Welbeck Landfill Site: Council loses legal battle over tipping at city’s rubbish dump

The Planning Inspectorate upheld an appeal lodged by the operators of Welbeck Landfill Site after the company was refused planning permission to be allowed to continue dumping material at the facility.

The authority has also been ordered to pay Welbeck Waste Management Ltd’s (WWML) legal costs following a five-day public inquiry held last November.

In November 2023, the council’s planning and highways committee rejected WWML’s application to continue tipping at the site for two extra years.

The company said it needed more time to fill the remaining capacity at the tip due to a reduction in the amount of materials going to landfill.

Reasons given for refusal included the impact of the tip on local residents and biodiversity.

The decision meant that tipping would have to end on December 31 2023.

The site, which has been in operation for almost three decades, is due to be transformed into a country park when the tip closes.

During the week-long inquiry, the council withdrew one of its expert witnesses from giving evidence.

Lawyers for the authority also conceded ecological and technical arguments raised at the hearing.

Key evidence given by John Martin, an expert in landfill sites, also went unchallenged.

Mr Martin told the inquiry that shutting the site in its current state would leave a “ravine-like feature” which would create a long-term pollution risk.

Mr Martin said best practice would be to fill the remaining void to create a “raised dome” to allow rainfall run-off.

WWML’s barrister Alison Ogley told the hearing: “There is no escaping the reality that this would result in a situation where non-hazardous landfill would significantly increase environmental risks.”

Planning inspector Jason Whitfield allowed the appeal in a decision published on Friday (November 14).

Mr Whitfield said: “I am satisfied that the extension of time would not result in harm to ecology or local residents, and the proposals can be suitably controlled both through the conditions imposed on the planning permission and through the permitting regime overseen by the Environment Agency.”

The inspector said further work at the site was “necessary in order to achieve the restoration of the site without causing harmful environmental effects.”

WWML also made a successful claim for full costs against the council, citing “unreasonable behaviour and wasted expense”.

It said the authority should have known there was “no reasonable alternative” to securing the site’s long-term stability other than granting planning permission for the application.

Mr Whitfield upheld WWML’s claim, saying: “Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred and a full award of costs is therefore warranted.”

The applicant was invited to submit details of the costs to the council with a view to reaching an agreement.

A financial report last September forecast the council’s own legal costs for the appeal to be £200,000.

During closing remarks at the inquiry, Ms Ogley, the barrister said: “The council’s case was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

“The appeals could and should have been entirely avoided.

“From the very outset of the appeal, front and centre was that there was no alternative.

“(WWML) drew the council’s attention directly to the consequences which would follow if the appeal scheme was refused.

“It also made clear that it intended to call expert evidence on matters relating to landfill closure.

“The council was made aware at the start of the appeal of the importance of Mr Martin’s evidence and it chose to ignore it.”