Environmental Law News Update

Environment Agency publishes first annual report on agriculture and the water environment

On 30 June 2026 the Environment Agency published its first annual report on agriculture and the water environment, covering financial years 2021 to 2026. The report’s purpose is to  inform the Agency’s customers, partner organisations and the wider public as to how it works with farmers, and to share insights on the performance of the agricultural sector with the general aim of reducing the impact of agricultural activity on the environment. That impact is nationally and locally significant. As  highlighted in last year’s Independent Water Commission report, agriculture is on average the most significant sector adversely affecting 40% of the water bodies in England (based on 2019 data, to be updated later this year). Dairy and beef farms account for the highest number of serious agricultural pollution incidents. Improvements to water industry assets through asset management plans will likely increase the proportion of pollutants from agriculture. The Agency expects agriculture to be the main pollutant contributor by 2030.

The effect of agricultural pollution on the deliverability of Environmental Improvement Plan targets, particularly where catchments drain into ecologically sensitive areas, including designated sites subject to the Habitats Regulations, is acknowledged. Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) under Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aim to mitigate the effects of new development on protected sites by applying strategic conservation measures to a geographic area (which may be elsewhere) rather than on a project-by-project basis, will enable contributions pooled into the Nature Restoration Fund to be directed to ecologically sensitive areas under threat from agricultural pollution.

As to enforcement, the report states that there were 36 successful prosecutions relating to farming activity between March 2021 and April 2026. The evidence over that period indicates that serious water pollution incidents from the sector have remained at the same level. The report acknowledges that a 5-year average non-compliance of 48% “suggests systemic issues, though there are signs of an improvement with a 43% non-compliance average in 2025 to 2026”. The Agency’s approach to prosecutions under the Farming Rules for Water (‘The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018’) is subject to statutory guidance from DEFRA that giving advice and guidance will generally be prioritised before commencing prosecution. Based on internal Agency modelling the report states that “with a combined approach of advice and incentives to address all regulatory issues across all farms, pollution reductions of up to an estimated maximum of 13% to 27% (depending on the specific pollutant) are possible”. Greater improvements will require future Government policy chances such as the permitting of intensive dairy farms.

Power of Entry, Renewable Energy and Judicial Review: Lessons from Barstow v Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Ltd [2026] EWHC 1698 (Admin)

The Administrative Court’s decision in Barstow v Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Ltd [2026] EWHC 1698 (Admin) is an important new authority on statutory powers of entry for surveys under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The case arose from attempts by Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Ltd to obtain access to private land in connection with a proposed nationally significant infrastructure project. The challenge concerned the lawfulness of notices served under sections 172–179 of the 2016 Act and the circumstances in which developers may enter land to carry out surveys.

The case contains a broader lesson for environmental lawyers. It is tempting to view environmental litigation as a contest between environmental interests and commercial interests. In reality, many of today’s environmental disputes are more complex. The excellent BBC Radio 4 series Understand: 10 Fights That Made the Green Movement explored how environmental progress has often been driven by disagreement within the environmental movement itself – between competing visions of sustainability, conservation and social justice. The same phenomenon frequently appears in environmental litigation. In this case, it pitted a promoter of green energy infrastructure against the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and a farmer and farming groups. Both sides could no doubt claim, with some justification, that they are upholding and supporting the environment.

There is therefore a certain irony in Barstow. A judicial review claim was brought against a company promoting infrastructure intended to contribute to the transition away from fossil fuels. Yet that is often the nature of environmental law. Renewable energy developers, conservation bodies, local residents, climate campaigners and public authorities often all claim the environmental high ground. Disputes are frequently not about whether the environment matters, but about which environmental objective should prevail and how it should be pursued.

As to the specific facts of the case and the findings by the Court, the Court rejected the argument that a notice could effectively “run with the land” and be relied upon indefinitely. Instead, the statutory scheme requires notice to be given to owners and occupiers and requires a continuing assessment of what is reasonable in the circumstances. The Court also emphasised that “reasonable time” is not confined to the time of day at which entry occurs. The question extends to the frequency, duration, nature and impact of the proposed activities on the particular land and its users. Notices must contain sufficient detail to enable recipients to understand what is proposed, where it will occur and when.

Against that backdrop, the Court’s decision is a reminder that environmental benefits do not excuse non-compliance with public law standards. The pursuit of low-carbon infrastructure must still be carried out lawfully, fairly and in accordance with Parliament’s requirements.

Three practice points

1. Notices are not a perpetual permission slip

Developers cannot assume that a notice served once will justify entry months or years later. What is reasonable must be assessed in the circumstances existing at the time of the proposed entry.

2. Particularity matters

Notices should explain with as much precision as reasonably practicable what activities are proposed, where they will occur and when. Generic descriptions create avoidable litigation risk.

3. Environmental credentials are not a shield to public law challenge

Projects pursued in the name of sustainability remain subject to ordinary public law principles. Courts will scrutinise the legality of the process, regardless of the environmental merits of the underlying scheme.

For infrastructure promoters, Barstow is a timely reminder that many environmental disputes now involve litigants on both sides claiming to advance environmental objectives. In those circumstances, rigorous compliance with statutory requirements may be every bit as important as the environmental merits of the project itself.