Whichever it is, there is a risk associated with it if it “escapes” from your land.
Over the last few years there have been a number of developments relating to the above, all of which have increased the chance of action being taken against occupiers of land in certain circumstances.
The Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 which came into force on 2 May 2007, require that all agricultural waste must to be dealt with (either disposed of or recycled) in such a way that protects both the environment and human health. Farmers have to send or take their waste to licensed sites for disposal; apply to the Environment Agency for an exemption to recycle farm waste on-farm; or apply for a license so that disposal on-farm can continue. Exemptions from the licensing requirements need to be sought from the EA by 15th May.
These regulations join a growing raft of provisions (including fertilizer and pesticide legislation) governing people’s actions which, if breached, may result in enforcement action or reduction in your SPS.
Over the last few years other developments have also impacted on matters outside your control of which you may be unaware.
The case of Mirvaheady v Henly has had a significant impact on insurance premiums for all animals, particularly horses. In that case, which considered the Animals Act 1971, it was decided that even when an owner of horses had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that a paddock was properly fenced, if the animals behaved in a way, that, although not generally displayed by animals of that species, is normal in the particular circumstances or at the particular time, then the keeper was liable for any damage caused by it/them.
In this particular case something had spooked the horses in their paddock; they had bolted out of the field (through the fencing that the judge acknowledged would ordinarily have been adequate) and had collided with a vehicle, injuring the driver. There was nothing the keepers could have done, yet they had to pay compensation.
Trees! If you have trees abutting the highway be aware because a recent case has increased your responsibility for ensuring that they are safe and do not have latent defects. In the case of Poll v Viscount and Viscountess Asquith, a motorist driving in the highway collided with a tree that had fallen from the defendants land. This was because the tree had suffered from a structural and an undetected fungal defect. The defendants had employed an independent forestry consultant to conduct a drive-by inspection of all their trees who had not spotted these defects. It was argued that a competent inspector would have spotted the structural defect and thus considered a further, more detailed inspection that, in turn, would have revealed the fungal defect.
The case is important because it reinforces the principle that landowners owe a duty of care in respect of their trees; highlights the importance of regular inspections of trees on privately owned land and the regular conduct of risk assessments; and underlines the necessity for management plans to be in place. It also emphasises how important it is that inspections are carried out by a competent and suitably qualified Arboriculturist.
To sum up, you must ensure that that you are disposing of your farm waste in the correct manner, that your insurance policies are up to date and that anyone you employ to undertake risk assessment is properly qualified. Or, in other words, dump it, cover it and assess it in a way so as to reduce the risk to you.
