Planning permission — Trade waste recycling — Whether application required publicity — Whether Assessment of Environmental Effects Regulations applied — Delay in bringing judicial review — Error of procedure found but discretion exercised against applicant
Safety Kleen UK Ltd, the second respondents, own premises at Dinnington, South Yorkshire, which they use for the processing and recycling of trade waste, in particular solvents used in connection with paint-sprayers and degreasers. The second respondents were granted planning permissions on May 18 and December 29 1988 for buildings and the use of land for retaining, treating or disposing of trade waste.
The applicant obtained leave to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge the validity of the decisions to grant those planning permissions on the grounds that: (1) the development fell within section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and there had been no publicity to the original applications as required by article 8 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977; and (2) in respect of the second application, the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 had not been satisfied.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. By virtue of article 8 of the 1977 order, the requirements in section 26 of the 1971 Act as to the publicity to be given to a planning application applied to “(c) construction of buildings or other operations … or use of land, for the purpose of the retention, treatment or disposal of sewage, trade waste or sludge”. Whether a particular matter is trade waste is a question of fact and degree for the local planning authority; the court’s role is to see whether an authority has expressly applied a legally impermissible approach to its task. The first respondents had erred in considering that no treatment of trade waste was involved, as they proceeded, inter alia, on the assumption that the treatment of waste is concerned with matter which has no further use, and if it has a further use after recycling, that prevented it from being waste.
2. The affirmative answer to the first question precluded any necessity to consider the Assessment of Environmental Effects Regulations 1988.
3. There had been undue delay on the part of the applicant in relation to the first planning permission and arguably undue delay in respect of the second, which was only a variation of part of the first. In the exercise of the court’s discretion, the applicant was not now entitled to the relief sought.
John Hendy QC and Charles Pugh (instructed by Oxley & Coward, of Rotherham) appeared for the applicant; Patrick Hamlin and Ben Patten (instructed by the solicitor to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; and Andrew Collins QC and Duncan Ouseley (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) appeared for the second respondents.
