Friends of the Earth Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd [2019] EWHC 25 (Admin) (11 January 2019)

Friends of the Earth Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd [2019] EWHC 25 (Admin) (11 January 2019)

The Environment Agency was not required to reconsider or review the Waste Management Plan or BAT for flowback fluid treatment when granting the permit variation, as there was no substantial change to the operation of the waste facility. The Agency complied with its legal duties under the Directive and Regulations, and the claimants' arguments for a broader duty to reassess BAT on each variation were rejected as inconsistent with the legislative scheme.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 25 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Friends of the Earth Limited; Defendant: The Environment Agency; Interested Party: Cuadrilla Bowland Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Permitting, Mining Waste Directive, Best Available Techniques (bat), Judicial Review, Hydraulic Fracturing, Waste Management Plans
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Permitting Mining Waste Directive Best Available Techniques (bat) Judicial Review Hydraulic Fracturing +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friends of the Earth Limited

Claimant

The Environment Agency

Defendant

Cuadrilla Bowland Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency was required to reconsider best available techniques (BAT) for flowback fluid treatment when granting a variation to an environmental permit for hydraulic fracturing.
  2. 2 Whether the Agency breached its duty to encourage use of emerging techniques (electrocoagulation) under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 and the Mining Waste Directive.
  3. 3 Whether the Agency failed to consider representations regarding BAT during the consultation process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency was not required to reconsider or review the Waste Management Plan or BAT for flowback fluid treatment when granting the permit variation, as there was no substantial change to the operation of the waste facility. The Agency complied with its legal duties under the Directive and Regulations, and the claimants' arguments for a broader duty to reassess BAT on each variation were rejected as inconsistent with the legislative scheme.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed