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.
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And Mr Justice Laddie
Citations:
Times 05-Oct-2000, Gazette 14-Sep-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 382
Links:
Statutes:
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)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commission of the European Communities (Supported by the United Kingdom) v Hellenic Republic ECJ 7-Jul-2000
When assessing the penalty to be imposed on a member state for failing to comply with a judgement of the court the court had to look at the duration of the breach, its seriousness, and its ability to pay. Here a fine of 20.000 Euros per day was . .
Cited – 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
. .
Appealed to – Thornby Farms Ltd, Murray v Daventry District Council, Derbyshire County Council CA 22-Jan-2002
Two parties appealed against the grant of licences for plants for the disposal of animal carcasses. The plants would increase the amount of emissions into the environment.
Held: An objective was different to a material consideration. An . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Thornby Farms Ltd, Murray v Daventry District Council, Derbyshire County Council CA 22-Jan-2002
Two parties appealed against the grant of licences for plants for the disposal of animal carcasses. The plants would increase the amount of emissions into the environment.
Held: An objective was different to a material consideration. An . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals, Agriculture, Environment, European
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.140197