The judicial review into the legality of Banbridge District Council’s decision to bring its recycling service ‘in house’ without putting the service out to tender has been extended.

The hearing for the case – presided over by the Honourable Mr Justice Treacy – began at Belfast High Court last Tuesday (23 April) and was expected to last until Friday, however it has overrun by several days and is not expected to conclude until tomorrow (1 May) ‘at the earliest’.

Background

On 7 February 2011, Banbridge Council took the decision not to retender the area’s recycling service and instead to bring the service ‘in-house’, following the end of Bryson Recycling’s (Bryson) contract on 31 March.

Bryson Recycling, which had provided a collection service for household recycling in Banbridge since 2004, then issued a ‘pre-action protocol letter’ to the council, stating its intention to challenge the decision in court in the belief that ‘the decision-making process was seriously flawed’ and ‘against the best interests of the ratepayers and residents of Banbridge’. In the letter, issued on 5 April, Bryson outlined in detail ‘30 errors, incorrect assumptions or flaws within the decision-making process’.

Council decision does not represent ‘best value’

Commenting on the decision to challenge the council's move, Eric Randall, Director of Bryson Recycling, said: "We believe that the council's decision has been taken against the best interests of the ratepayers and residents of Banbridge, and does not represent the best value option for the borough in terms of cost, the impact on local jobs or waste management and recycling effectiveness.”

Bryson commissioned waste management consultancy Eunomia to undertake a ‘detailed analysis’ of the decision, which concluded that despite the council’s claims that the change in service would save £3 million over 10 years, it would ‘most likely’ result in a ‘loss of around £600,000’ over the same period.

According to Bryson, the council was also given ‘misleading’ figures regarding the performance of Bryson’s service and was thus ‘ill equipped to reach a reasoned decision based on achieving “Best Value”’.

Randall added: “We believe that councillors were not presented with the correct information to make an informed choice. In the current economic climate, councils cannot afford to take decisions that will cost more money for the ratepayer in the long run, affecting jobs and the local economy.

“We believe that the correct way to determine best value is to put the recycling collection service out to tender and let the market decide.”

The council has stated that it would ‘not be appropriate’ to make any comment during legal proceedings.

Service changes

As part of the council’s decision, in April 2012 residents switched from a weekly collection of dry recyclables in a black kerbside box, to a fortnightly collection in a green wheelie bin.

The green bin can reportedly hold ‘four times’ as much co-mingled material as the kerbside box and includes an internal caddy for separating glass bottles and jars.

According to the council, the ‘much-improved waste collection and recycling service’ would ‘make it easier for everyone to recycle more from home and thus divert waste from landfill, reduce the cost of collecting and sorting waste and increase the district's recycling rate’.

It is hoped the service will increase the district's recycling rate from 52 per cent to 70 per cent.

The hearing continues.

Campaign for Real Recycling

The Bryson Recycling – Banbridge District Council judicial review comes just weeks after the Campaign for Real Recycling’s High Court hearing into the legality of the English and Welsh governments’ transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive.

The case revolved around the legality of co-mingled collections and recyclate quality.

Judge Hickinbottom, who presided over the hearing, found in favour of the defendants, saying that “the obligation to set up separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass from 2015 is restricted by both the practicability and necessity requirements” and that “the claimants’ argument for a different interpretation could not be accepted on any conventional basis of reading”.

Judicial review crackdown

Government has been taking steps to reduce the amount of cases put forward for judicial review, following a rise in judicial review applications between 2007 (6,692) and 2011 (11,359).

Last week (23 April), the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published a response to its consultation saying that it would reduce the current period during which objectors can apply for judicial review in planning-related cases from three months to six weeks, despite public opposition.

It also said it would introduce a £235 court fee for anyone seeking a hearing in person once their initial written judicial review application has been turned down.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: “We have seen a huge surge in judicial review cases in recent years. The system is becoming mired in large numbers of applications, many of which are weak or ill-founded, and they are taking up large amounts of judicial time, costing the court system money and can be hugely frustrating for the bodies involved in them.”

Read the judicial review proposed changes and response.