Business First Issue2 Vol5 CH5:Layout 1 27/10/2009 13:57 Page 30
Register to win two tickets to New York with businessfirstonline
and Continental Airlines. See details on page 63
Environmental law
Surrey’s plans for an
incinerator up in smoke
by Andrew Ryan, associate, Environmental Law, Carson McDowell
I
n a major blow to Surrey and nature conservation.
Council’s Waste Management In fairness to the Planning Inspectorate, it had taken an
Plan, its fourth attempt to approach in keeping with Government guidance at the time, but
obtain planning permission for a that guidance had subsequently been found to be incorrect by
waste incinerator has been struck the Court of Appeal. With these flaws at the heart of its decision,
out by the High Court. Other local authorities dependent upon it was almost inevitable that the High Court would find the
energy from waste proposals to meet their landfill reduction decision to grant planning permission unlawful.
targets may be studying the case with concern.
The Court quashed the EFW planning permission and ordered
Driven primarily by strict landfill reduction targets in the EU the Council to remove the Capel site from its Waste
Landfill Directive, local authorities across the UK must look for Management Plan. Surrey has not appealed the judgment.
other means of disposal for residual waste that cannot be
recycled or otherwise recovered.
Not only does this raise questions of how Surrey will achieve
its target for diverting biodegradable municipal waste from
A well-established solution is incineration with energy landfill, but other Local Authorities will be reviewing their Waste
recovery. Unfortunately, public perceptions relating to Management Plans with concern.
“incineration” have in many cases not moved on with the
There may be elements of detail, such as transport plans, that
The challenge at Capel arose primarily from public opposition to EFW. Such depth of feeling is not uncommon
where energy from waste facilities are proposed and many proposals have been shelved or suffered long delays
because of objections from local residents and environment groups. Proposals for energy from waste plants are
likely to face similar objections in Northern Ireland.
significant developments in emissions reductions that modern
were previously considered unnecessary in development plans
energy from waste (“EFW”) plants can – and, by law, must -
(as they would be dealt with at the application stage) that may
achieve.
now need to be incorporated. This could cause significant delays
if plans need to be re-written.
Surrey has long been a prime example of the difficulties faced
in developing EFW plants. Having faced substantial public
A further point of note in Mr Justice Collins’ judgment was that
opposition to proposals for EFW plants at two other sites in the
the Inspectors should not only have considered alternative sites
county, Surrey County Council has attempted to gain planning
but “whether in reality an incinerator alternative to landfill was
permission for a site at Capel for some ten years. Planning
achievable.” This seems to fly in the face of the requirements of
permission was finally granted in 2008, but Capel Parish Council
the landfill Directive and perhaps raises more fundamental
immediately challenged the decision in the High Court.
questions about how waste is dealt with by local authorities.
Central to the grounds of Capel Parish Council’s challenge was
The challenge at Capel arose primarily from public opposition
the adequacy of Surrey’s Waste Development Plan, adopted in
to EFW. Such depth of feeling is not uncommon where energy
May 2008. As with other local authorities, Surrey had published a
from waste facilities are proposed and many proposals have
plan identifying waste treatment capacity needs and identifying
been shelved or suffered long delays because of objections from
potential sites for waste treatment facilities. Within Surrey’s Plan
local residents and environment groups.
it had identified Capel as a potential site for an EFW plant.
Proposals for energy from waste plants are likely to face similar
In his judgment, Mr Justice Collins identified a fundamental
objections in Northern Ireland (notwithstanding the surprising
flaw in the decision of the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectors
80 per cent support for Arc21’s proposals for an incinerator on
had made an assumption in their consideration of the Capel site
Belfast’s north foreshore that was subsequently rejected by the
that Surrey’s Waste Management Plan was sound, and in
City Council).
particular that the site selection process was satisfactory.
Proposals for the introduction of a test similar to that of
As Capel was a greenfield site, there were real concerns over a
“soundness” within Northern Ireland’s proposed planning
number of issues including the capacity of local transport routes
reforms could also create difficulties in the future if waste
proposals form part of future development plans in the Region.
30
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84