Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Anti-Waste Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency.

País/Territorio
Reino Unido
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Apr 4, 2007
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
High Court
Sede de la corte
London
Juez
Collins.
Número de referencia
[2007] EWHC 717 (Admin)
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Desechos y sustancias peligrosas
Palabra clave
Residuos sólidos Desperdicio de alimentos Aguas subterráneas Recarga de aguas subterráneas Desechos orgánicos Eliminación de desechos Desechos urbanos Residuos industriales
Resumen
Anti-Waste wanted to operate a new landfill site overlapping an old landfill site, such that there could be no vertical boundary between them, a form of interrelationship graphically known as ‘piggy-backing’. The EA refused permission on the basis that piggybacking was not permitted by Directive 1999/31, which was implemented by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. The claimant company applied to quash the refusal by the Environment Agency (“EA”) of permits to allow it to deposit waste. The lawfulness of piggybacking fell to be determined and issues arose as to whether (i) a landfill permit could lawfully be granted for the separate operation of a landfill that partially overlaid a closed cell containing previously deposited waste; and (ii) if a permit had to relate to the whole site, namely the proposed landfill together with the closed cell, the EA was required to refuse to grant a permit where the existing deposits in the closed cell were responsible for harmful discharges to groundwater and where the landfills as a whole could not be made to comply with the technical requirements of the relevant landfill directives. The Claimant, contended that piggybacking was lawful and that a permit could be granted if the technical difficulties were overcome. 1) A permit could not be granted for piggybacking if there was any serious risk that, as a result of the new deposits, pollution might occur from the old cell, for example because of compression. Equally, there had to be no interference with the ability to control any pollution from the old cell such that there was a risk of serious pollution of the environment. Thus, if engineered barriers might not survive for a sufficiently long time to cater for any after care requirements, a refusal would be justified. In principle, however, there was no reason why a new deposit in a defined area that excluded an old cell should not qualify. Piggybacking as claimed by the Claimant was therefore lawful only if it could be demonstrated that there was no serious risk of pollution either currently or in the future, and a landfill permit did not have to refer to the whole site including the old cell; (2) In the light of that decision, the groundwater issue did not arise for determination but had an installation to have been regarded as including an existing closed cell, the Groundwater Regulations 1998 would prevent the grant of an authorisation if there were any relevant discharges whether or not the new deposits themselves caused any such discharges.
Texto completo
COU-156634.pdf