ENVIRONMENT — Protection — Waste disposal — Whether permit requirement for waste disposal extending to sites carrying out treatment prior to disposal elsewhere — Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1973), reg 9, Sch 1, s 5.3(c)

United Utilities Water plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales [2007] UKHL 41

HL(E): Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: 17 October 2007

The requirement for a permit to operate waste water treatment plants which disposed of non-hazardous water waste applied to plants where intermediate treatment took place prior to its transportation to another installation for further treatment and disposal. The House of Lords so held in dismissing an appeal by United Utilities Water plc against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, MR, Laws and Smith LJJ) [2006] EWCA Civ 633 upholding an order of Nelson J that United Utilities required a permit from the Environment Agency for England and Wales for sludge treatment plants at Bolton, Davyhulme and Widnes.

By reg 9 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 a permit was required for certain waste installations including, by s 5.3(c) of Sch 1, sites carrying out disposal of non-hazardous waste by biological or physico-chemical treatment “which results in final compounds … which are discarded” by specified operations including incineration or landfill. The plants at Bolton, Davyhulme and Widnes partially treated waste by biological or physico-chemical treatment before it was transported by pipeline to a central site for further treatment prior to some of the final product being disposed of by incineration or landfill.

LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE said that Mr West had argued that a product which was to receive further treatment could not be a final compound. Against that Mr Hart had pointed to the absurd consequences which would, in his submission, follow from such a construction. It would mean that no sludge treatment plant would ever need a permit if its product was moved to another site for further treatment before disposal. His Lordship accepted Mr Hart’s submission that that would produce irrational results. S 5.3 was not to be read as if words like “at once and without more” qualified “are discarded”. The coming into existence of the product and its disposal did not have to be simultaneous.

LORD HOFFMANN delivered a concurring opinion.

LORD RODGER, LORD CARSWELL and LORD BROWN agreed.

Appearances: Lawrence West QC and Wendy Outhwaite (Addleshaw Goddard, Leeds) for United Utilities; David Hart QC and Angus McCullough (Environment Agency Legal Department, Bristol) for the agency.

Reported by: C T Beresford, barrister