Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Environment - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 31 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Camden London Borough Council v London Underground Ltd Gazette, 07 January 2000
7 Jan 2000
QBD

Environment, Nuisance
The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.
Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 80


 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Others, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd; QBD 19-Jan-2000 - Times, 19 January 2000
 
Regina v Anglian Water Servies, ex Parte Three Valleys Water Plc Gazette, 20 January 2000
20 Jan 2000
QBD

Land, Environment, Utilities
The respondent was successor to the owners of a reservoir, and the applicants sought to increase the amount of water they could draw daily. It was agreed that the respondent was not a statutory water undertaker, and the extent of the applicants right of supply was governed by the Act establishing the right to draw water. Still, the applicants were not entitled to the full amount of water supply they sought.


 
 Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston; QBD 28-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000
 
Environment Agency v Paul Clark (As Administrator of Rhondda Waste Disposal Limited) Times, 02 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 38
10 Feb 2000
CA

Insolvency, Company, Environment
A waste disposal company was in insolvent administration. The Environment Agency sought to prosecute it for breaches of criminal law relating to its licenses. Held: The bar on proceedings against a company in administration operated for criminal as well as civil proceedings. The section was intended to allow the company a breathing space. Nevertheless, a prosecution could be brought with leave.
Insolvency Act 1986 10
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another; HL 17-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 11; [2000] 2 WLR 373; [2000] 2 AC 412; [2000] 1 All ER 773; [2000] All ER (D) 199
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte Premiere Environmental Ltd Times, 15 March 2000
15 Mar 2000
QBD

Licensing, Environment
A waste disposal licence was suspended. The notice provided that the suspension would terminate when the Environment Agency notified the licence holder that it in its view the disposal could safely be continued. The company complained that this was not sufficiently an 'event' and that accordingly the notice was ineffective. It was held that the word 'event' should not be construed so restrictively. The event should be related to the suspension but not further limited in its nature. The condition was appropriate.


 
 Regina v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Limited and Onyx (UK) Limited, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd; Admn 15-Mar-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 304; [2001] Env LR 35

 
 Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston; CA 15-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; Gazette, 30 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1484
 
X v A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000
ChD

Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts
Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited Gazette, 08 June 2000; Times, 24 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 96
30 Mar 2000
CA

Environment, Nuisance
The term 'watercourse' did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.
Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Farley v Skinner Times, 14 April 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 109
6 Apr 2000
CA

Damages, Environment, Contract
A surveyor was engaged to report on a property, and was specifically requested to advise on the levels of aircraft noise from a nearby airport which might affect the property. He failed to report on the proximity of a navigation beacon. Held: He was not liable for damages for the non-physical damage for discomfort and disturbance which ensued. For such damages to be awardable, the contract had one for the purposes of provision of leisure, relaxation or peace of mind.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v O'Brien; Regina v Enkel Times, 19 April 2000
19 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Environment
A sentence of imprisonment was unnecessarily severe for a first offence of dumping tyres. The case did not involve any hazardous substances, and the offences were at the lower end of the scale, despite the results being unsightly, the risk (at worst) of rats and fire, the absence of any long term effect, the absence of danger, the expectation of being able to redistribute the tyres properly, no previous similar convictions, their (late) guilty pleas, and the fact that they were only part of the operation.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)


 
 Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council; QBD 19-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000; Times, 19 April 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 319
 
Regina v Harris Times, 02 May 2000
2 May 2000
CACD

Environment
A farmer obtained a license for landfill. He continued to operate the landfill site, even though he was subject to a stop notice from the local planning department. He was accused of fraudulently evading payment of landfill tax. He claimed that, since the landfill operation was in breach of the stop notice, he was not operating under the licence, and no tax was payable, since the liability to tax only attached to licensed sites. Held: The stop notice did not suspend the licence which was controlled by a different authority, and so the continued disposal was by virtue of the licence and was taxable.
Control of Pollution Act 1974 - Finance Act 1996


 
 Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others; HL 11-May-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 420; [2001] 2 AC 603; [2000] UKHL 36; [2000] 3 All ER 897

 
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ray; ChD 14-Jun-2000 - Times, 14 June 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000

 
 Commission of the European Communities (Supported by the United Kingdom) v Hellenic Republic; ECJ 7-Jul-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000; C-387/97; [2000] ECR I-5047; [2000] EUECJ C-387/97
 
Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Times, 05 October 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 382
28 Jul 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And Mr Justice Laddie
Animals, Agriculture, Environment, European
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied. Held: Animal waste and clinical waste were properly distinguished, and the council had applied the correct guidance. The council was entitled to assume on the evidence that no way of preventing the emissions was available. The requirements of the legislation should have been read to impose a continuing obligation to assess not just the machinery used, but also additional available steps to reduce emissions to a minimum. Nevertheless the decision stood. In the second case, there was no obligation to refuse planning permissions either because there is no immediate need for the land or because the relevant decision makes no positive contribution towards meeting the objective. Appeals refused.
Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC - Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Council Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EEC Waste Framework Directive. Article 4 - Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (1994/1056) - Animal Waste Directive (90/425/EEC) - Air Pollution Directive (84/360/EEC) - Animal By-products Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 3303)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Another v the Secretary of State for Scotland for Judicial Review Times, 12 September 2000; [2000] ScotCS 216
28 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Cowie and Lord Dawson and Lord President
Animals, European, Environment, Scotland
When considering what degree of disturbance would be caused to a population of birds by licenses for control, the secretary had to consider not only the effect on the population of the species as a whole, but also the effect licences might have on local populations within special protection areas. The amendments to the Birds Directive referring to 'this directive' were references to populations within that context, ad not that of the Directive from which the amendment was derived.
EC Birds Directive 79/409/EEC art 4 - EC Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 2716)
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2001] JPL 470; [2001] Env LR 406; (2001) 81 P&CR 365
31 Jul 2000
QBD
Sullivan J
Planning, Environment
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and that the development conflicted with the applicable unitary development plan. Held: The intent of the legislation had been satisfied, and as much information as was available had been provided. Some residual flexibility was inevitable: "a legalistic approach to the interpretation of development plan policies is to be avoided". It was also common for such permissions to conflict in part with the UDP.
Where outline planning consent is being applied for, it is at the outline consent stage that the planning authority must have sufficient details of the proposed development, sufficient details of any impact on the environment, and sufficient details of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its article 4(2) obligation. An authority need not require further details of a matter where it is "satisfied that such details , provided they are sufficiently controlled by condition, are not likely to have significant effect." Mr Jones submits that such is the case here. There was a well established mitigating technique involving negative pressure which virtually eliminated any environmental problem. A planning authority is entitled to assume that the Environmental Agency will carry out its functions "with a reasonable degree of competence."
“the development which is described and assessed in the Environmental Statement must be the development which is proposed to be carried out and therefore the development which is a subject of the development consent and not some other development” and the "…..local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the description of the proposed development in the outline planning permission is adequate, given that it will be able to impose conditions in respect of reserved matters so that matters of detail can be dealt with at a later stage".
and "Any major development project will be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, will all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the authors of the environmental statement and the local planning authority are entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority: see, for example, the assumptions made in respect of construction impacts, above. The same approach should be adopted to the local planning authority's power to approve reserved matters. Mistakes may occur in any system of detailed controls, but one is identifying and mitigating the 'likely significant effects', not every conceivable effect, however minor or unlikely, of a major project."
"It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: 'is this proposal in accordance with the plan?' The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach."
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Lambie and Another v Thanet District Council; QBD 17-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000
 
Regina on the Application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, Secretary of State for Environment [2000] EWHC Admin 388
8 Sep 2000
Admn

Environment, European, Licensing

[ Bailii ]
 
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others Times, 05 October 2000; [2000] ECR I-6917; [2000] EUECJ C-287/98
19 Sep 2000
ECJ

Environment, Transport
Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Derbyshire County Council Ex Parte Murray Gazette, 19 October 2000; Times, 08 November 2000
19 Oct 2000
QBD

Planning, Environment
The applicant sought to challenge the grant of licences for extraction of clay and other minerals. He claimed that the authority had failed to give proper consideration to the guidance from the department, that they had failed to give proper weight to the objectives required, and that the environmental report was inadequate. It was held that the authority had indeed properly allowed for the report, that the authority having considered the objectives, it was not open to the court to look at what importance had been assigned to the different elements, and that the environmental assessment had been challenged too late in the proceedings.

 
Queen and Environment Agency, Ex-parte Anglian Water Services Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 406
24 Oct 2000
Admn

Utilities, Environment

Water Industry Act 1991 - Environment Act 1995
[ Bailii ]
 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc Gazette, 07 September 2000; Times, 12 October 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000
2 Nov 2000
QBD

Nuisance, Land, Environment
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
First Corporate Shipping (Judgment) Times, 16 November 2000; C-371/98; [2000] EUECJ C-371/98
7 Nov 2000
ECJ

Environment, European
When deciding the extent of natural sites to be proposed for designation as special areas of conservation under the Directive, a member state should take account only of environmental factors, and was not entitled to take heed of economic, social or cultural ones. The article which did include such criteria could only be for the Commission to consider in the light of the entire list of such possible area within the community.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna
[ Bailii ]

 
 Birmingham City Council v Oakley; HL 29-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 59; [2001] 1 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 1936; [2001] 1 AC 617
 
Commission v France (Judgment) C-374/98; [2000] ECR I-10799; [2000] EUECJ C-374/98
7 Dec 2000
ECJ

European, Environment, Animals
Europa The inventory of areas which are of great importance for the conservation of wild birds, more commonly known under the acronym IBA (Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community), although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species. It follows from the general scheme of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds that, where a given area fulfils the criteria for classification as a special protection area, it must be made the subject of special conservation measures capable of ensuring, in particular, the survival and reproduction of the bird species mentioned in Annex I to that directive. The text of Article 7 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora expressly states that Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive apply, in substitution for the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, to the areas classified under Article 4(1) or (2) of the latter directive. It follows that, on a literal interpretation of that passage of Article 7 of Directive 92/43, only areas classified as special protection areas fall under the influence of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive. The fact that the protection regime under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 applies to areas that have not been classified as special protection areas but should have been so classified does not in itself imply that the protection regime referred to in Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 replaces the first regime referred to in relation to those areas.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Case C-69/99 Times, 19 December 2000; Case C-69/99; C-69/99; [2000] EUECJ C-69/99
7 Dec 2000
ECJ

European, Environment
The United Kingdom had failed to comply with the clean water directive. Its had identified surface freshwaters only where abstraction was intended for drinking water purposes. No such restriction was justified. A similar limitation had been incorrectly applied to ground-waters. The directive required identification of sources of excess nitrates, whether or not the source was intended for drinking water. The United Kingdom had also failed to designate vulnerable zones in Northern Ireland which even though they had been identified.
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC -Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Identification of waters affected by pollution - Specifying of surface freshwaters.
Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 I.375 pl)
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.