Environmental Law Portfolio Exercise Three Case Study

Question: Describe about the Environmental Law Portfolio Exercise Three for Case Study. Answer: Facts of the Case Study On the west side of the site referred to in the case, there runs the river Churnet, which is characterized by rich biodiversity and rare species of water vole[1]. The facts of the case are: The environmental issue cropped up when the site was purchased by Gold Estates Limited with a desire to develop the site into wooden holiday lodges and for doing so, the company appointed employees to clear the garbage prevailing in the site area. The employees organized bonfires to burn the garbage that released noxious fumes into the atmosphere. The residents lodged a complaint with the Department of Local Authority. There was also a complaint of polluting the river. The company then started to pile the garbage and then a heavy rainfall occurred. It lead to flooding of the high drains and overspills from the site. Legal Issues involved in the given case The legal issues that are involved in the given case are as follows: whether the release of noxious fumes in the environment amounts to nuisance? whether the contamination of the river Churnet amounts water pollution? whether the flooding of high drains amounts to faulty waste matter management? Legal Principles to be applied to the Problems of the given Case The Environmental Protection Act of England, Scotland and Wales clearly stipulates that any smoke, dust, fumes or gases released from any business premises that is harmful or prejudicial to health are termed as the nuisance. The Act also makes it clear that nuisance includes unpleasant odors, smoke from bonfires dust and grit. The Clean Air Act of 1993 clearly prohibits the emission of noxious fumes by bonfires. The primary offences related to water pollution in England are contained in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 under the points referred to in regulations 38(1) and 12(1). The things that amount to water pollution are as follows: Discharge of poisonous polluting matter or noxious things or solid waste matter into freshwater in the inlands, territorial waters which are relevant and the coastal waters. The legislation has not defined the terms noxious, poisonous or polluting. These words are used in their normal meaning[2]. Discharge of sewage effluent into freshwater in the inlands, relevant territorial waters and the coastal waters. Cutting or uprooting substantial amounts of vegetation in any inland freshwaters, without taking reasonable steps to remove it[3]. Therefore, from the above definition it can be stated that the acts of the Company referred to in the case law, can be termed as water pollution. Application of the Legal Principle and Advice to Mr. James The Local Authority has the power to abate the nuisance and recover costs from Gold Estates Limited. For the offence of creating the nuisance, the local authority can prosecute Mr. James. The advice that could be given to Mr. James is that he must prepare proper planning systems to abate the problem of air pollution[4]. In this case, Mr. James may either be convicted by the Magistrate Court or by the Crown Court. If James is convicted by the Magistrates Court, then he may be fined up to 50000 pounds or subject to an imprisonment sentence for twelve years. If James is tried in Crown Court, then he could receive unlimited fine or imprisonment of five years. The defense available to Mr. James is that he can use the plea that he took reasonable steps to minimize the pollution of the river[5]. It is also advisable to Mr. James that he should aid in indulging proper waste management techniques in his company. If he have adopted the proper techniques of waste management, then the flooding of the high drains would not have occurred. He must make an effort to study the latest waste management programs and apply them in his company affairs. Conclusion The Environmental Protection in the United Kingdom indulged in partnership with the Air Quality Management Institute and have revealed a guidance instrument relating to the procedures of land use and its control and development. This guidance also produced an instrument known as planning for air quality, which made a replacement of the 2010 EPUK Guidance instrument, for ensuring that the quality of air is considered adequately in the planning and development control of land-use processes[6]. The guidance referred above, states the importance of maintaining quality of air. It also discusses the importance of spatial planning in the reduction of air pollution. It also mentions the measures to reduce the air pollutants. The Managing Director of the Mr. James must conform to these instruments to reduce the effects of pollution. Bibliography Borchers U, Gray J and Thompson K,Water Contamination Emergencies(Royal Society of Chemistry 2013) Kiss A and Shelton D,International Environmental Law(Transnational Publishers 1991) Menell P,Environmental Law(Ashgate/Dartmouth 2002) Pevato P,International Environmental Law(Ashgate/Dartmouth 2003) Woolley G, Goumans J and Wainwright P,Waste Materials In Construction(Elsevier 2000) Zahar A, Peel J and Godden L,Australian Climate Law In Global Context(Port Melbourne, Vic 2012) [1] Kiss A and Shelton D,International Environmental Law(Transnational Publishers 1991) [2] Pevato P,International Environmental Law(Ashgate/Dartmouth 2003) [3] Woolley G, Goumans J and Wainwright P,Waste Materials In Construction(Elsevier 2000) [4] Menell P,Environmental Law(Ashgate/Dartmouth 2002) [5] Borchers U, Gray J and Thompson K,Water Contamination Emergencies(Royal Society of Chemistry 2013) [6] Zahar A, Peel J and Godden L,Australian Climate Law In Global Context(Port Melbourne, Vic 2012)