Lafarge Aggregates Limited, now Tarmac, lost the appeal at the Administrative Court in Leeds last week, after it was determined the operation counted as disposal as opposed to recovery under the Waste Framework Directive.
The dispute arose over the construction of a public footpath across the Quarry, which had previously been diverted during sand and gravel extraction at the site.
Tarmac, which has been extracting minerals from Methley Quarry for many years, negotiated the full restoration of the footpath with Leeds city council by November 2015. However, this required an environmental permit from the Environment Agency in order to use waste for constructing the footpath.
The Agency refused to grant a permit for waste recovery as the operation ‘did not meet the standard rules criteria’.
In an email dated February 2013, the organisation stated that while it could be argued the path could be considered ‘use of waste in construction’, the need to deposit more than eight metres of waste to provide the elevated platform is seen as a land restoration proposal.
The decision was upheld by a Defra-appointed inspector in January 2015. This followed an appeal by Tarmac who argued the scale of the landform and the resulting cost of using non-waste materials made it likely ‘alternative approaches’ would have had to be considered for reinstating the path – such as a footbridge or permanent diversion.
Interpretation
The latest application by Tarmac to appeal the decision via a judicial review has revolved around the interpretation of waste recovery and disposal under the Waste Framework Directive.
Tarmac queried whether the inspector was ‘correct in his interpretation of the Directive’. The firm claimed that the operation should count as recovery, as it is ‘land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement’.
It cited a previous decision regarding the RSPB’s Wallasea Island Project, where large volumes of material were required to recreate the wetland landscape.
In its defence, Defra stated that the definition of “recovery” requires the decision maker to have regard to what would otherwise happen in the event that waste could not be used to fulfill the operation in question.
The court document notes: “If the function that the waste would fulfil would be otherwise fulfilled to the same extent by non-waste materials then the operation would be recovery. If the operation would not take place at all or would, but not to the same extent, then the operation is not recovery.”
‘Disproportionate’
Ruling in favour of the inspector’s decision, the Honourable Justice Patterson concluded that the use of waste was ‘disproportionate’ and beyond the minimum that would achieve the intended benefit. The judge has now invited submission on costs.
Commenting on the appeal decision, a spokesperson for Tarmac said: “We are in the process of considering the recent decision regarding Methley so are unable to comment further at this time.”
Subscribe for free