the target level and applications of phosphate have been applied to these soils in excess of the need of the soil and crop. However, you have met the conditions set out in the SoS Statutory Guidance so no enforcement action will be taken and we have been working with you to provide advice and guidance on how to ensure compliance with the Regulations in the future. Our recent discussion was useful in helping us to gain a further understanding of the rationale behind applications that have been made over the last four years and your current and future plans to ensure compliance with the Regulations including addressing any high phosphate levels in the soil.”
“Issue/Action Specifics Previous spreading of phosphate onto high P index soils. These applications were not at a level which would risk raising the high P levels further, but do constitute a breach of above legislation (also known as the Farming Rules for Water) as it is agronomically accepted that there is no crop or soil requirement for the application of phosphate at P index 4, 5 and 6 for the crops on which the applications were made. The current Secretary of State Guidance is met and the following feedback from the farm has been provided and action plan agreed to ensure that farm is working towards compliance with this Regulation in the future. … - Whilst the SoS Guidance is in place, on fields with soils at P index 4, application rates of digestate will be managed to ensure that the total phosphate (rather than available phosphate) does not exceed the amount of phosphate that will be removed by the crops in that rotation. Applications will only be made once every two to three years at a rate appropriate to the current growing crop. This will ensure that crop offtake across the rotation will be much higher than input which will allow the index to run down. More frequent soil sampling will be undertaken on these fields to assess how the cropping practices and nutrient planning are affecting soil phosphate levels. These tests show the variation with the soil index so will be helpful in showing whether levels within an index have reduced – for example a high P4 to a low P4. … - some rented land is farmed three years out of four, with the fourth year being farmed by a potato grower. Information will be obtained from the potato grower about what manures and fertilisers have been applied so that this can be factored into the nutrient planning on these fields. Sharing data between the two parties will ensure that both have the information needed to remain compliant with the Farming Rules for Water requirement to ensure that nutrient applications are matched to the needs of the crop and soil. Phosphate applied at all stages in the rotation needs to be considered to ensure compliance.”
“Other than the provision of advice and guidance at present we do not intend to take further enforcement action in respect of the non-compliance identified above. This does not preclude us from taking enforcement action if further relevant information comes to light or advice is not followed.”
“72. Livestock manures, such as cattle and pig slurries and poultry manure, and liquid digested sewage sludge contain a relatively high proportion of readily available nitrogen (i.e. greater than 30% of total nitrogen is present in a readily available form). You should apply these in late winter or spring when crops can use the nitrogen efficiently. Where practically possible you should not apply them in the autumn and early winter months. This is particularly important on sandy and shallow soils where the risk of nitrate leaching is greatest. 73. You may need additional storage for livestock manures. You should provide sufficient storage capacity to allow optimum timing and use of manure nutrients which will allow you to reduce the amount of fertiliser you buy (see Section 4.3). All constructed stores should be impermeable and not allow liquids to escape. 74. You can spread organic manures that do not contain much readily available nitrogen (i.e. less than 30% of total N is readily available) such as farmyard manure, sewage sludge cake and compost made from green waste at any time, if field conditions are suitable to avoid causing run-off. 75. You should not apply organic manures when: - the soil is waterlogged, flooded, frozen hard or snow-covered; or - there is a significant risk of nitrogen getting into surface water via run-off, taking into account in particular the slope of the land, weather conditions, ground cover, proximity to surface waters, soil conditions and the presence of land drains. 76. You should not apply organic manures within: - 10 metres of surface waters, including field ditches; or - 50 metres of a spring, well or borehole. 77. You should be particularly careful when applying organic manures to steeply sloping land close to surface waters. 78. You should spread organic manures as accurately as practically possible. You should use spreading equipment with a low spreading trajectory when spreading slurries to avoid causing atomisation (small droplets) and subsequent drift (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5).”
“Organic manures and fertilisers 100. The amount of phosphorus lost by erosion and run-off, or in drain flow will depend on the quantity of phosphorus in the soil. To reduce losses, you should not apply inorganic fertiliser or organic manures that contain more than the recommended amounts of phosphorus. For most crops, none is recommended at soil phosphorus Index 4 or above (reference 27). 101. When the soil phosphorus Index is already 3 or above and you wish to utilise the nitrogen and other nutrients in organic manures, you should not apply more total phosphorus than will be removed by the crops in the rotation. This will avoid raising soil reserves above those necessary for crop production. 102. Soils should be sampled and analysed every three to five years in accordance with a nutrient management plan (see Section 3.3).”
“Principles of nitrogen supply and losses Nitrogen is present in organic materials in two main forms: • Readily available nitrogen (i.e. ammonium-N as measured by N meters, nitrate-N and uric acid-N) is the nitrogen that is potentially available for rapid crop uptake • Organic-N is the nitrogen contained in organic forms, which are broken down slowly to become potentially available for crop uptake over a period of months to years Crop-available nitrogen is the readily available N that remains for crop uptake after accounting for any losses of nitrogen. This also includes nitrogen released from organic forms. Following the application of organic materials to land, nitrogen can be lost as follows: • Ammonium-N can be volatilised to the atmosphere as ammonia gas • Following the conversion of ammonium-N to nitrate-N, further losses may occur through nitrate leaching and denitrification of nitrate to nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas under warm and wet soil conditions To make best use of their nitrogen content, organic materials should be applied at or before times of maximum crop growth – generally during the late winter to summer period. Use relevant sections of the Nutrient Management Guide (RB209) to ensure applications are made at a suitable time for maximum crop growth of the specific crop … Phosphate, potash and magnesium Organic materials are valuable sources of other nutrients as well as nitrogen, although not all of the total nutrient content is available for the next crop. Typical values for the total and available phosphate and potash contents of organic materials are given in this guide. Nutrients that are not immediately available will mostly become available over a period of years and will usually be accounted for when soil analysis is carried out. The availability of manure phosphate to the next crop grown (typically 50–60%) is lower than from water-soluble phosphate fertilisers. However, around 90% of manure potash is readily available for crop uptake. Where crop responses to phosphate or potash are expected (e.g. soil Indices 0 or 1 for combinable crops and grassland), or where responsive crops are grown (e.g. potatoes or vegetables), the available (not total) phosphate and potash content of the organic material should be used when calculating the nutrient contribution. Soils at Index 0 will particularly benefit from organic material applications. Where the soil is at target Index (usually Index 2) or above for phosphate or potash, the total phosphate and potash content of the organic material should be used in nutrient balance-sheet calculations. For most arable crops, typical organic material application rates can supply the phosphate and potash requirement. At soil P Index 3 or above, take care to ensure that total phosphate inputs do not exceed the amounts removed in crops during the rotation. This will avoid the soil P Index reaching an unnecessarily high level. It is important to manage organic material applications to ensure phosphate and potash are used through the crop rotation.”
“43. The courts will not interpret a statute so as to produce an absurd result, unless clearly constrained to do so by the words Parliament has used: see R v McCool[2018] 1 WLR 2431 , paras 23—25 (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore JSC), citing a passage in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 6th ed (2013), p 1753. See now Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, 8th ed (2020), section 13.1(1): “The court seeks to avoid a construction that produces an absurd result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by the legislature”
“43. These authorities establish:- i) Generally, the reluctance of the courts to intervene in relation to decisions to prosecute, even in the case of juveniles; ii) The reluctance of the courts to intervene in relation to the administration of cautions; iii) A refusal to intervene save where the policy which it is suggested has been breached is clear and settled; and iv) The breach is itself established. … Conclusion 46. The claimant starts with a profound difficulty. If he is right, then by the promulgation of Notice 3/2004, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has rendered it unlawful for a police officer, presumably within the relevant metropolitan area, to arrest or caution anyone for simple possession of cannabis, absent the presence of one of the circumstances identified in the Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”). This is a startling proposition particularly when Parliament expressly conferred a power of summary arrest on police constables at the very moment it re-classified cannabis. Any suggestion that arrest or caution is unlawful must be viewed in the context of both the general power of arrest conferred by S.24 of PACE and the explicit power conferred in relation to possession of cannabis conferred by the amendment in Section 3 of the 2003 Act. 47. Of course, any acknowledgement that a court may intervene to prevent a prosecution in some circumstance must carry with it an acceptance that the court may prevent prosecution for a crime of which a claimant may be guilty. Such an acceptance is implicit in any case where the court is prepared to consider the failure of a prosecuting authority to follow guidelines. But we are here dealing with the operational activities of the police. It might be thought risible to suggest that a police inspector, at 4.a.m, failed properly to analyse the interstices and relationship between the Notice 3/2004 and Home Office Circular 18/1994, before deciding to caution, and so acted unlawfully, were not the implications of the arguments so serious. But if the claimant is right, the inspector was acting unlawfully. Even before one reaches the point of analysing the policy on which the claimant relies, it is difficult to see how the dissemination of a notice could remove the legality of the exercise of the very power which Parliament had conferred on the same day. 48. This constitutes a fundamental reason why Mr Starmer QC’s arguments cannot be accepted. He accepted that it was a necessary consequence of his submission that the arrest policy made the administration of the caution unlawful, that any prosecution of Mr Mondelly would have been unlawful as well. This he accepted would apply to any individual who was found in simple possession of cannabis where there were no aggravating circumstances as described in the SOP. Even if he were not arrested, he could not be prosecuted by the issuing of a summons. So the policy on arrest when read across to cautions, as Mr Starmer QC contended it should be, becomes a prohibition on prosecution. That is an utterly misconceived approach to the meaning and effect of the policy. It demonstrates powerfully why his approach to the arrest policy takes it several steps beyond its stated confines and purpose. There is nothing in it at all to suggest that the authors thought they were creating such a policy, let alone one which required the application of hindsight as Mr Starmer QC urged. 49. Were there to be a police/CPS policy that no one should be prosecuted for simple possession of cannabis unless it fell within the aggravating circumstances specified, and if that were said to make a decision to prosecute unlawful in such circumstances, it would be an unlawful policy itself. Parliament did not enact those aggravating factors into the offence of simple possession, and it is not for executive prosecution policy to change it. The implication of Mr Starmer QC’s argument is that by policy, a police force or the Home Office, could suspend or dispense with part of the law as enacted by Parliament. The statutory power of arrest and the power to prosecute would become a mere power of seizure except if non-statutory and variable aggravating features were present. This would be akin to a policy not to prosecute for theft, and merely to retrieve stolen goods, unless their value exceeded£100 , not far distant from the example of an unlawful policy given by Denning MR in R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Blackburn[1968] QB 118 , at 136.”
“64. At base this appeal turns upon the duty of regulators, once non-compliance has come to light, to ensure observance with the law. There is a statutory duty on GEMA to both comply with the law and ensure compliance by its regulated community, which duty has not been changed by the exit of the UK from the EU. The existence of a duty does not however preclude the decision maker also having a discretion or power as to “how” to go about ensuring compliance; the two are not mutually exclusive. This flows from the proper interpretation of the legislative regime as a whole. For example, article 37 of the 2009 Directive refers to the taking of “reasonable measures” in the framework of the duty to ensure observance of the law (see para 32 above) indicating that there might be a range of different “reasonable” ways in which compliance can be secured. The conclusion of the judge however was that the GEMA Decision was unlawful because during the glidepath to adherence—the stop gap—an unlawful methodology would temporarily subsist and be incorporated into the Code. It was implicit in the judge’s reasoning that there was no discretion or power for GEMA to do anything more than demand immediate or instantaneous observance, even if this was impossible to achieve in any realistic and practical sense and left the state of observance with the law in a worse situation. To prohibit the interim stage upon the basis that it reflects a degree of temporary (diminishing) non- observance begs the question of what, if the judge is correct, regulators are meant to do in a case such as the present in order to meet their statutory duty. 65. In my judgment under the relevant legislation GEMA had a power as to how it went about performing its duty to secure compliance with the law. A decision whether GEMA acted unlawfully in the exercise of this power is fact and context specific. Under EU law the test to be applied would be proportionality. It is unnecessary in this case to devote time to determining whether proportionality remains the right test or whether the test is simply one of domestic law rationality. In either case a relatively broad margin of judgment or discretion will be implied into the test and in my view both lead to the same end result.”