Waste in UK Law

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. Melt it down and mould it into a spare part for a machine and it is not waste. There need be no change in chemical substance to convert waste into a useful product.

The Commissioners accept that their argument leads to the result that companies such as Parkwood will be liable for tax if they use recycled material for site engineering or building purposes, whereas they would not be liable for tax if they used fresh materials. 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.

It may well be, and it does not matter, that the material was or was capable of being waste after it had been produced by the demolition exercise of the Standish site and before it was removed for use elsewhere. If it been taken to a waste disposal site straight from Standish, no doubt it would have been waste throughout that operation.

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.

An objective which is obligatory must always be kept in mind when making a decision even while the decision maker has regard to other material considerations. 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.

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.