Environment Agency v Anti-Waste Ltd, R (On the application of)
A piggybacking landfill may constitute a stationary technical unit eligible for a permit if it is functionally self-contained, and the presence of a closed cell does not preclude application. A permit for a new landfill does not 'permit' an existing discharge from a closed cell unless the new activity causes or exacerbates that discharge.
- Parties
- Appellant/respondent: The Environment Agency; Respondent/appellant: The Queen on the Application of Anti-Waste Ltd; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; second declaration quashed; no replacement declaration issued; first declaration also quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Landfill Permits, Waste Management, Groundwater Pollution, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Environment Agency
Appellant/respondent
The Queen on the Application of Anti-Waste Ltd
Respondent/appellant
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a landfill permit may lawfully be granted for the operation of a separate landfill which partially overlies a closed cell containing previously deposited waste ('piggybacking landfill')
- 2 Whether a permit must be refused where an existing closed cell is discharging substances into groundwater contrary to regulations
Ratio Decidendi
A piggybacking landfill may constitute a stationary technical unit eligible for a permit if it is functionally self-contained, and the presence of a closed cell does not preclude application. A permit for a new landfill does not 'permit' an existing discharge from a closed cell unless the new activity causes or exacerbates that discharge.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; second declaration quashed; no replacement declaration issued; first declaration also quashed.
Orders
- Declaration 2 quashed; no replacement declaration issued.
- Declaration 1 quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment