Waste in UK Law

See also
Leading Cases
  • Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Parkwood Landfill Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Nov 2002

    A government White Paper of December 1995 entitled "Making Waste Work" (CM3040) preceded the imposition of landfill tax. It examined the strategies to be adopted to reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal. So far as landfill was concerned, three main objectives were set out. First, to reduce the amount of waste; second to reduce the amount of material going to landfill and third to place the cost of landfill on the person disposing of the waste.

    The Commissioners also submitted that there was nothing in the statute which suggested that material which had been discarded as waste ceased to be waste because it had been successfully recycled. There need be no change in chemical substance to convert waste into a useful product. This is recognised by Parliament in its drive to promote recycling rather than disposal and is recognised by the cumulative effect of section 40(2).

    That cannot have been the intention of Parliament when they introduced the landfill tax. The purpose of the legislation was to tax waste material deposited at landfill sites and not to tax deposits at landfill sites of useful material produced from waste material.

  • Environment Agency v Inglenorth Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 Mar 2009

    In my judgment, those findings of fact entirely support the decision that the Justices came to that upon its deposit at the Cheadle Garden Centre this material was not waste. It was no more waste when it was delivered to the Cheadle site upon those findings of fact then would be hardcore delivered to my drive for me to use to mend the drive or to use as a subbase for my garage floor for concrete to be put on top of it.

  • R v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms; R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Murray
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 Jan 2002

    However, provided the objective is kept in mind, decisions in which the decisive consideration has not been the contribution they make to the achievement of the objective may still be lawful. I do not in any event favour an attempt to create a hierarchy of material considerations whereby the law would require decision makers to give different weight to different considerations.

  • R (Oss Group Ltd) v Environment Agency; Solvent Resource Management Ltd v Environment Agency
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Jun 2007

    Understandably, the court has held that a material does not cease to be waste merely because it has come into the hands of someone who intends to put it to a new use. But that should not be because it still meets the Article 1(a) definition in his hands; but rather because, in accordance with the aims of the Directive, material which was originally waste needs to continue to be so treated until acceptable recovery or disposal has been achieved.

  • Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 07 Nov 2003

    Beyond referring to the application site's good road connections, and stating that the Director was "mindful of the imminent shortage of landfill space" in the south-east of the county, the report did not address this issue at all. It may well be that this is why the Director did not feel able to conclude that the site was the BPEO in accordance with criterion 1 in Waste Management Policy 1 in the Structure Plan, merely that it was "a BPEO for the disposal of waste".

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT