ThamesWaste Management Ltd v Surrey County Council. País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Nov 1, 1996 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Justice Juez RoseMaurice Kay. Número de referencia [1996] EWHC Admin 183 Idioma Inglés Materia Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Residuos sólidos Desperdicio de alimentos Desechos orgánicos Eliminación de desechos Desechos urbanos Gestión de desechos Residuos industriales Transporte/depósito Resumen The company was granted a waste disposal licence transferred to them in August 1991 in relation to a site that is very close to a housing development. Condition Number 8 of the waste disposal licence requires any deposit of waste to be covered over on the day that waste is deposited in the manner set out in the working plan. The information on which they were convicted was in these terms, that they, on 29th May 1995 "... unlawfully deposited controlled waste on the land otherwise than in accordance with the conditions specified in the disposal licence in that deposits of waste were not covered over on the day the waste was deposited in the manner set out in the working plan, contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The company, concedes that the failure identified in the information occurred; that is to say the goods deposited were not covered up in accordance with the licence. The only point which, therefore, can arise is whether the Justices were unreasonable in interpreting "deposited" in the way they did. Section 33(6) clearly envisages different kinds of offences, namely a contravention of either subsection (1) or of any condition of a waste management licence. It is apparent that in some cases there will be an overlap between the two subsections because subsection (1) expressly contemplates the possible breach of licence conditions as a result of the different kinds of activities identified in (a) and (b). Subsection (1) states that those two groups of activity must be carried out in accordance with licence conditions. In the present case, the licence conditions related in part to the specific activities, to which subsection (1) refers, namely deposit, processing and disposal and, in part, to the general running of the site. Accordingly, subsection (6) is apt to embrace both the activities in subsection (1) which breach the licence conditions and other breaches of licence not arising from those identified activities. Justices were entitled to conclude that the facts found by them would have justified a charge under both section 33(1)(a) and section 33(6). The fact that failure to cover gave rise to a breach of licence under section 33(6) did not preclude a finding that, because of the failure to cover, the deposit had not been in accordance with the licence under section 33(1). Deposit was held to include a continuing state of affairs after the initial deposit was made. So, when waste was left uncovered in breach of a licence condition after it had been deposited at the site, an offence had been committed under section 33(1)(a). Texto completo COU-156435.pdf