Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

United Kingdom Renderers Association Ltd. and John Pointon and Sons Ltd. (Appellant) – and – Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions (Respondent)

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
Others
Date
May 23, 2002
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Court of Appeal
Seat of court
London
Judge
Schiemann
May
Clarke
Reference number
2002 EWCA Civ 749
Language
English
Subject
Waste & hazardous substances
Keyword
Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Processing/handling
Abstract
Rendering animal by-products has the potential to create highly offensive smells. It is a prescribed process in the UK which cannot be carried on without an authorization issued by a Local Authority. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 set out the powers which governed the issue of authorizations and the conditions which could be imposed. The Local Authorities were obliged to have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions may issue as to the techniques for minimizing the release of harmful odors. The Secretary of State had issued a Process Guidance Note. The claimant appellants, a rendering company, contended that the Secretary of State had acted beyond his powers in issuing the Process Guidance Note. They objected to those parts of the Process Guidance Note which recommended the imposition of a general condition which would make it an offence for a person to carry on the prescribed process if offensive odors went beyond a boundary to be drawn around the process site unless that person had used all due diligence to prevent the escape of that odor. Their root concern was that local authorities on reading the Guidance would conclude that it was appropriate to impose an odor boundary condition in every case and that this would inhibit the normal carrying on of their businesses. The court was of the view that given that there was no legal objection to a policy of refusing authorizations unless the emission of offensive odors beyond the process boundary would be avoided, it was difficult to see why there should be a legal objection to the grant of authorizations subject to a condition that the emission of offensive odors beyond the process boundary had to be avoided. The latter policy was less onerous for the operators. The Secretary of State was entitled to have a policy and to draw its existence to the attention of authorities in relation to what conditions they should in general include in authorizations. It was clear that the Secretary of State recognized that his guidance was guidance and did not intend to restrict the discretion of authorities. Finally, the condition in question was in the public interest unless the result of its imposition would be to render it so expensive to operate such plants that they would not continue in existence in appropriate places. This was not the case. The appeal was dismissed.
Full text
Pointon_v_Environment.htm