Western Riverside Waste Authority, R (on the application of) v Wandsworth Borough Council

A waste collection authority may charge for collecting commercial waste, provided the charge is reasonable. The exercise of that discretion is reviewed on Wednesbury principles, without substituting the court’s view of the appropriate tariff. A residual-service tariff may be based on anticipated demand and the cost of providing the service, including a decision not to subsidise it.

A waste disposal authority’s power to direct where collected waste must be delivered does not empower it to control commercial tariffs or customer choice. A statutory duty to have regard to a strategy requires consideration, but not slavish adherence. A draft joint strategy is not a legally mandatory consideration unless the statutory scheme so requires.

The claimant waste disposal authority challenged Wandsworth’s decision to set tariffs for commercial waste collection, release its former contractor from contractual restrictions, and support a coordinated approach informing commercial waste producers of available services.

The challenge alleged frustration of the policy and objects of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, failure to consider relevant matters, and irrationality. The central issues were whether the tariff was a reasonable charge, whether the statutory scheme required Wandsworth to maximise commercial waste passing to the claimant, and whether the Mayor’s strategy and a draft joint waste management strategy had been properly considered.

1. Reasonableness of the tariff. Wandsworth’s tariff was not unlawful under section 45(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The discretion to fix a reasonable charge was reviewable on Wednesbury principles. Wandsworth was entitled to pursue full cost recovery and not to subsidise commercial collection. It was also entitled to calculate the tariff for a residual service expected to retain about 10 per cent of its previous customers.
2. Limits of the disposal authority’s power. The statutory scheme did not require Wandsworth to maximise the amount of commercial waste collected by it or its agents and delivered to the claimant. Section 51(4) concerned directions about waste already collected. It did not permit the claimant to control Wandsworth’s charges or require commercial producers to use Wandsworth rather than licensed private contractors.
3. The statutory allocation of regulatory powers supported that conclusion. The express provisions concerning the Environment Agency, the Secretary of State, the Mayor’s strategy and separation requirements were inconsistent with implying the wider control asserted by the claimant.
4. Relevant considerations. Wandsworth had considered the matters alleged to have been ignored. The duty to have regard to the Mayor’s strategy required consideration but not slavish adherence. The draft joint strategy was general, remained in draft, and was not identified by the statutory scheme as a mandatory consideration.
5. The claim, including the irrationality ground, was dismissed.