Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Hereford Waste watchers Limited (Claimant) v. Hereford Council (Defendant)

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
Others
Date
Feb 18, 2005
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Justice
Judge
Elias
Reference number
(2005) EWHC 191 (Admin)
Language
English
Subject
Waste & hazardous substances
Keyword
EIA Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Waste management
Abstract
On 6th April 2004 the Herefordshire Council (the defendant) granted planning permission to Estech Europe Ltd to develop a waste treatment and recycling facility in Madley, Hereford. The permission was made subject to a number of conditions. The claimant sought to quash the permission. It contended that the proposed system was not sufficiently tested for it to be developed in a sensitive area. It argued that the environmental statement, which was provided by the developers had failed properly and fully to provide relevant information about any significant environmental effects and that as a consequence, the authority was unable to assess whether the effects were significant or not. Besides that, it was contended that the authority failed properly to consider an alternative site. The site was by mo means the best practicable environmental option. The court was of the view that if the planning authority considered that a process would have significant environmental effects, then the environmental statement needed to include detailed information identified in Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. This included main alternatives to the development; a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected; a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and a description of the mitigating measures designed to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects. However, it was a matter for the authority itself whether or not the development would have significant effects. The authority could in certain cases properly conclude that given the mitigating measures, what would otherwise have been significant emissions would not in fact materialize. In such case it was open to the planning authority to conclude that it did not require further details outlined above, as such details were not likely to have significant effect. Turning to the application in question, though, the court noted that the officer in charge never made any findings that there would be no significant environmental effects. On the contrary, there were reservations about this matter. The information which the planning authority required should have been made available prior to the planning permission being granted. It might be that the information would confirm the assessment made by the developer. But this assumption could not properly be made, and the claimant should not be denied the possible opportunity to respond to whatever was forthcoming. Regarding the question whether the chosen site was the best practicable environmental option, the court believed the witness statement that the alternative site was inappropriate because of a flood risk. Thus the court did not find for the claimant on this ground. In conclusion, the grant of planning permission was quashed.
Full text
COU-143791E.pdf

References

Cites