Hubbry Logo
Environmental Protection Act 1990Environmental Protection Act 1990Main
Open search
Environmental Protection Act 1990
Community hub
Environmental Protection Act 1990
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
Environmental Protection Act 1990
Environmental Protection Act 1990
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Environmental Protection Act 1990
coat of arms
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make provision for the improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and other processes; to re-enact the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to waste on land with modifications as respects the functions of the regulatory and other authorities concerned in the collection and disposal of waste and to make further provision in relation to such waste; to restate the law defining statutory nuisances and improve the summary procedures for dealing with them, to provide for the termination of the existing controls over offensive trades or businesses and to provide for the extension of the Clean Air Acts to prescribed gases; to amend the law relating to litter and make further provision imposing or conferring powers to impose duties to keep public places clear of litter and clean; to make provision conferring powers in relation to trolleys abandoned on land in the open air; to amend the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; to make provision for the control of genetically modified organisms; to make provision for the abolition of the Nature Conservancy Council and for the creation of councils to replace it and discharge the functions of that Council and, as respects Wales, of the Countryside Commission; to make further provision for the control of the importation, exportation, use, supply or storage of prescribed substances and articles and the importation or exportation of prescribed descriptions of waste; to confer powers to obtain information about potentially hazardous substances; to amend the law relating to the control of hazardous substances on, over or under land; to amend section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 and sections 31(7)(a), 31A(2)(c)(i) and 32(7)(a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; to amend the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 as regards the dumping of waste at sea; to make further provision as respects the prevention of oil pollution from ships; to make provision for and in connection with the identification and control of dogs; to confer powers to control the burning of crop residues; to make provision in relation to financial or other assistance for purposes connected with the environment; to make provision as respects superannuation of employees of the Groundwork Foundation and for remunerating the chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council; and for purposes connected with those purposes.
Citation1990 c. 43
Introduced byChris Patten, Secretary of State for the Environment, 20 December 1989[1]
Territorial extent England and Wales, Scotland
Dates
Royal assent1 November 1990
Commencement1 November 1990 – 16 December 2005
Repealed—
Other legislation
Repeals/revokes
Amended byEnvironment Act 1995
Repealed by—
Relates toHealth and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
EU regulation 1907/2006
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (initialism: EPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2008 defines, within England and Wales and Scotland, the fundamental structure and authority for waste management and control of emissions into the environment.

Overview

[edit]

Part 1: establishes a general regime by which the Secretary of State, as of 2008 the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, can prescribe any process or substance and set limits on it respective of its emissions into the environment. Authorisation and enforcement was originally in the hands of HM Inspectorate of Pollution and local authorities but in 1996 became the responsibility of the Environment Agency (EA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Operation of a prescribed process is prohibited without approval and there are criminal sanctions against offenders.

The Act aims to control and reduce pollution

Part 2: sets out a regime for regulating and licensing the acceptable disposal of controlled waste on land.

Controlled waste is any household, industrial and commercial waste.[a] Unauthorised or harmful depositing, treatment or disposal of controlled waste is prohibited with prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions. Further, there is a broad duty of care on importers, producers, carriers, keepers, treaters or disposers of controlled waste to prevent unauthorised or harmful activities. Breach of the duty of care is a crime.

The Act demands that the Secretary of State creates a National Waste Strategy for England and Wales, and that SEPA creates a strategy for Scotland. Local authorities have duties to collect controlled waste and to undertake recycling.

There are criminal penalties on households and businesses who fail to co-operate with the local authorities' arrangements. Enforcement of these penalties sometimes proves controversial.[2]

Part 2a: was inserted by the Environment Act 1995 and defines a scheme of identification and compulsory remedial action for contaminated land.

Part 3: defines a class of statutory nuisances over which the local authority can demand remedial action supported by criminal penalties.

Part 4: defines a set of criminal offences concerning litter.

Part 5: defines a regime of statutory notification and risk assessment for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are duties with respect to the import, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of GMOs and the Secretary of State has the power to prohibit specific GMOs if there is a danger of environmental damage.

Part 6: of the Act created three new organisations: the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, and the Countryside Council for Wales. Since 1990, the English and Scottish councils have been the subject of considerable reorganisation and, as of 2008, only the Welsh council is still governed by the Act.

The Act superseded the requirements under section 1(1)(d) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in respect of controlling noxious emissions.[b]

In the operating year 2005/ 2006, the EA brought 880 prosecutions with an average fine of about £1,700, and 736 in 2006/2007 with an average fine of £6,773. There have also been sentences of imprisonment, including two of over sixteen months in 2006/ 2007.[3]

Background

[edit]

The Act implements the European Union Waste Framework Directive in England and Wales and Scotland.[4][5]

The Act was intended to strengthen pollution controls and support enforcement with heavier penalties. Before the Act there had been separate environmental regulation of air, water and land pollution and the Act brought in an integrated scheme that would seek the "best practicable environmental option". There was previously no uniform system of licensing or public right of access to information. The split of the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) into English, Welsh and Scottish bodies was controversial. Purportedly forced on Secretary of State Chris Patten by Secretary of State for Scotland Malcolm Rifkind and forestry minister Lord Sanderson, some saw it as "punishment" for the vigorous opposition the NCC had mounted to afforestation in the Flow Country.[1]

Prescribed processes and substances

[edit]

The Secretary of State has the power to prescribe specific processes and substances by statutory instrument.[c] The power was exercised by the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991[6] which have been amended several times. Further, the Secretary of State can make regulations to fix emission standards on prescribed processes and substances.[d]

Once a process is prescribed, it can only be operated on authorisation from the enforcing authority.[e] Applications must be made to the authority[f] and the authority can refuse authorisation or give it subject to conditions.[g] The authorisation is transferable to somebody else who takes over the undertaking provided that the enforcing authority is notified.[h] The enforcing authority can revoke the authorisation[i] or vary its conditions[j] and the operator can apply to have the conditions varied.[k]

The 1991 regulations were revoked for England and Wales by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.[7] Permitting is now regulated by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.[8] The 1991 regulations remain in force in Scotland, although they are in practice superseded by the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and 2012 made under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

Enforcement

[edit]

Processes are stipulated as subject to either central control by the EA or SEPA, or local control by the local authority but only with respects to atmospheric pollution.[l] Such an enforcing authority can issue an enforcement notice or prohibition notice on a noncompliant operator[m] and there are criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment for violations.[n]

An operator may appeal a decision about the issue of authorisation, conditions, enforcement or prohibition to the Secretary of State who may hold a hearing or public inquiry.[o]

Enforcing authorities must provide public information on applications, authorisations and enforcement so long as confidentiality and national security are protected.[p]

Part II - Disposal of controlled waste on land

[edit]

Controlled waste

[edit]

Waste is defined as any substance or object within very broad categories set out in Schedule 2B "which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard".[q] Controlled waste is "household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".[r] The exact definition covers a very broad range of waste.

The meaning of discard was considered by the European Court of Justice in 2002, where it was held:[9]

The term discard must be interpreted in light of the aim of Directive 75/442 which, according to its third recital, is the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste, and Article 174(2) EC which provides that community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection and is to be based, in particular, on the precautionary principle and the principle that preventive action should be taken. It follows that the concept of waste cannot be interpreted restrictively. More specifically, the question whether a given substance is waste must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of Directive 75/442 and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined.

Unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of controlled waste

[edit]

No person may "treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health".[s]

Except in the case of domestic household waste treated or kept or disposed of on the premises, no person may:

  • Deposit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be deposited in or on any land unless a waste management licence authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence;[t] or
  • Treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated, kept or disposed of:
    • In or on any land; or
    • By means of any mobile plant;

— except under and in accordance with a waste management licence.

Duty of care in respect of waste

[edit]

Section 34(1) imposes a duty on "any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste or, as a broker, has control of such waste, to take all such measures applicable to him in that capacity as are reasonable in the circumstances":

  • To prevent any contravention by any other person of section 33;
  • To prevent any contravention of certain (i.e. specific) provisions of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations;
  • To prevent the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person; and
  • On the transfer of the waste, to secure:
    • That the transfer is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes; and
    • That there is transferred such a written description of the waste as will enable other persons to avoid a contravention section 33 or the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations.

Under section 34(2) an occupier of domestic property must, as respects the household waste produced on the property, take reasonable steps to secure that any transfer of waste is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes but has none of the other section 34(1) duties.

Authorised persons include local authorities who have responsibility for waste collection, persons licensed to manage or registered to transport waste or otherwise exempt persons.[u]

Section 34(5) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations as to retention of documents and the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991[10] stipulate that:

  • All transfers of controlled waste must be accompanied by a transfer note;[11]
  • Copies of all transfer notes must be kept for two years;[12] and
  • Transfer notes must be available to the enforcement authority.[13]

Waste management licences

[edit]

Licences are issued by waste management authorities and may be subject to conditions.[v] The Secretary of State may make regulations about what is to be included in the licence as a condition.[w][14][15] Licences are transferable[x] and decisions as to refusal to grant a licence or as to conditions can be appealed to the Secretary of State.[y]·

National and local government responsibilities

[edit]

Sections 44A and 44B were added by the Environment Act 1995 and require the development of national waste strategies for England and Wales, and Scotland respectively.[16]

A typical wheelie bin household waste receptacle

Section 45 requires waste collection authorities, usually local authorities, to collect household waste unless it is in an isolated location or arrangements can reasonably be expected to be made by the person who controls the waste. They may also collect commercial waste if requested to do so, but are not obliged to provide this service. Industrial waste can only be collected with the consent of the waste disposal authority.[z] No charge is to be made for collecting household waste, unless the Secretary of State makes regulations specifying certain (i.e. specific) collections that must be paid for.[aa] A reasonable charge is to be made for commercial waste collection (s.45(4)). Waste collection authorities have responsibilities for emptying privies and cesspools[ab] and have the power to lay pipes, sewers and other infrastructure to collect waste.[ac] Waste collected by a waste collection authority is the property of the authority.[ad]

The authority can give a householder notice that waste must be disposed of in a specified receptacle, and in a specified manner.[ae] It is a crime to fail, without reasonable excuse, to observe such requirements. On summary conviction in a magistrates' court, an offender can be fined up to level 3 on the standard scale.[af]

Authorities also have powers over receptacles for commercial and industrial waste.[ag] There is a system of fixed penalty notices for offences under these sections.[ah] Where controlled waste is deposited on land within their responsibilities, authorities may give notice to the occupier to remove it.[ai] It is a crime to disturb or sort over, unless with consent, waste deposited for collection by the waste collection authority. On summary conviction in a magistrates' court, an offender can be fined up to level 5 on the standard scale.[aj]

Waste collection authorities must deliver the waste to waste disposal authorities unless they intend to recycle it themselves.[ak] Waste disposal authorities must dispose of the waste and also provide facilities for householders to deposit their own waste.[al]

From 31 December 2010, waste collection authorities in England must make arrangements for the separate collection of at least two types of recyclable waste unless it would be unreasonably costly to do so.[am] The Welsh National Assembly has the power to extend this to Wales.[an] Section 55 gives waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities powers to recycle waste.

A disposal authority may:

  • Make arrangements to recycle waste;
  • Make arrangements to use waste to produce heat or electricity;
  • Buy or otherwise acquire waste with a view to its being recycled;
  • Use, sell or otherwise dispose of waste, or anything produced from such waste.

A waste collection authority may:

  • Buy or otherwise acquire waste with a view to recycling it;
  • Use, or dispose of by way of sale or otherwise to another person, waste belonging to the authority or anything produced from such waste.

Enforcement

[edit]

Breach of sections 33 and 34 is a crime and penalties for serious offences by businesses can extend to unlimited fines, imprisonment, seizure of vehicles and clean-up costs.

Part IIA - Contaminated land

[edit]

Contaminated land is "any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that":[ao]

  • "Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or
  • Significant pollution of the water environment is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such pollution being caused."
Contaminated land

The Act does not apply to contamination from radioactivity (s.78YC) but similar provisions have been made under subsequent regulations.[17][18]

Local authorities have a duty periodically to survey their locality and, using guidance defined by the Secretary of State,[19] to designate contaminated land as a special site, advising the EA or SEPA.[ap] The authority, EA or SEPA must then serve a remediation notice on the appropriate person.[aq]

The appropriate person responsible for remedial work is "any person, or any of the persons, who caused or knowingly permitted the substances" giving rise to the designation "to be in, on or under that land".[ar] If no such person can be identified after reasonable enquiries, the present owner or occupier is the appropriate person.[as] Any persons controlling other land to which access is required for remediation must grant such access and may apply to the appropriate person for compensation.[at] The appropriate person is deemed to be responsible for remediation of other land into which substances have escaped.[au]

The appropriate person may appeal a notice within 21 days to:[av]

  • A magistrates' court, or a sheriff court in Scotland, where the notice was served by the local authority; or
  • The Secretary of State, where the notice was served by the EA or SEPA.

There is a further right of appeal from the magistrates' court to the High Court.[20] but ultimately it is a crime not to comply with a notice.[aw] The local authority, EA or SEPA can perform the remedial work themselves if the appropriate person cannot be found, defaults or requests that they do so.[ax] The authority have discretion as to whether to make the appropriate person responsible for the costs.[ay]

Local authorities, the EA and SEPA must maintain a register of notices that is publicly available, save for reasons of confidentiality and national security.[az]

Part III - Statutory nuisances

[edit]

Section 79 defines several statutory nuisances:

  • Any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Smoke emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
  • Noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance; and
  • Noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment on a highway, road, footway, square or court open to the public.

Some exclusions from these categories exist including contaminated land,[ba] activities of the armed forces,[bb] some categories of smoke and dark smoke,[bc] traffic[bd] and demonstrations.[be]

Local authorities have a duty to make periodic inspections of their area or in response to a complaint from the public.[bf] The local authority shall serve an offending occupier with an abatement notice to cease the nuisance.[bg] The occupier can appeal the notice, within 21 days, to a magistrates' court, in England and Wales, or a sheriff court in Scotland.[bh] Otherwise, it is a crime to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notice,[bi] punishable on summary conviction by a fine at level 5 of the standard scale, rising by ten percent for every further day on which the nuisance continues.[bj] If the offence is committed by the occupier of business premises, the maximum fine is £40,000.[bk] Where the notice is not complied with, the local authority may take reasonable action to abate the nuisance and recover the expenses from the occupier,[bl] if necessary by installments or by making a charge on the property.[bm]

Any person aggrieved by a statutory nuisance may make a complaint to the magistrates or sheriff.[bn] The court can order the occupier to abate the damage and, in England and Wales only, impose a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale.[bo] It is a crime, without reasonable excuse, to disobey such an order, punishable on summary conviction by a fine at level 5 of the standard scale, rising by ten percent for every further day on which the nuisance continues.[bp] Sch.3, s.2 provides a power to a magistrates' court to grant a warrant of entry to a local authority for ascertaining whether there exists a statutory nuisance, and taking any action or executing any work to abate it.[21]

Section 84 repeals local authority controls over offensive trades under the Public Health Act 1936.

Part IV - Litter

[edit]

Section 87 creates the criminal offence of leaving litter.

"If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall ... be guilty of an offence"

— Environmental Protect Act 1990 s.87(1)

There are exceptions where the person has lawful authorisation or consent.[bq] Offenders can, on summary conviction in a magistrates' court, be sentenced to a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale.[br]

There is also a system of fixed penalty notices.[bs] Local authorities and central government have duties to keep roads, highways and public spaces free from litter.[bt] Members of the public who are aggrieved by litter in public places can apply to a magistrates' court for an abatement notice to order the responsible public body to carry out its duties under section 89.[bu] Public authorities also have powers to issue litter abatement notices and litter clearing notices on the occupiers of certain (i.e. specific) premises to order clearing of litter.[bv] Occupiers can appeal against a notice to the magistrates' court within 21 days[bw] but it is otherwise a crime to disobey a notice, punishable on summary conviction to a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale.[bx] A local authority may also issue street litter control notices to occupiers of certain (i.e. specific) premises, such as take away food establishments, to keep the street and public areas near to their premises clear of litter.[by]

Local authorities have the power to designate land in order to prevent the distribution of free printed material, such as advertising flyers. Offenders face summary conviction in a magistrates' court and a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale, seizure of the material or a fixed penalty notice[bz] Local authorities may seize abandoned shopping trolleys and luggage trolleys, returning them to their owner and imposing a statutory fee, or otherwise disposing of them.[ca]

Some of the provisions of this part were repealed and superseded by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

Part V - Amendment of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960

[edit]

Part V made a number of amendments to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, including in relation to the appointment of inspectors and assistant inspectors, fees in respect of registrations, enforcement powers and application of the Act to Crown and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority premises.

It was repealed by the Radioactive Substances Act 1993,[22] which consolidated the 1960 Act.

Part VI - Genetically modified organisms

[edit]

Part VI contains provision intended to ensure that "all appropriate measures are taken to avoid damage to the environment which may arise from the escape or release from human control of genetically modified organisms".[23] These include limitations on the import, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of GMOs.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Environmental Protection Act 1990

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) is an of the that establishes a framework for controlling from industrial and other processes, managing , addressing statutory nuisances such as and emissions, and remediating contaminated land. Enacted under a Conservative , it received on 1 November 1990 and came into force progressively, consolidating and updating prior fragmented to prioritize prevention over reaction through regulatory mechanisms like authorizations and powers. Key provisions include Section 33, which prohibits unauthorized deposit, treatment, or disposal of controlled likely to harm human health or pollute the environment, backed by criminal penalties. Section 34 imposes a "duty of care" on anyone handling to ensure its safe transfer and management, preventing evasion of responsibility in the waste chain. Part III defines statutory nuisances—encompassing smoke, dust, fumes, noise, and accumulations of —requiring local authorities to investigate complaints and abate them where substantiated. Part IIA, inserted later via amendments, mandates identification and cleanup of contaminated sites posing risks, shifting liability to polluters where identifiable. The Act's implementation fostered integrated pollution control for high-risk processes, merging air, water, and emissions under single authorizations to minimize overall environmental impact, and it laid groundwork for bodies like Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, precursor to the . While effective in standardizing and reducing overt incidents through fines and prohibitions—such as for illegal fly-tipping—criticisms center on challenges, including resource strains on local authorities and debates over the adequacy of criminal sanctions against repeat offenders in crimes. Recent applications, notably private prosecutions under statutory nuisance provisions for housing disrepair like damp and mould, highlight tensions between tenant protections and landlord burdens, with courts upholding convictions but noting evidentiary hurdles. Overall, the legislation endures as a of environmental regulation, influencing subsequent directives despite calls for modernization to address emerging pollutants.

Introduction

Overview and Legislative Intent

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) is a comprehensive statute enacted to establish regulatory frameworks for control, , and related environmental safeguards. It received on 1 November 1990 under the Conservative government led by Prime Minister . The Act consolidates and amends prior legislation, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, by introducing mechanisms like Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) for prescribed industrial processes, which require authorizations to limit emissions to air, water, and land based on best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC). This structure aimed to address fragmented regulation by centralizing oversight under Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) for high-risk sectors, while delegating control to local authorities for less hazardous activities. The legislative intent centered on preventing and remedying environmental harm through proactive controls rather than reactive responses, driven by recognition of pollution's causal links to risks and degradation, as evidenced by mounting industrial incidents in the . Key objectives included re-enacting waste provisions with stricter licensing and duty-of-care requirements to curb and promote sustainable disposal, alongside provisions for identifying and remediating contaminated under a " where feasible. The Act also extended Clean Air Act measures, tackled statutory nuisances (e.g., excessive or fumes), and regulated litter to mitigate diffuse sources, reflecting a causal emphasis on source reduction over mere symptom treatment. Enforcement powers, including fines up to £20,000 for summary offenses and unlimited penalties on , underscored the intent to deter non-compliance via graduated sanctions. Overall, the EPA 1990 sought to modernize UK's amid growing of transboundary effects and EU directive pressures, prioritizing over prescriptive uniformity. While establishing bodies like advisory environmental councils, it delegated to regulators for adaptive application, though subsequent critiques noted initial under-resourcing limited efficacy in achieving BATNEEC standards across sectors.

Scope, Jurisdiction, and Key Definitions

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 establishes comprehensive controls over environmental pollution, , and nuisances arising from industrial activities, commercial operations, and in . Its scope includes authorizing and regulating prescribed to prevent or minimize releases harmful to air, water, or land; imposing duties on waste producers and handlers to ensure safe disposal and prevent unauthorized deposits; and empowering local authorities to abate nuisances such as excessive , , or odors that interfere with amenity or health. Additional provisions address contaminated land remediation, control, and regulation of radioactive substances and genetically modified organisms, with an emphasis on integrating environmental considerations into to protect ecosystems and human welfare. The Act's jurisdiction extends to England, Wales, and Scotland, forming the primary legislative framework for environmental regulation in Great Britain, though certain sections apply differentially—such as integrated pollution control authorities specified separately for England and Wales versus Scotland—and some provisions reach adjacent territorial seas for offshore pollution impacts. Enforcement is decentralized: in England and Wales, the Environment Agency oversees integrated pollution control, waste licensing, and remediation, while local authorities handle statutory nuisances and initial waste collection; in Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency assumes analogous central roles for pollution and waste, with councils managing local enforcement. Provisions do not initially apply to Northern Ireland, which operates under parallel but distinct legislation, though subsequent amendments have aligned certain waste and nuisance controls UK-wide. Key terms are defined interpretively across the Act to ensure precise application:
TermDefinitionSection
Pollution of the environmentRelease into any environmental medium (air, water, or land) from a process of substances capable of causing harm to man or other living organisms supported by the environment, or interference with amenities due to such releases.1(2)–(3) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/I/section/1)
HarmHarm to the health of man or living organisms; interference with ecological systems, natural habitats, or biodiversity; or damage to property in land, buildings, or structures.29(2) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/29)
Controlled wasteHousehold waste (from domestic premises); industrial waste (from factories or premises used for trade/business); and commercial waste (from premises used for business/trade but excluding industrial waste), subject to licensing and disposal controls.29(1), 75(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/II/section/29)
Statutory nuisanceAny of 12 specified categories, including premises in a state prejudicial to health or a nuisance; smoke emissions from non-domestic premises; fumes, dust, or odors from industrial/trade processes; accumulations of waste; noise from premises, vehicles, or equipment; or artificial light from premises, provided it unreasonably interferes with health or amenity.79(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/III/section/79)
These definitions underpin enforcement, with "process" under Part I limited to prescribed industrial activities involving releases with significant potential, and exclusions applied for certain agricultural or small-scale operations.

Historical Background

Pre-1990 Environmental in the UK

Environmental regulation in the prior to 1990 developed reactively in response to industrial pollution and public health crises, beginning with sector-specific statutes during the . The Alkali Act 1863 marked the first systematic control of industrial air emissions, targeting hydrochloric acid gas from soda ash production by mandating that manufacturers condense at least 95% of the gas before release, enforced by appointed inspectors. This legislation arose from complaints by soap and bleach manufacturers affected by emissions from factories, establishing a precedent for state inspection of private industry. Subsequent amendments, such as the Alkali Act 1874, expanded oversight to other chemical works, though enforcement remained tied to "best practicable means" standards that often favored industrial viability over stringent limits. Water pollution controls emerged alongside, with the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 prohibiting the discharge of solid or liquid into non-tidal rivers, except under local authority sanction, aiming to protect fisheries and water supplies. However, the Act's effectiveness was undermined by exemptions for existing practices, vague definitions of "sewage," and reliance on local without dedicated resources, resulting in minimal abatement of industrial effluents. Complementary provisions in the addressed sanitary nuisances, including river contamination, but prioritized urban drainage over comprehensive industrial regulation. Twentieth-century legislation focused on air quality following acute incidents, notably the Clean Air Act 1956, enacted after the 1952 Great Smog of London, which caused over 4,000 excess deaths from coal smoke particulates and . The Act outlawed dark smoke emissions from chimneys, empowered local authorities to designate smoke control areas requiring smokeless fuels, and provided grants for converting domestic and industrial furnaces, reducing sulfur emissions by promoting cleaner technologies. The Public Health Act 1936 had earlier consolidated nuisance abatement powers, including for smoke and fumes, but lacked prohibitions on specific pollutants, limiting its scope to visible or odor-based complaints. By the mid-1970s, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 sought broader integration, regulating waste disposal through licensing requirements, controlling discharges to controlled waters via consents from water authorities, abating noise nuisances, and restricting atmospheric pollutants from prescribed processes under "best practicable means." Despite these advances, implementation lagged due to resource constraints and incomplete commencement of provisions, such as waste licensing postponed until 1976. The Water Act 1989 further reformed the sector by privatizing water utilities and creating the National Rivers Authority to oversee pollution control, abstraction, and flood defense, consolidating fragmented responsibilities but still operating on a medium-by-medium basis without holistic assessment of environmental impacts. Pre-1990 frameworks thus comprised disparate, reactive measures enforced by multiple agencies—local authorities, river boards, and the —often prioritizing economic activity over prevention, with limited integration across air, water, land, and waste media. This fragmentation, coupled with inconsistent standards and weak cross-media controls, highlighted the need for unified regulation, as evidenced by ongoing incidents and European Community directives pressuring harmonization.

Catalysts for Enactment: Pollution Incidents and EU Influences

The enactment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was spurred by several high-profile pollution incidents in the United Kingdom during the late 1980s, which exposed gaps in existing pollution control and response mechanisms under fragmented legislation like the Control of Pollution Act 1974. A pivotal event was the Camelford water contamination on 6 July 1988, when a relief delivery driver erroneously discharged 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate—a highly acidic flocculant used in water treatment—into the treated drinking water tank at Lowermoor Water Treatment Works in Cornwall, rather than the intended storage tank. This affected the supply to approximately 20,000 residents across Camelford and surrounding areas, resulting in immediate symptoms including gastrointestinal distress, skin irritation, and mouth ulcers for thousands, alongside long-term health investigations into potential neurological and renal damage from elevated aluminium levels exceeding safe thresholds by factors of up to 3,000 times in some samples. The South West Water Authority's delayed and misleading public communication, which initially advised boiling the water (exacerbating acidity and metal leaching), further amplified distrust and highlighted deficiencies in incident reporting, monitoring, and liability enforcement, prompting parliamentary scrutiny and calls for statutory reforms to mandate rapid response protocols and stricter operator accountability. Other incidents reinforced this urgency, including ongoing concerns over industrial air emissions contributing to —evidenced by 1980s surveys showing sulphur dioxide outputs at around 5 million tonnes annually, much from coal-fired power stations—and localized chemical spills, such as those from manufacturing sites that contaminated without adequate remediation powers for authorities. These events, amid rising public awareness post-Chernobyl (1986) regarding radioactive releases, demonstrated the limitations of process-specific controls, fueling advocacy from environmental groups and inquiries like the 1989 on Environmental Pollution report, which criticized the lack of integrated oversight and recommended unified regulation to prevent cross-media pollution transfers (e.g., air emissions leading to water contamination). European Union membership significantly influenced the Act's scope, as the UK was obligated to transpose an expanding body of Community directives into domestic law to avoid infringement proceedings under Article 169 (now 258) of the Treaty. Key among these were the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC, as amended), which required member states to establish waste management hierarchies prioritizing prevention over disposal, and the Directive on the Supervision and Control of Transfrontier Shipments of Waste (84/631/EEC), addressing illegal cross-border dumping that had plagued ports. The Act's waste provisions, including definitions of controlled waste and prohibitions on unauthorized deposits, directly operationalized these by empowering regulators with licensing and enforcement tools, while integrated pollution control mechanisms aligned with emerging EU emphasis on best available techniques to minimize emissions, as later formalized in the 1989 Large Plants Directive (88/609/EEC). This transposition was not merely compliance-driven but reflected causal pressures from EU environmental policy evolution since the 1973 , which institutionalized qualified majority voting on environmental measures, compelling the —previously reliant on voluntary codes—to enact binding national frameworks amid fears of competitive disadvantages from uneven standards across member states.

Enactment Process Under the Conservative Government

The Environmental Protection Bill was introduced in the in December 1989 by , for the Environment in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, marking a significant legislative effort to consolidate fragmented controls into a unified framework. This introduction followed consultations, including the Environment Committee's 1988–89 report on and the government's response, which highlighted deficiencies in existing regimes under prior acts like the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Patten, appointed to the role in July 1989, steered the bill as part of broader Conservative shifts toward environmental policy, influenced by Thatcher's 1989 speech on global warming and , though the legislation emphasized practical regulatory mechanisms over international commitments. The bill's second reading in the on 15 1990 featured Patten emphasizing integrated pollution control for , reforms, and nuisance abatement, positioning it as a pragmatic update to address air, water, and land contamination without excessive bureaucracy. Opposition Labour MPs criticized delays in implementation and sought stronger enforcement powers, but the Conservative majority facilitated passage through standing committee scrutiny—where detailed amendments refined provisions like authorizations for prescribed processes—report stage, and third reading later in 1990. The bill then moved to the , where it underwent similar stages, including a first reading in the Commons' equivalent process noted in Lords debates by 1990, with peers debating alignments to European Community directives on waste and emissions. After reconciling Commons-Lords differences, the bill received on 1 November 1990 from Queen Elizabeth II, just weeks before Thatcher's , enacting the measure under the Conservative administration that had governed since 1979. Commencement was phased, with core provisions like integrated control starting in , reflecting the government's intent for orderly implementation by agencies such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of . The process, spanning nearly a year, demonstrated legislative efficiency amid cross-party acknowledgment of environmental imperatives, though critics noted the act's reliance on administrative discretion over prescriptive standards.

Principal Provisions

Integrated Pollution Control for Prescribed Processes

Integrated Pollution Control (IPC), established under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, regulates industrial processes capable of releasing substances that may cause significant pollution to air, water, or land, or any combination thereof. The regime requires operators of prescribed processes to obtain prior authorization from the relevant enforcing authority, ensuring that operations minimize environmental impact across multiple media rather than addressing releases in isolation. This integrated approach marked a shift from previous fragmented controls, aiming to prevent pollution at source by considering the environment as a whole. Prescribed processes are defined in the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Prescribed Substances) Regulations 1991, which came into force on 1 April 1991 for . These encompass activities with potential for substantial environmental harm, categorized primarily under Schedule 1, Part A, for IPC oversight. Key sectors include production such as large-scale of fuels in boilers exceeding 20 megawatts thermal input; metallurgical processes like iron and steel production, non-ferrous metals , and metal surface treatment; chemical industries involving organic and inorganic chemical manufacture; mineral processes for , lime, and ; and certain operations including of . Prescribed substances subject to control include toxic heavy metals like , mercury, and lead, as well as persistent organic pollutants, with releases required to be prevented where practicable or rendered harmless. Authorizations under IPC mandate the use of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) to prevent or minimize releases, as stipulated in section 7 of the Act. BATNEEC requires operators to adopt technically proven methods that limit while balancing economic feasibility, with decisions informed by the overall environmental consequences rather than isolated media impacts. The enforcing authority, typically Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) for processes of national significance or local authorities for less complex cases under local control (LAPC), must refuse if BATNEEC cannot be assured or if releases would cause significant adverse effects on , human health, or the wider environment. Applications involve detailed process descriptions, emission inventories, and abatement plans, with required to allow objections and ensure transparency. IPC authorizations impose strict conditions, including emission limits, monitoring requirements, and contingency plans for accidents, enforceable through civil notices or criminal penalties for non-compliance, with fines up to unlimited amounts on . The prioritized processes where integrated control was essential due to multi-media releases or transboundary risks, excluding those under separate water or air-only regimes. By 1996, IPC was superseded by the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regime under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, incorporating EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive principles, but the 1990 framework laid foundational integrated permitting in the UK.

Waste Management and Controlled Waste Disposal

Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 addresses waste on land, establishing a regulatory framework for the management, collection, treatment, and disposal of controlled waste in England and Wales. Controlled waste is defined under section 29 as household waste, industrial waste, and commercial waste, encompassing materials produced by domestic activities, manufacturing processes, and business operations, respectively, with specific exclusions for certain agricultural and mining wastes unless otherwise specified. The Act mandates that waste disposal authorities arrange for the collection and disposal of controlled waste within their areas, while waste collection authorities handle collection duties, promoting structured municipal waste handling to prevent environmental harm. Section 33 prohibits the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment, or disposal of controlled waste, making it an offence to handle such waste without a waste management licence or in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. This provision targets fly-tipping and improper disposal practices, with exemptions for small quantities deposited on land occupied by the depositor under specific conditions. Offences under section 33 are punishable on summary conviction by an unlimited fine or up to six months' imprisonment, and on indictment by an unlimited fine or up to five years' imprisonment, reflecting the severity of environmental risks posed by uncontrolled waste. Enforcement relies on waste regulation authorities, which include the Environment Agency in England and Natural Resources Wales, to issue licences and monitor compliance. Section 34 imposes a on any person who produces, imports, carries, keeps, treats, or disposes of controlled to prevent unauthorised or harmful deposit, ensure transfer only to authorised persons, and verify the recipient's suitability for the task. This duty requires practical steps such as completing waste transfer notes and maintaining records for two years, applicable from 1 January 2014 for producers other than domestic occupiers. Failure to comply constitutes an offence, with penalties mirroring those under section 33, incentivising chain-of-custody tracking to mitigate risks of illegal disposal downstream. Waste management licences, governed by sections 35 to 37, authorise specified activities on designated land, subject to conditions safeguarding the environment and , including operational standards and financial provisions for site restoration. Licences are granted by waste regulation authorities following and environmental impact assessments where applicable, with revocation possible for non-compliance. The framework integrates with subsequent regulations, such as the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992, which further delineate waste categories and exemptions. These provisions collectively aim to internalise the externalities of waste disposal through licensing and accountability, reducing incidences of from unmanaged refuse.

Contaminated Land Identification and Remediation

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, inserted by the Environment Act 1995 and effective from 1 April 2000 in , establishes a statutory regime for the identification and remediation of contaminated land posing risks to human health, ecosystems, or controlled waters. Local authorities bear the primary duty to inspect their areas periodically to identify such land, focusing on sites where historical industrial activities have left legacies of not addressed by other regulatory mechanisms like controls. Contaminated land is defined under section 78A as any land appearing to the local authority to contain substances that cause significant harm—such as damage to human health, controlled waters, or ecological systems—or there is a significant possibility of such harm occurring, with assessments guided by statutory criteria issued by the Secretary of State. Significant pollution of controlled waters, including rivers, , and coastal waters, triggers similar action if substances pose risks to their quality or designated uses. The regime adopts a risk-based approach, prioritizing sites based on potential for harm rather than blanket inspections, due to resource constraints; by 2012, English local authorities had made only around 140 formal determinations of contaminated land under Part IIA, with many more sites remediated voluntarily through development processes. Upon identification, the enforcing authority—typically the local authority for non-special sites—serves a notice on affected parties requiring detailed site investigation to confirm contamination and assess risks. Liability follows the polluter pays principle: Class A persons, who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination, bear primary responsibility; absent identifiable Class A persons, Class B persons—the current owner or occupier—may be liable, though exemptions apply for innocent owners unaware of prior pollution. Remediation notices under section 78E specify required actions, such as treatment, containment, or removal of contaminants, apportioned by liability share and considering proportionality to risks and costs; appeals lie to the Secretary of State within 21 days. For sites deemed special sites—such as those involving explosives, , or major pollution—the assumes enforcement, with designation by the Secretary of State ensuring consistent handling of high-risk cases. Non-compliance with notices incurs fines up to £20,000 for businesses or unlimited for indictable offenses, and authorities may undertake remediation themselves, recovering costs from liable parties. The framework emphasizes remediation only to the extent necessary to eliminate risks, avoiding over-treatment, and integrates with broader to facilitate brownfield regeneration while addressing legacy pollution from pre-1990 industrial practices.

Control of Statutory Nuisances and Litter

Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 empowers district and London borough councils to address statutory nuisances, defined as conditions that are prejudicial to or interfere substantially with the comfortable enjoyment of . Section 79(1) lists specific categories, including any in such a state as to be prejudicial to or a ; , fumes, gases, , , or odour emitted from so as to be a —with these provisions for smells applying primarily to industrial, trade, or business premises (e.g., restaurants with inadequate extraction systems), while domestic cooking smells from residential properties are generally not considered statutory nuisances and local councils cannot enforce action under this legislation, typically treating such complaints as civil matters between neighbors; as of February 2026, no specific new UK council policies or changes have been introduced regarding statutory nuisances from cooking smells—; accumulation or deposit of matter prejudicial to or a ; keeping of animals in or yards so as to be prejudicial or a ; emitted from so as to be a ; from vehicles, machinery, or equipment in streets so as to be a ; and any , pool, , gutter, or watercourse in such a state as to be prejudicial or a . Exclusions apply, such as nuisances arising solely from contaminated land or compliant . Local authorities must inspect their districts from time to time to detect statutory nuisances that ought to be dealt with. If satisfied that a nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur, the authority serves an abatement notice under section 80, specifying the nuisance and requiring the person responsible to abate it and prevent recurrence, or prohibiting its occurrence. Notices may mandate structural repairs or other remedial works. Non-compliance without reasonable excuse constitutes a summary offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000), with potential daily fines for continuing offences. Appeals against notices lie to a magistrates' court within 21 days. Private individuals may also apply directly to magistrates for abatement orders if the authority fails to act. Part IV of the Act regulates litter through section 87, which creates a criminal offence of throwing down, dropping, or depositing in any public place to which the section applies—such as streets, highways, or relevant land—and leaving it there. "" encompasses any refuse, rubbish, or waste (other than controlled waste) in a place where it ought not to be. The offence applies to places open to the air, excluding private domestic gardens or land used solely for agriculture. Principal litter authorities, generally district councils, hold a duty under section 89 to ensure that designated , highways, and relevant land under their control are kept satisfactorily clear of and refuse, taking all practicable steps to achieve this standard. Authorities may designate control areas under section 90, enabling street control notices that prohibit dropping and require prompt cleanup. Enforcement powers include issuing fixed penalty notices (up to £2,500 for vehicles involved) and prosecuting offenders, with maxima of level 4 fines (£2,500) for individuals or unlimited for bodies corporate. Section 91 allows aggrieved persons to seek orders compelling authorities to fulfill removal duties. Codes of practice issued under section 92 guide compliance, emphasizing prevention and regular cleansing.

Regulation of Radioactive Substances and Genetically Modified Organisms

Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 establishes a regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), requiring consent from the Secretary of State for their import, acquisition, keeping, release into the environment, or marketing. Genetically modified organisms are defined as those whose genes or genetic material have been altered using prescribed techniques, such as methods, excluding natural mutations or conventional breeding. The regime aims to prevent harm to the environment, where "harm" includes damage to living organisms, ecosystems, or caused by GMOs replicating, persisting, or disseminating. Applications for consent must include risk assessments evaluating potential adverse effects, containment measures, and monitoring plans, with decisions based on scientific evidence of safety. Consents under Part VI impose conditions such as notification of unintended releases, record-keeping, and reporting of monitoring data, with the Secretary of State empowered to revoke or modify consents if new risks emerge or conditions are breached. Implied general conditions require consent holders to notify authorities of any release and take steps to prevent or mitigate harm, including destroying or containing GMOs if necessary. The Act aligns with international obligations, treating functions related to GMO harm prevention as shared between ministers to fulfill agreements like the . Enforcement includes criminal penalties for unauthorized activities, with defenses available if was exercised, though applies in many cases. Regarding radioactive substances, the Act largely excludes them from its core pollution control mechanisms to avoid overlap with specialized nuclear regulations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, as amended. For instance, Part II on does not apply to , directing handling to licensing or the 1960 Act. Schedule 5 amends the 1960 Act by refining definitions of "radioactive material" to include substances with activity concentrations above specified thresholds (e.g., 10 becquerels per gram for certain nuclides) and addresses mobile radioactive apparatus used in industry or . These changes ensure consistent application of prior controls while integrating principles, such as requiring authorizations for accumulation, disposal, or use of radioactive materials to minimize environmental release. Under Part IIA (inserted later but operating within the Act's framework), radioactive contaminated land is regulated separately from non-radioactive sites; remediation falls under nuclear site licences by the Office for Nuclear Regulation or Radioactive Substances Regulation if not covered, with local authorities assessing but not enforcing cleanup unless specified by regulations. This exclusion reflects the causal complexities of radiological hazards, where low-level chronic exposure risks differ from chemical contaminants, necessitating expertise from bodies like the to evaluate doses against public protection standards (e.g., 1 millisievert per year effective dose). Empirical data from post-1990 implementations show these provisions facilitated targeted oversight, reducing inadvertent environmental releases through site-specific permitting rather than generalized rules.

Enforcement and Implementation

Regulatory Authorities and Licensing Procedures

The Environmental Protection Act (EPA ) designates specific regulatory authorities responsible for overseeing integrated pollution control (IPC) and local authority air control (LAAPC) under Part I. For IPC, which applies to prescribed processes posing the greatest potential for cross-media (e.g., large-scale chemical production or power generation), the Secretary of State holds primary responsibility, with functions delegated to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP), an established to administer authorizations and enforcement. Local authorities, typically district councils in , serve as enforcing authorities for LAAPC, regulating less hazardous prescribed processes such as certain metal works or fuel combustion activities through prior authorization requirements. Licensing procedures for prescribed processes under IPC and LAAPC mandate that operators obtain prior written authorization before commencing operations, as stipulated in section 6 of the Act. Applications must detail the process design, proposed emissions, waste management, and compliance measures, with the enforcing authority required to determine applications within four months or notify delays. Authorizations incorporate conditions enforcing the use of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEP) to prevent or minimize pollutant releases to air, water, or land, alongside emission limits aligned with quality objectives set by the Secretary of State. Operators bear ongoing duties to monitor emissions, notify changes, and surrender authorizations upon cessation, with authorities empowered to vary, revoke, or enforce via prohibition notices for non-compliance. Under Part II of the Act, waste regulation authorities—designated by the Secretary of State and comprising county councils, metropolitan districts, or HMIP for hazardous wastes—handle licensing for controlled waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites. Waste management licences require applications specifying site operations, environmental safeguards, and financial provisions for closure, with approvals contingent on demonstrating no unacceptable risk and adherence to technical standards. Procedures include public notification in some cases via subsequent regulations, site inspections, and conditions mandating secure containment, treatment to minimize harm, and aftercare plans post-closure, effective from licence grant dates typically within three months of application. These authorities conduct periodic reviews and can impose modifications or revocations if operations deviate from licensed conditions or pose environmental threats. For statutory nuisances and litter under Part III, district councils act as primary enforcers, investigating complaints and serving abatement notices without formal licensing but with procedural requirements for evidence gathering and appeals to magistrates' courts. Overall, the Act's framework emphasizes centralized expertise for high-risk activities via HMIP while devolving routine oversight to local bodies, though post-1995 consolidations under the integrated many functions for streamlined enforcement across .

Duty of Care Obligations and Penalties

Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a statutory duty of care on any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats, or disposes of controlled waste in England or Wales, requiring them to take all reasonable measures to manage waste responsibly throughout its lifecycle. This duty, which applies continuously from production to final disposal, aims to prevent harm to the environment or human health by ensuring waste is handled only by authorized persons and in compliance with legal conditions. The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, effective from 1 April 1992, further specify that failure to adhere to this duty constitutes a criminal offense. The core obligations under section 34(2) include preventing the unauthorized or harmful deposit, treatment, or disposal of ; preventing its escape from the control of the holder or any transferee; and ensuring compliance with any applicable waste management license conditions attached to the transfer. holders must also verify the authorization status of recipients—such as registration as carriers or brokers, or possession of environmental permits—before transfer, and retain documentary evidence like notes or waste transfer notes for at least two years. The Duty of Care: Code of Practice, issued under section 34(7) and updated as recently as 2018, provides non-binding practical guidance on fulfilling these requirements, emphasizing prevention of fly-tipping and illegal disposal while applying to both commercial and household producers, though the latter's scope was clarified in subsequent amendments. Breach of the duty of care under section 34(2A) is a criminal offense triable either way in magistrates' or , punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (currently £5,000 in ) or, on indictment, by an unlimited fine. Enforcement authorities, such as local councils or the , may issue fixed penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution, set at £300 under section 34A (or adjustable by order), particularly for minor breaches like to provide waste transfer documentation. Prosecutions require proof of or recklessness in failing to take reasonable steps, with courts considering factors like the scale of harm and prior compliance history in sentencing. For household duty of care breaches, guidance permits fixed penalties up to £400 in some cases, reflecting lighter culpability but aimed at deterrence.

Prosecution and Compliance Mechanisms

The (EA) and local authorities serve as primary regulators responsible for enforcing compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), conducting inspections, monitoring authorized processes, and addressing reported violations through administrative and criminal measures. These bodies may enter premises with warrants if necessary to verify adherence to authorizations or investigate potential offenses, with powers extended under sections such as 13 for information demands in pollution control cases. Key compliance tools include enforcement notices under section 13, issued when prescribed industrial processes contravene authorization conditions, specifying required remedial steps and deadlines; non-compliance renders the recipient liable for prosecution with fines determined by the severity of the breach. Prohibition notices under section 14 halt operations posing imminent serious risks, similarly enforceable through criminal proceedings if ignored. For handling, section 34 imposes a on producers, carriers, and holders to prevent unauthorized deposit or harm, supported by statutory codes of practice; breaches are offenses triable either way, attracting unlimited fines on . Prosecutions for offenses such as illegal waste disposal under section 33—punishable on summary conviction by up to 12 months' and/or a £40,000 fine (as updated), or on by up to 5 years' and unlimited fines—typically proceed in magistrates' or , guided by Sentencing Council frameworks emphasizing culpability and harm. Statutory nuisances under Part III trigger abatement notices per section 80, with non-compliance offenses under section 80(4) leading to summary prosecution and fines up to £5,000 plus £500 daily for continuance, recoverable via section 82 proceedings. Fixed penalty notices offer an alternative for minor breaches, such as certain waste duty failures, allowing payment (e.g., £300) to avoid court, though non-payment escalates to prosecution. Private prosecutions remain possible for aggrieved parties, as affirmed in cases involving section 82 nuisances. Overall, these mechanisms prioritize graduated responses—warnings, cautions, notices—before prosecution, with courts assessing intent, environmental impact, and prior compliance history; for instance, section 33 violations often incur higher penalties for large-scale fly-tipping due to measurable ecological damage.

Environmental and Societal Impacts

Measured Environmental Improvements

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) for prescribed , contributing to substantial reductions in air pollutant emissions. Between 1990 and 2019, UK emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) declined by 95%, nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 72%, and particulate matter (PM2.5) by 55%, with industrial sectors showing marked decreases due to emission controls mandated under IPC regimes. These reductions were facilitated by best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC), applied to large combustion and other processes, alongside switching and technological upgrades. In water quality, the Act's provisions for controlling discharges and statutory nuisances supported long-term improvements in English rivers. From 1990 to 2023, (BOD) concentrations fell by 46%, and levels decreased by 85%, reflecting reduced organic and pollution loads. Macroinvertebrate communities, indicators of biological , exhibited recovery trends correlating with these chemical improvements, attributable in part to controls under the Act targeting industrial and agricultural effluents. Orthophosphate levels also dropped by 83% over the same period, though nitrate concentrations rose by 23% due to persistent agricultural pressures. Waste management enhancements stemmed from the Act's duty of care and licensing requirements, reducing landfilled waste volumes by approximately 52% from 1995 peaks to 2019. For contaminated land, Part IIA enabled identification and remediation, with over 90% of the initial 659 determined sites converted to housing by the early , though official determinations remained limited relative to estimated affected sites. These metrics indicate targeted environmental gains, though broader declines were influenced by concurrent technological advances and international directives.

Public Health and Local Community Effects

The Environmental Protection Act 1990's provisions for Integrated Pollution Control under Part I established a permitting system for industrial processes, requiring operators to use best available techniques to minimize releases to air, thereby contributing to declines in key pollutants. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the UK fell by 97% between 1990 and 2023, primarily due to reduced coal and fuel oil use alongside regulatory controls including those from the Act. Such reductions have been associated with decreased premature mortality and respiratory health burdens, as lower SO2 levels mitigate acid rain and particulate formation linked to cardiovascular and lung diseases. Part III of the Act defines statutory nuisances, including , , fumes, gases, , odors, and accumulations prejudicial to , obliging local authorities to investigate complaints and issue abatement notices. This framework addresses localized environmental hazards that impair community well-being, such as excessive causing sleep disturbance or fumes exacerbating , enabling proactive remediation to safeguard and residential amenity. In practice, these measures have empowered communities to mitigate disturbances from industrial or domestic sources, reducing interference with daily life and associated stress-related effects. The under section 34 mandates that waste handlers prevent escape, harm to health, or during collection, transport, and disposal, minimizing risks from uncontrolled such as proliferation or contamination affecting and nearby residents. By promoting secure , the Act has curtailed community exposure to biohazards and vectors of , particularly in urban areas where improper disposal historically contributed to incidents like gastrointestinal illnesses. Overall, these mechanisms have fostered cleaner local environments, though effectiveness varies with local enforcement capacity.

Economic and Regulatory Consequences

Compliance Costs and Business Burdens

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) introduced regulatory requirements that generated significant compliance costs for businesses, primarily through provisions for pollution control authorizations, waste handling, nuisance abatement, and contaminated land remediation. Under Part I, the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime mandated authorizations for prescribed , requiring operators to adopt best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) to minimize emissions across media. This entailed application processes, ongoing monitoring, reporting, and investments in abatement technologies, with regulators recovering administrative costs via fees charged to industry. Businesses faced capital expenditures for equipment upgrades and operational adjustments to meet authorization conditions, diverting resources from core activities. A mid-term review of the IPC's successor regime under the Pollution Prevention and Control framework, which retained core elements of the 1990 Act's approach, quantified mean one-off compliance costs at £350,000 per installation, comprising an average £307,191 in capital investments for control measures, alongside , monitoring, and reporting expenses. one-off costs were lower at £32,000, reflecting variability across installations, while annual ongoing costs averaged £43,432, including £16,674 for capital servicing and £9,160 for time. Previously regulated sectors like chemicals incurred higher burdens than newly regulated ones such as food and drink, with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) reporting disproportionate impacts due to limited scale for absorbing fixed costs. Part II's waste management provisions, including the under section 34, imposed administrative burdens on businesses generating or handling controlled waste, necessitating documentation of waste transfers, segregation, and use of authorized carriers to prevent fly-tipping or improper disposal. Waste facilities required licensing (via the 1994 Waste Management Licensing Regulations), involving site-specific assessments, environmental impact evaluations, and compliance with operational standards, for which compliance cost assessments were prepared to estimate economic effects. Non-compliance risks, such as unlimited fines, amplified through legal and proceedings. Part III's statutory nuisance controls required businesses to abate emissions like , , or odors from premises, often entailing reactive investments in suppression equipment upon local authority notices. Part IIA (inserted by the 1995 Environment Act but rooted in EPA 1990 principles) enforced the for contaminated land, obliging liable parties—typically current or former site owners/operators—to fund remediation where significant harm or pollution linkage existed. Remediation costs could exceed the site's current value, imposing multimillion-pound liabilities on industries with historical operations, such as or extractives, and complicating property transactions due to requirements. These elements collectively elevated operational overheads, with aggregate environmental expenditures reaching £2.1 billion by 2021, a portion attributable to EPA 1990-derived obligations.

Cost-Benefit Analyses and Efficiency Critiques

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 incorporated cost considerations primarily through the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime, which mandated the use of Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) for authorizing industrial processes, aiming to balance pollution abatement with economic viability. This standard required regulators to assess whether abatement costs were "excessive" relative to environmental benefits, often involving comparative analysis of control options across media like air, water, and waste. However, implementation critiques highlighted the subjectivity in defining "excessive," with regulators frequently prioritizing environmental goals over rigorous economic thresholds, potentially leading to inefficient outcomes where marginal benefits diminished relative to compliance expenditures. In the contaminated land provisions under Part IIA, remediation decisions explicitly required a cost-benefit evaluation to ensure actions were proportionate, with regulators weighing cleanup expenses against , such as risks to or ecosystems. For instance, guidance emphasized comparing remediation options' costs to avoided damages, deferring action if expenses outweighed benefits, though enforcement often deferred detailed quantification until site-specific assessments. Sectoral studies, such as those on under the , indicated potential efficiency gains; participation in waste clubs yielded average annual savings of £20,000-£50,000 per firm through reduced disposal costs, suggesting positive net returns for compliant operators. Efficiency critiques have focused on the act's regulatory framework imposing disproportionate burdens without sufficient ex-ante cost-benefit justification, particularly in pollution prevention extensions. Parliamentary scrutiny in 1999 on successor provisions noted inadequate analysis of implementation costs, estimated in millions for monitoring and , against uncertain incremental benefits beyond existing controls. Broader assessments of IPC efficiency argued that while BATNEEC promoted integrated controls, inconsistent application across sectors resulted in higher abatement costs—sometimes exceeding 5-10% of operational expenses for affected industries—without proportional reductions, as evidenced by variable compliance rates and gaps. Comprehensive economy-wide cost-benefit analyses remain limited, with later reviews indicating that while controls under related regimes often yielded benefits surpassing costs (e.g., savings from reduced emissions), the act's piecemeal approach contributed to regulatory overlap and elevated administrative burdens estimated at £100-200 million annually in the .

Criticisms and Debates

Shortcomings in Pollution Prevention and Enforcement Gaps

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) under Part I to regulate prescribed industrial processes by considering impacts across environmental media, using the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) framework. However, IPC was limited in scope, applying only to about 40 high-risk sectors and excluding many diffuse or sources, which allowed significant emissions to continue unabated. This reactive approach, focused on authorization and monitoring rather than upstream prevention, failed to curb overall pollution trends effectively, as evidenced by the need for its replacement by the broader Pollution Prevention and Control regime in 1999 to address integration gaps and expand coverage to over 50 sectors. Enforcement under the Act has been hampered by resource constraints at local authorities, which bear primary responsibility for statutory nuisances (Part III), including smoke, fumes, and accumulation that pollute air and land. Local authorities are required to inspect areas proactively and abate nuisances via notices under section 80, yet enforcement remains largely complaint-driven due to limited staffing and budgets, resulting in inconsistent application and persistent localized pollution. For instance, failure to enforce abatement notices often leaves nuisances unresolved, with courts stepping in only after repeated non-compliance, underscoring gaps in preventive deterrence. Waste-related pollution prevention under sections 33 and 34 has shown notable enforcement shortfalls, exemplified by fly-tipping, criminalized as unauthorized deposit of controlled waste. Despite unlimited fines and up to five years' imprisonment in , incidents reached 1.15 million in for 2023/24, a 6% rise from the prior year, with 60% involving household waste polluting public and private land. Enforcement actions totaled 528,000, including 63,000 fixed penalty notices, but low deterrence persists due to discretionary sentencing without minimum fines and under-resourced local investigations, costing £392 million annually in cleanup and exacerbating land contamination. Broader systemic gaps are highlighted by declining regulatory capacity, with the Environment Agency's enforcement funding reduced from £11.6 million in 2010-11 to £7 million in 2020-21, indirectly affecting legacy EPA mechanisms like waste . Prosecutions for environmental offences plummeted from 787 in 2007-08 to 17 in 2020-21, reflecting prioritization of voluntary undertakings over punitive measures, which critics argue undermines pollution prevention by reducing accountability for repeat offenders. These deficiencies have contributed to ongoing , such as suboptimal river ecological status at 86% in 2020, despite the Act's aims.

Ideological Conflicts: Overregulation vs. Insufficient Protections

Critics from business and free-market perspectives have argued that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes excessive regulatory burdens through its integrated control (IPC) regime and authorization processes, which require industries to demonstrate compliance with the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) standard, leading to significant administrative and operational costs. For example, the Act's provisions for pollution prevention and control, including mandatory monitoring and reporting, have been cited in analyses of regulatory impacts on sectors like and , where compliance expenses can deter investment and reduce competitiveness without commensurate environmental gains. These views, often advanced by organizations emphasizing , contend that the Act's command-and-control approach favors bureaucratic oversight over incentive-based alternatives, potentially stifling in pollution abatement. Conversely, environmental advocacy groups and some regulatory analysts maintain that the Act provides insufficient protections due to enforcement gaps and resource constraints within agencies like the , allowing persistent statutory nuisances such as air and to continue post-1990. Reports on sentencing highlight criticisms that limited personnel and prosecutorial capacity result in low conviction rates for offenses under the Act's and sections, undermining its preventive intent. The contaminated land regime under Part IIA, implemented in 1993, has drawn particular scrutiny for its "suitable for use" criteria, which some contend enable lax remediation standards and fail to fully enforce the polluter-pays principle, leaving legacy unaddressed. These conflicting ideologies reflect broader tensions between prioritizing economic liberty and of environmental harm; proponents of argue that high compliance costs—estimated in sector-specific studies to run into millions for small-to-medium enterprises—yield , while advocates for enhanced protections cite causal links between weak and ongoing risks from pollutants, as evidenced by post-Act incidents requiring supplementary . Parliamentary discussions during the Act's passage and subsequent amendments reveal this divide, with industry representatives cautioning against overreach that could harm jobs, contrasted by calls for robust measures to internalize externalities like transboundary .

Case Studies of Controversial Applications

In the case of Ferko v Ealing Magistrates' Court EWHC 2592 (Admin), a tenant initiated a against landlords and agents under section 82 of the EPA 1990, alleging statutory from damp and mould rendering the property unfit for habitation. The overturned the magistrates' dismissal, ruling that nuisance liability arises from material contribution to conditions like condensation-driven mould, without requiring proof of structural defects, and remitted for retrial. This application sparked debate, as critics contend such prosecutions repurpose environmental nuisance provisions for routine housing disputes, often driven by claimant solicitors seeking costs and potentially incentivized by tenant referrals, straining landlords with criminal sanctions disproportionate to non-environmental lifestyle factors like poor ventilation. A 2022 High Court ruling in a nuisance dispute from a Multi-Use Games Area and skate park in Chapel-en-le-Frith clarified section 82 applications against local authorities. Residents claimed interference from ball impacts and skating sounds; the initial magistrates' denial, citing appellants' amid unrelated anti-social behavior stress, was reversed, establishing that nuisance encompasses all emitted against a "normal resilience" benchmark, not subjective tolerance, and does not negate liability. arose over balancing public recreational facilities against residential amenity, with defenders arguing rulings risk over-enforcement that curtails , while proponents viewed it as upholding the Act's intent to protect against verifiable disturbances beyond individual sensitivities. Enforcement under section 33 for illegal disposal featured in R v O'Brien and Enkel (2000), where two individuals received initial eight-month prison terms for dumping lorry tyres on rural land without a permit, creating visual and risks. The Court of Appeal quashed the custodial sentences as excessive for a low-end offence lacking long-term ecological harm or prior convictions, substituting community penalties given the defendants' mistaken belief in legitimate . This highlighted tensions in applying provisions to inadvertent or small-scale violations, with detractors of harsh initial penalties arguing they disproportionately punish minor actors compared to large-scale polluters, potentially undermining compliance incentives through perceived inequity.

Amendments and Evolution

Major Amendments and Statutory Instruments

The Environment Act 1995 introduced substantial amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, primarily through Schedule 17, which restructured regulatory functions by establishing the as the primary enforcer for integrated control, waste regulation, and contaminated land provisions under Parts I, II, and IIA. These changes, effective from 1996, transferred powers previously held by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and district councils, enhancing centralized oversight while inserting new sections on enforcement notices and appeals. The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 amended Part I of the 1990 Act to implement the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC), replacing the original prescribed processes regime with a unified permitting system for industrial emissions to air, water, and land. Section 3 of the 1999 Act enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations for pollution prevention and control permits, effective from 2000, which subordinated earlier authorization requirements under sections 4–6 of the 1990 Act to the new framework. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 expanded Part III provisions on statutory by inserting section 79(1)(g) to include artificial as a potential , effective October 2006, and strengthened control under sections 87–92 with enhanced fixed penalty notices up to £100 for offenses. It also amended section 33 on waste disposal offenses to facilitate prosecution of fly-tipping with higher penalties, aligning with local authority enforcement duties. The Environment Act 2021 modified sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act to empower regulations restricting exports and imports, particularly prohibiting shipments of mixed municipal to non-OECD countries unless recycled, effective from 2022, to prevent environmental harm from overseas disposal. Key statutory instruments under the Act include the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, which operationalize section 34 by mandating written transfer notes, consignee details, and retention periods of two years for controlled documentation to ensure and prevent illegal disposal. The Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/588) classified types under section 33, distinguishing household, industrial, and commercial categories to clarify offenses and enforcement. Codes of practice issued under section 89(6), such as the 2018 on Litter and Refuse, provide non-binding guidance for local authorities on maintaining public spaces, with non-compliance admissible as evidence in nuisance proceedings. More recently, the Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025 (laid 16 September 2025) prohibit the supply of flushable wet wipes containing plastic microfibres under the Act's pollution prevention powers, aiming to reduce waterway blockages and marine litter, with offenses punishable by fines.

Integration with Post-1990 Legislation

The Environment Act 1995 amended the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by inserting Part IIA (sections 78A to 78YC), which established a statutory regime for identifying and remediating contaminated land, assigning responsibilities primarily to local authorities and enforcing bodies for sites posing significant risks to human health or the environment. This integration expanded the 1990 Act's scope beyond immediate pollution control to address historical contamination, with the —created under the 1995 Act—gaining enforcement powers over these provisions, including powers of entry under section 108 of the 1995 Act. Subsequent pollution control frameworks built on Part I of the 1990 Act, which had introduced Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) for major industrial processes and Local Authority Air Pollution Control (LAPC) for others. The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, implementing the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC), replaced IPC and LAPC with a unified Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regime, transferring authorizations to a single permitting system emphasizing best available techniques to minimize cross-media pollution impacts. Regulations made under the 1999 Act, such as the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, effectively superseded sections 1-29 of the 1990 Act while retaining enforcement mechanisms like abatement notices. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 further consolidated this evolution by merging the PPC regime with waste, water, and radioactive substances permitting derived from the 1990 Act's Part II (waste on land) and other statutes, creating a single integrated permitting system for regulated facilities. Under these regulations, operators must hold permits incorporating conditions from the 1990 Act's principles, such as the for waste carriers (section 34), with offences punishable by unlimited fines; the enforces compliance, bridging statutory nuisances under sections 79-82 of the 1990 Act with modern permitting offences. This framework ensures continuity, as non-compliance with 1990 Act duties can trigger permitting revocations or prosecutions. The Environment Act 2021 introduced targeted amendments to the 1990 Act, enhancing producer responsibility for packaging and electrical waste by expanding section 93's powers to impose fees and charges, aligning with goals while retaining the Act's foundational . These integrations reflect a layered regulatory approach, where the 1990 Act's core prohibitions on unauthorized emissions (section 6) and nuisance controls persist as backstops to permitting regimes, enforced amid post-Brexit adaptations of retained EU law.

Recent Developments and Ongoing Relevance as of 2025

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 continues to underpin local authority enforcement of statutory nuisances under Part III, with councils obligated to investigate complaints related to issues such as noise, smoke, odors, and accumulations of waste, as affirmed in guidance applicable through 2025. This framework remains a primary tool for addressing everyday environmental harms, with local authorities like Council actively applying Part I provisions for Local Air Pollution Control from processes not covered by national regimes. A notable development in occurred with the implementation of simpler policies, where section 45AZA of the Act imposes separation requirements on business waste producers from relevant premises starting 31 March 2025, excluding certain small non-domestic premises initially. This update aligns the Act with modern goals without altering its core producer responsibility duties under sections 33 and 34, which prohibit unauthorized deposit or treatment of controlled waste and require adherence to principles. As of October 2025, the Act's provisions on contaminated land under Part IIA retain relevance for remediation liabilities, particularly in brownfield development contexts, where polluter-pays principles guide enforcement amid ongoing housing and infrastructure pressures. Its integration with subsequent legislation, such as the Environment Act 2021, ensures enduring applicability in pollution prevention, though critiques persist regarding enforcement resource constraints at local levels. Businesses face heightened compliance risks in 2025, including fines for breaches in waste handling and emissions, underscoring the Act's role as a foundational regulatory backstop amid evolving net-zero transitions.

References

  1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43
  2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents
  3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/33
  4. https://www.businesswaste.co.uk/help/environmental-protection-act-1990/
  5. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints
  6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA
  7. https://www.drainclean.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/a-guide-to-the-environmental-protection-act-1990.pdf
  8. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offence-response-options-environment-agency/waste-offences
  9. https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/311-litigation-features/59878-housing-disrepair-and-epa-1990-prosecutions
  10. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=plcjr
  11. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/I
  12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/1
  13. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/introduction
  14. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/II
  15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/III
  16. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/29
  17. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/tools/keywords/england-passes-first-alkali-acts
  18. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Alkali_Acts
  19. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/Vict/39-40/75
  20. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/52/enacted
  21. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/Geo5and1Edw8/26/49
  22. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/40
  23. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1989/15
  24. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn212.pdf
  25. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-17367243
  26. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1990/jul/26/water-pollution-camelford
  27. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/environmental-pollution-damage/
  28. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31975L0442
  29. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP99-58/RP99-58.pdf
  30. https://assets.parliament.uk/Journals/HCJ_volume_246.pdf
  31. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1990-01-15/debates/62e247dc-a497-40a4-bbc9-6eb7ef43e18f/EnvironmentalProtectionBill
  32. https://green-history.uk/general/uk-environment-ministers
  33. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1990-02-07/debates/10b26cd5-2c3c-4ed0-987e-157e5da234ca/EnvironmentProtectionBill
  34. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/environmental-protection-act-1990
  35. https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-97-15.pdf
  36. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/472/note/made
  37. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/7
  38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb00905.x
  39. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/14
  40. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/51
  41. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/35
  42. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/34
  43. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-duty-of-care-code-of-practice/waste-duty-of-care-code-of-practice
  44. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-affected-by-contamination
  45. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA/section/78B
  46. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e48deed915d74e33f13f8/dealing_with_contaminated_land_i.pdf
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA/section/78A
  48. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80ab47ed915d74e622fc4a/State_of_contaminated_land_report.pdf
  49. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA/section/78F
  50. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA/section/78E
  51. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA/section/78N
  52. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79
  53. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nuisance-smells-how-councils-deal-with-complaints
  54. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/80
  55. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/2276/made
  56. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/82
  57. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/87
  58. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IV
  59. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8b766ded915d0372f8ac59/pb11577b-cop-litter1.pdf
  60. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/111
  61. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/106
  62. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/107
  63. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/genetically-modified-organisms-applications-and-consents
  64. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/112
  65. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/109
  66. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/118
  67. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/78
  68. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/schedule/5/part/I/crossheading/meaning-of-radioactive-material-for-purposes-of-1960-act
  69. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b2d108fed915d588c3db28e/RCL_Statutory_Guidance_Final_220618.pdf
  70. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-500-5473?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  71. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c3371e5274a25a9141226/geho0310bsgf-e-e.pdf
  72. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/I/crossheading/enforcement
  73. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2839/made
  74. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/environmental-offences-other/
  75. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/household-waste-duty-of-care-fixed-penalty-notice-guidance/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-household-waste-duty-of-care-fixed-penalty-notices
  76. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/4
  77. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/19
  78. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/13
  79. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/01/private-prosecutions-against-landlords-epa-1990
  80. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat09/2103151107_GB_IIR_2021_FINAL.pdf
  81. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-water-environment-indicator-b3-supporting-evidence/state-of-the-water-environment-long-term-trends-in-river-quality-in-england-2024
  82. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/52629/html/
  83. http://naei.energysecurity.gov.uk/node/54
  84. https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/further-so2-cuts-give-greater-health-benefits
  85. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/housing_conditions/local_authority_duties_to_deal_with_poor_conditions/local_authority_statutory_nuisance_duties
  86. https://www.astutis.com/astutis-hub/blog/environmental-protection-act-1990
  87. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/state-of-the-environment-health-people-and-the-environment
  88. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ippc/icerikbelge/icerikbelge1373.pdf
  89. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-05/environmental-protection-act-1990-waste-management-licensing-regulations-1994-and-the-framework-directive-on-waste-circular-2694.pdf
  90. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a757dfa40f0b6360e47489d/pb13735cont-land-guidance.pdf
  91. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/environmentalprotectionexpenditureuk/2021
  92. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jepp.102
  93. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jepp.102
  94. https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/The_meaning_of_BATNEEC_interpreting_excessive_costs_in_UK_industrial_pollution_regulation/23375588
  95. https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/44/70/4470d714-283b-44a1-aca3-f68a0af238f4/12_slcourt_secondnotice_17july2019.pdf
  96. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2014/04/brownfield-land-in-the-uk-lenders-liability
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344900000598
  98. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1999-07-14/debates/f0af41df-7dd5-4cfe-9505-1c96faafce24/PollutionPreventionAndControlBilllords
  99. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247952235_Assessing_the_efficiency_of_integrated_pollution_control_regulation
  100. https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y
  101. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat09/1403040925_exec-summary.pdf
  102. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP99-58/RP99-58.pdf
  103. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10016ML.TXT
  104. https://academic.oup.com/book/59518/chapter/502106944
  105. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05672/SN05672.pdf
  106. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Environmental-compliance-and-enforcement.pdf
  107. https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Better_Regulation_in_Europe.pdf
  108. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook34pdf.pdf
  109. https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/pgnekgmb/20201216-environmental-and-wildlife-crimes-lit-review.pdf
  110. https://academic.oup.com/clp/article/74/1/299/6409430
  111. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/447/3/strathprints000447.pdf
  112. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1990-12-29/debates/2b06e5d7-1fcf-48f6-b097-9683ea0020fe/EnvironmentalProtectionBill
  113. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/2592.html
  114. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1909.html
  115. https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/community-safety/310-community-safety-features/52230-noise-nuisance-and-hypersensitivity-under-the-environmental-protection-act-1990
  116. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2022/2709.html
  117. https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2000/11/a-review-of-recent-cases-in-environment-law-1
  118. https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/KG0dZMZj
  119. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/environment-agency-ea-powers-of-entry
  120. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldbills/003/en/99003x--.htm
  121. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1999/24
  122. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1154/contents
  123. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offence-response-options-environment-agency/environmental-permitting-regulations-epr-offences
  124. https://www.michelmores.com/agriculture-insight/environment-act-2021-comprehensive-overview/
  125. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b225491e-3b31-4b1e-b11e-017d784cace0
  126. https://www.stratford.gov.uk/environment/pollution-prevention-and-control.cfm
  127. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/simpler-recycling-in-england-additional-policies/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response
  128. https://sprintlaw.co.uk/articles/environmental-protection-act-1990-what-uk-businesses-need-to-know-for-compliance-and-risk-management/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.