Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

CRR applies for judicial review over rWFD transposition

A “representative” group of stakeholders from the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) filed an application for a judicial review over the inclusion of full commingled waste collections within the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD).

The judicial review has been brought for the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. According to the group, the regulations fail to properly transpose Article 11 of the rWFD “and therefore are not a proper and legal transposition of the rWFD as a whole”. CRR believes the rWFD requires separate collection of paper, plastic, glass and metal by 2015.

Article 11 of the rWFD says: “Member States shall take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, shall set up separate collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.”

Explaining the reason for taking legal action, CRR chair Mal Williams said: “We have not requested this judicial review lightly. We understand the concerns of councils and their service providers. If we are to build an industry that is in step with our European counterparts, capable of maximising value from the UK’s waste resources, this is an issue which needs resolving this year.

“Kerbside-sorted recycling collections produce the quality of material favoured by materials reprocessors in the UK and this approach is also consistent with obtaining best value for money. For reasons which will no doubt become apparent to everyone in due course, Defra has not taken the opportunity to enact regulation consistent with these facts or in our view with the wording of the WFD. Given that, obtaining clarity in this matter unfortunately requires us to resort to legal action, but that clarity is surely something to be welcomed by all parties in our industry.”

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.