Respondent council granting authorisation for change of incinerators to dispose of animal carcasses – Whether animal carcasses were clinical waste – Whether respondents using wrong guidance – Whether stricter pollution controls applying – Application dismissed
Time Right Ltd operated incinerators used to dispose of animal carcasses at a site in Northamptonshire. The applicant farmed land adjacent to the site and was likely to be affected by any pollution emanating from the incineration process. In September 1998 the respondent council authorised Time Right to replace one of its incinerators with a more modern version. The authorisation imposed limits on the concentration of pollutants that could lawfully be emitted, namely the limits set out in the Secretary of State’s guidance on “animal remains incineration” in PPG 5/3(95).
The applicant sought to challenge the council’s authorisation, principally on the ground that they had used the wrong guidance and had consequently applied insufficiently rigorous pollution limits. The applicant contended that the guidance in PPG 5/1(95) relating to “clinical waste incineration” should have been applied. It was submitted that the guidance in PPG 5/3(95) was misleading, as it failed to recognise that several European directives defined clinical waste in such a way as to include animal remains that might constitute a hazard to humans. The applicant contended that the animal remains in question were “directive waste” for the purposes of the Waste Framework Directive 91/156/EEC and that, within that category, they constituted “hazardous waste” within the meaning of the Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Animal carcasses were not intended to fall within the ambit of “directive waste” or “hazardous waste” so as to require special, and wider, restrictive control. Such a view was fortified by the definition of clinical waste in the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992. The animal carcasses did not qualify as clinical waste. The council were, therefore, correct to have regard to PPG 5/3(95) and not to the more rigorous requirements of PPG 5/1(95).
David Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers, of Birmingham) appeared for the applicant; Stephen Hockman QC and Peter Harrison (instructed by John Hughes Partnership) appeared for the first respondents; David Park (instructed by Hadens, of Lichfield) appeared for the second respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
