2. The licensing of waste sites and activities
7. Licences set minimum standards for the operation
of waste sites, for example, the types and quantities of waste
to be accepted, security arrangements, ground engineering, emissions
monitoring requirements, amenity management (dust, odours and
pests) and the keeping of records.[8]
8. The Agency has been processing just 20% of new
licence applications within its target of four months. The Agency
planned to process applications more quickly by, for example,
issuing model applications for operators to use as a guide to
reduce errors at the application stage and by increased use of
standard licences for low risk sites. However, processing times
on applications were still not as fast as the Agency would like,
and a backlog had already built up on relicencing sites under
the new pollution, prevention and control regime.[9]
9. Prospective operators of new waste sites must
obtain permission from the relevant planning authority before
the Agency can issue a licence. The need to obtain planning permission
before a licence could be issued contributed to the long delays
in the issue of new licences.[10]
10. The Agency confirmed that its role in issuing
a licence was to protect human health and the environment. Proximity
to housing was considered by planning authorities and the Agency
when deciding whether to issue or amend licences. However, the
Agency considered that poor planning decisions in the past could
make it difficult to solve the problems of nuisance sites, for
example where housing developments had grown up after the site.
The Agency also confirmed that in considering a licence application,
it considered financial provisions and the technical competence
of the proposed operator, and successful prosecutions for waste
site offences but not breaches of a permit.[11]
11. The Agency had not, however, used its power to
refuse licences to applicants with previous convictions for environmental
offences. The Agency wanted to keep criminals out of the industry,
and where existing licensees were convicted, to demand of the
licensee why they should continue at the site or, if the problem
was more endemic to the company, to be satisfied the problem had
been overcome. The Agency noted that the Department's guidance,
however, created a presumption in favour of the applicant, and
required the Agency to take mitigating circumstances and future
intent into account. The Department intended to amend its 1994
guidance to the Agency to emphasise that the test should be based
on the "desirability" of granting a waste license to
an applicant with relevant convictions. It nevertheless considered
that the current guidance did not prevent the Agency from protecting
or revoking licences. The Department recognised that the Agency
might have difficulty applying the test in a fair and consistent
manner that targeted the frequent offender without disadvantaging
larger companies with many sites.[12]
12. On large scale composting activities the Agency
said that its approach to regulation was based on the potential
impact on local residents with breathing difficulties of fungal
spores emitted during the process. The Agency required operators
to demonstrate that they could control that risk. The Agency had
not, however, considered the potential for spores to affect food
crops growing near the site, which might result in economic loss
to the farmer and the possibility of spores entering the human
food chain.[13]
8 C&AG's Report, para 3.2 Back
9
ibid, para 3.17; Qq 161-162 Back
10
C&AG's Report, para 1.5, Figure 4; Qq 16, 20-29, 63 Back
11
Qq 2, 28 Back
12
C&AG's Report, para 2.26; Qq 15-19, 26-27, 129-130, 142-3,
156-157; Ev 20 Back
13
Qq 21, 59 Back
|