The High Court has granted a Usk residents’ association leave to seek judicial review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 waste licence for Greenstar Recycling Holdings Limited, on grounds concerning the buffer zone around the proposed landfill.
The ruling is at the leave stage. The court found that the association had shown substantial grounds to argue that the EPA breached section 40(4)(c) of the Waste Management Act 1996 by failing to determine what buffer zone represented the best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) for the site and proposed activities. It did not decide whether the licence was invalid.
The association argued that a buffer zone formed part of the necessary BATNEEC and should be an area where no waste was deposited. The EPA and Greenstar submitted that the appropriate distance should be assessed for each site, taking account of relevant site issues and risks. The judge refused leave on separate grounds challenging the use of a site-specific approach.
The judgment records that the nearest dwelling at the north-eastern boundary was about 20 metres from the site perimeter. The probable quarry-face line was about 11.5 metres from that perimeter, giving an estimated buffer of about 31.5 metres on that side, using the association’s understanding of the term. The judge said the association had raised weighty arguments that the EPA needed to consider and determine what buffer zone was appropriate before being satisfied that BATNEEC would be used.
The association also challenged the environmental impact statement (EIS), arguing that it had become outdated because quarrying continued after it was submitted. The court found no substantial ground on that issue. The judgment noted that the association did not allege a failure to consider the submitted EIS, and that the EPA had discretion to seek further information.
The court also refused leave on the claim that licence condition 3.12 was void for uncertainty. That condition requires a minimum distance of 100 metres between the non-hazardous landfill footprint and any dwelling present when the licence issued, while allowing inert waste in part of the zone. The judge considered the condition understandable when read as a whole; details of the quarry face and liner could be settled through the licence’s engineering-works approval process.
The court granted leave on grounds 9, as amended, and 12, allowing the association to seek specified reliefs. It deferred the application for a stay and set the timing for the next procedural steps to be addressed after hearing the parties.