River Action given permission to intervene in National Farmers’ Union’s opposition to stricter waste guidelines for manure

As part of its claim, the NFU argues that manure from intensive poultry units (IPUs) and other agricultural developments should not be classed as waste under the council’s plans – an argument which River Action has now been allowed to contest alongside the council.

The NFU’s claim challenges the council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP), which was adopted in March 2024 and sets out more stringent waste management requirements for agricultural developments such as IPUs to meet.  

These requirements include stricter rules for the management of manure from livestock, as well as developments having to be ‘nutrient neutral’ in order to avoid causing pollution from excessive nutrients (such as phosphates) in soil. 

Ground one of the NFU’s claim argues that the manure produced by agricultural developments like IPUs should not be classified as waste under its general definition in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), meaning that it would not come under the scope of the council’s waste plans.  

However, River Action has now been allowed to intervene and submit arguments opposing this ground. The group argues that livestock manure causes environmental harm and therefore should be categorised as waste as per the WFD – which includes substances that lead to adverse environmental impacts in its definitions for waste.  

River Action has made submissions arguing that damaging algal blooms in the River Wye have arisen as a result of livestock manure causing excessive phosphates to build up in the soil, which then runs into waterways.  

River Action also argues that it cannot be assumed that manure stored and then sold to a third party, which is common practice, will be used in an environmentally safe way. The charity argues that manure should be classified as waste at least until its point of use, and that controls need to be in place to ensure that waste producers take responsibility for disposing of waste in a lawful way. 

Charles Watson, founder and chairman of River Action said: 

“It is beyond preposterous that the tens of thousands of tons of animal excrement that spews each year out of Herefordshire’s intensive poultry factory farms is anything other than waste – and environmentally harmful waste at that. We feel that for the NFU to try and wriggle out of behaving responsibly and agreeing to cooperate with the county council’s plans to dispose of this waste in a sustainable manner is yet another lamentable example of the Big Agri lobby showing scarce regard to protecting the environment.” 

Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama said:  

“Herefordshire Council are trying to do the right thing by putting in place planning measures which would require agribusinesses to show that the waste produced by new developments such as industrial scale poultry units will be properly dealt with. It’s clear that action like that is needed because a September 2024 Environment Agency report found that even with 100% compliance with other regulatory and voluntary measures, there would only be a 34% reduction in diffuse pollution from agriculture to waterways.   

“Our client is therefore pleased to be supporting Herefordshire Council in their defence of this claim. It’s not clear why the NFU are challenging the council’s plans given all they require is that agricultural developments show that they’ll be able to deal with any waste that they create.”