Local authorities hail High Court ruling on waste regulations

Local authorities have breathed a sigh of relief after a High Court judge rejected a judicial review challenge over Government waste regulations.

The claimants, seven members of the Campaign for Real Recycling, argued that the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had, when transposing domestic regulations – the Waste (Amendments) Regulations 2012, failed to properly implement the EU Waste Framework Directive.

They argued that by allowing councils to exercise judgment over whether to introduce ‘separate collection’, Defra had not reflected the directive. The claimants added that separate collection should be applied uniformly across the UK from 2015.

The Government and the Welsh Ministers – together with interested parties the Local Government Association, the Environmental Services Association and their Welsh counterparts – disagreed.

The defendants and interested parties insisted that co-mingled collections, where different types of recyclable material are collected in one bin, were permissible under EU law.

In UK Recyclate Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Ors [2013] EWHC 425, Mr Justice Hickinbottom rejected the claimants’ case.

He said: “I find that the interpretation of Article 11(1) of the Waste Framework Directive is unambiguously clear: the obligation to set up separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass from 2015 is restricted by both the practicability and necessity requirements that also restrict the obligation in Article 10(2) to collect separately for the purposes of recovery.

“That is also generally concordant with the objectives and aims of the directive, and general European law principles.”

The judge added that counsel for the claimants had properly conceded that, if the necessity requirement was incorporated in to the third paragraph of Article 11(1), then that requirement was properly transposed by Regulation 13(4)(a).

Mr Justice Hickinbottom added: “Therefore, I conclude that, so far as the Article 11(1) obligation is concerned, that has been properly transposed into domestic law by the amended Regulation 13 of the 2011 Regulations.”


The judge also refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Responding to the ruling, Cllr Mike Jones, chair of the Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board, said: “Today’s announcement is great news for councils and means we can continue to work with our residents to collect the bins in a way that reflects local circumstances. The LGA has fought long and hard and we are delighted that the matter has now been resolved.  

“It’s time for the waste sector to draw a line under this and let councils get on with the job of providing residents with an efficient, environmentally responsible and value for money waste service.”

Anthony Collins partner Hilary Harrison, who advised the claimants, said: “Our clients sought a judicial review because they felt that the Waste (Amendments) Regulations 2012 did not accurately represent the directive in UK law and were negatively affecting the quality of recycled material from UK households."

Harrison insisted that the purpose of the judicial review was to provide clarity for local authorities across the UK in regard to current recycling processes.

She said: “It is essential that recycling be kept at the top of the local government agenda in order to ensure that as much waste material as possible is correctly processed. Despite the ruling, our client still feels that commingling is not the most efficient or effective method of collecting waste, and at this stage is considering appropriate next actions.”

Barry Dennis, director general of the Environmental Services Association, which represents companies in the UK’s waste management industry, said: “The ESA has always believed that both the directive and the revised Defra regulations recognise that decisions over local collection methods are complex and that local discretion over the format of recycling collections is needed to ensure that the directive’s objectives are met. We are therefore pleased that the judge, having examined the matter in great depth, has taken the same view.”

Philip Hoult