Precedents Cited

The judgment made reference to a range of precedents and related materials, including:

• Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534 – which guides the court in exercising discretion on the admissibility of fresh evidence and underscores the importance of the “overriding objective” in judicial procedures.
• Edison First Power Limited v Secretary of State – where the court’s remarks on statutory interpretation and the presumption that Parliament did not intend measures to have “absurd or unworkable” consequences were considered, although the present judgment clarifies that administrative resource concerns do not outweigh clear legislative requirements.
• The Weser Case (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-461/13) – which provided guidance on the level of detailed control required under the WFD and reinforced that environmental objectives, being specific and measurable, must be met through actions tailored to individual water bodies.

These precedents were influential in solidifying the court’s position that a PoM must specify measures at the water body level, aligning domestic interpretation with EU case law and the broader legislative framework of the WFD.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning centered on the following key points:

• Textual and Purposive Interpretation: The explicit language of the WFD and the WFDR 2017, in conjunction with associated guidance documents like CIS Guidance Document 11 and the River Basin Planning Guidance (RBPG), clearly indicate an obligation to implement a PoM that is detailed down to the level of each water body. The interview of regulatory provisions such as Article 11 and Regulation 12 and 13 underscores that environmental objectives are set for each water body and must be met by corresponding, specifically tailored measures.
• Integration of Multiple Regulatory Regimes: Although the EA and SSEFRA argued that national legislation and regulatory mechanisms (such as the Environmental Permitting Regulations and the Water Industry Act) could suffice in addressing water body concerns, the court emphasized that the PoM is meant to supplement these frameworks and cannot simply be an aggregate of generic measures. The role of a PoM is to bridge detailed local conditions with the overarching environmental standards set in the WFD.
• Obligation of Result and Accountability: The judgment reinforced that achieving Environmental Objectives (such as attaining “good ecological status” or “good ecological potential”) is a binding obligation. Therefore, any PoM that fails to clearly specify how these outcomes will be achieved for each water body falls short of its statutory requirements. This duty is an “obligation of result” rather than a mere aspirational commitment.

Impact on Future Cases and Regulatory Practice

This judgment is poised to have significant implications, including:

• Enhanced Scrutiny of PoMs: Public authorities in England and Wales will now be obliged to ensure that all PoMs include detailed, water body-specific measures. This could lead to a revision of existing river basin management plans where generic measures are supplemented by detailed actions at the individual water body level.
• Increased Accountability: Environmental agencies and the SSEFRA will face increased judicial scrutiny regarding the level of detail in public planning documents and the consultation process. The requirement to detail specific actions will raise accountability standards and ensure a closer alignment with the objectives of the WFD.
• Future Legal Challenges: The decision sets a clear precedent that could be relied upon in future challenges where PoMs are deemed insufficient in addressing local environmental degradation. It is likely to influence judicial approaches in any cases questioning the adequacy of regulatory measures for achieving EOs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment employs a number of complex legal and environmental planning concepts. A few key terms are explained below to assist in understanding:

• Environmental Objectives (EOs): These are specific, measurable targets for the improvement or protection of water bodies, such as attaining “good ecological status.” They are set out in Art.4 of the WFD.
• Programme of Measures (PoM): This is a detailed plan that lists the actions or measures that need to be taken in order to achieve the EOs. The court has clarified that for each water body, the PoM must have a tailored or water body-specific component.
• River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs): These are broader strategic documents that summarise the overall approach for managing water quality and resources at the river basin district level. They must include at least a “summary” of the PoM, but cannot replace the need for detailed, local measures.
• Generic vs. Specific Measures: The debate centers on whether “generic” measures—those that apply uniformly across an entire river basin or nationally—are sufficient. The judgment emphatically rules that, to meet the objectives of the WFD, even generic measures must be linked to implementation at the individual water body level.