Hereford Waste watchers Limited (Claimant) v. Hereford Council (Defendant) País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Feb 18, 2005 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Justice Juez Elias Número de referencia (2005) EWHC 191 (Admin) Idioma Inglés Materia Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave EIA Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Gestión de desechos Resumen 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. Texto completo COU-143791E.pdf Referencias Cites Berkeley v. Secretary of State for the Environment and another Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | Reino Unido | Jun 6, 2000 Palabra clave: Auditoría ambiental, Acuerdo internacional-implementación, Zonas húmedas, EIA, Aguas continentales, Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA