Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) and Ellen Mary Alford (Appellant) País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha May 5, 2005 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Justice Sede de la corte London Juez BrookeSteel Número de referencia 2005 EWHC 808 (Admin) Idioma Inglés Materia Agricultura y desarrollo rural Palabra clave Terrenos agrícolas Explotación agrícola Resumen The question for the opinion of the High Court in this case was what is meant by the phrase ‘intensive agricultural purposes’ in regulation 2 (1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2001. Does an increase in the productiveness of a given area or an intensification of the agricultural purposes of the area come within the definition? Did the appellant’s project amount to an intervention in the natural surroundings involving the use of uncultivated land for intensive agricultural purposes?" The defendant Ellen Mary Alford was convicted at the Magistrates’ Court on four charges of carrying out projects on land she owned at Dartmoor without obtaining the grant of consent by the Secretary of State, contrary to regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations. The grant of consent would have been necessary in case of “intensive agricultural purposes” mentioned above. The projects in question involved the application of farmyard manure and calcified seaweed to four of her fields. The Deputy District Judge found that from 1966 until 2002 the farm had been tenanted by different farmers. It appeared to have been abandoned by them. There had been no evidence of cultivation and nothing had been applied in terms of fertilizer. Thus, the land had come within the description ‘uncultivated land, or semi-natural areas’. The appellant then applied farmyard manure and calcified seaweed. The purpose was to make the grass palatable to cattle. The Appellant contended that the project did not involve the use of the land for ‘intensive agricultural purposes’. The question was not whether the project intensified the agricultural purposes to which the land was put, but whether the land was used for intensive agricultural purposes. The Respondent argued that any works to increase the agricultural usefulness of the land, thereby intensifying the agricultural purposes above the current agricultural purposes, met the requirement. The Court analyzed the relevant regulations and related jurisdiction and concluded that what was done in this case was not capable of being described as an intervention for intensive agricultural purposes. Although the regulations had a wide scope and a broad purpose, it did not catch a project that was concerned only to bring land back to a normal level of agricultural productivity. The productivity of the land for agricultural purposes was not intensified above the norm. The appeal was allowed. Texto completo alford-v-defra.htm