The claimant challenged the granting of permission to a cement factory to change its energy systems to be operated by the burning of waste tyres. The respondent was concerned as to the standing of the claimant. He was impecunious, but associated with a woman who was a leading light in the campaign and relatively well off.
Held: ‘Mr Edwards has a sufficient interest in the decision to issue the Permit even if he is temporarily homeless, because as an inhabitant of Rugby he will be affected by any adverse impact on the environment which the trials on the use of tyre chips may have.’
Judges:
Keith J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 736 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
At First Instance – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment, Judicial Review, Legal Aid
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.198212