Cox Skips Ltd, R (on the application of) v The First Secretary of State & Anor

Planning control and pollution control are complementary regimes. A waste management licence does not remove the planning authority’s power to control waste types where future waste streams may create traffic, noise or other off-site impacts.

Where those impacts cannot yet be identified because the waste streams and technology are unknown, an inspector may apply the precautionary principle and retain a planning condition. Detailed evidence quantifying each possible future impact is not essential if the decision gives adequate reasons and accords with planning policy.

The claimant operated a waste transfer and recycling facility under planning permissions restricting the types of waste that could be handled. It also held a waste management licence regulating waste types and imposing a capacity limit.

Following the county council’s failure to determine applications under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector dismissed the appeal seeking removal of all planning controls over waste types, while allowing a separate conjoined appeal. The claimant challenged the dismissal under section 288. The issues concerned the relationship between planning and pollution control, adequacy of reasoning and evidence, the fallback position, and compliance with the development plan duty.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector’s decision involved no error of law and contained no inadequacy of reasoning.
2. Planning and pollution-control regimes operate in parallel and should complement one another. Planning control could address traffic and other wider environmental effects not adequately regulated by the waste management licence.
3. Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 was directed primarily to on-site considerations and processes. It did not displace planning control over wider traffic and environmental impacts.
4. The inspector was entitled to apply the precautionary principle. Unknown future waste streams, changing technology and future regulatory arrangements made detailed prediction of every impact impossible. Retaining control over each new waste type was therefore a necessary planning condition.
5. The absence of objections and quantified evidence of harm did not invalidate the decision. The inspector had considered licensed capacity, current throughput, potential growth and relevant policy.
6. The inspector had considered and applied the development plan and government policy, satisfying section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs of £10,706.

This was a first-instance application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an inspector’s decision dated 14 July 2005. The inspector dismissed Appeal A, concerning removal of all planning controls over waste types, but allowed the conjoined Appeal B. The challenge concerned Appeal A only.