Anti-Waste Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

Anti-Waste Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

Piggybacking as claimed by the claimant is lawful as a matter of law provided it can be demonstrated that there is no serious risk of pollution either currently or in the future for a period covered by after care requirements. A landfill permit does not have to refer to the whole site including the old cell; a new deposit in a defined area which excludes an old cell can qualify as a technical unit. If the installation includes an existing closed cell with ongoing discharges, the Groundwater Regulations would prevent the grant of an authorisation if there are any relevant discharges, regardless of causation.

Parties
Claimant: Anti-Waste Ltd; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Declaration granted; piggybacking is lawful subject to technical compliance and absence of serious pollution risk.
Legal Topics
Landfill Permits, Waste Management, Pollution Control, Interpretation of Directives, Groundwater Protection
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Landfill Permits Waste Management Pollution Control Interpretation of Directives Groundwater Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anti-Waste Ltd

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landfill permit can lawfully be granted for the separate operation of a landfill partially overlying a closed cell containing previously deposited waste (piggybacking)
  2. 2 If a permit must relate to the whole site, whether the defendant is required to refuse a permit where existing deposits are responsible for harmful discharges to groundwater and the site cannot comply with technical requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Piggybacking as claimed by the claimant is lawful as a matter of law provided it can be demonstrated that there is no serious risk of pollution either currently or in the future for a period covered by after care requirements. A landfill permit does not have to refer to the whole site including the old cell; a new deposit in a defined area which excludes an old cell can qualify as a technical unit. If the installation includes an existing closed cell with ongoing discharges, the Groundwater Regulations would prevent the grant of an authorisation if there are any relevant discharges, regardless of causation.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; piggybacking is lawful subject to technical compliance and absence of serious pollution risk.