Short Reads

FAQ: When do you need an environmental permit for an establishment?

FAQ: When do you need an environmental permit for an establishment?

FAQ: When do you need an environmental permit for an establishment?

02.02.2016 NL law

Voor een Nederlandse versie van dit bericht, klik hier.

This is a blog entry in the FAQ-series.

When is an environmental permit for an establishment required under the Environmental Permitting Act (hereinafter: EPA)? This question can be answered by following the next three steps.

 

1. Constructing, operating or altering.

The first step is to determine whether an establishment is being constructed, operated or altered (article 2.1 subsection 1, under e of the EPA). If  this is the case, then the establishment will need an environmental permit subject to the conditions explained below.

NB: the definition of ‘constructing’ in the EPA is not limited to the actual construction of an establishment. For instance, the first environmental permit for an activity has to be the construction permit if there is not one in place, even if the activity has been in operation for many years without a permit. We will elaborate on the various legal regimes for altering establishments of the EPA in a different blog entry in this series.

2. The activity must qualify as an establishment.

This is the case if:

  1. The activity qualifies as an establishment under article 1.1, subsection 1 of the Environmental Management Act (hereinafter: EMA). In short, this applies if the activity is performed i) for a certain period of time, usually six months or more, or on a regular basis, ii) in the same location,  iii) as a business or has a business scope.                                                                                                                     And:
  2. The activity falls under the scope of one of the categories of division C of annex I of the Environmental Permitting Decree (hereinafter: EPD). This division contains 29 categories.

NB: at  first glance, it may seem like the categories of division C do not apply. However, it is important to be aware of the ‘catch all’ nature of the first category. For example, if an establishment contains certain appliances with an electric motor or combustion engine, such as a washing machine or an elevator, it will almost immediately fall under the scope of the first category.

3. The establishment has to be designated as one that is obligated to have a permit.

The third step involves ascertaining whether the establishment is designated as one that is obligated to have a permit in accordance with article 2.1. subsection 2 EPD. This obligation arises if:

  • Division B of annex I of the EPD designates that the establishment is obligated to have a permit. This is the case if, for example, an Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter: EIA) has to be made or if it has to be determined whether an EIA is required for the establishment, the Public Safety Establishments Decree applies to the establishment, or if the Major Accidents Risks Decree (this Decree implements the Seveso directive) applies to the establishment.
  • The establishment is designated as obligated to have a permit by division C of annex I of the EPD.

NB: division C of annex I of the EPD designates that the establishment is obligated to have a permit. However, it is not enough for the permit to simply fall under the scope of division C, it must fall under the category which explicitly states that the establishment requires a permit

Or:

  • The establishment contains an IPPC installation. This is an installation for industrial activities as is referred to in annex I of the Directive on industrial emissions (2010/74/EU) (article 1.1. subsection 1, under a EPD).

NB: the Environment and Planning Act, which is currently before the First Chamber, no longer references the establishment as the starting point for regulation, but instead refers to activities. On one hand, according to the government, this will make it easier to establish whether an activity requires a permit. On the other hand, the new starting point leads to a lot of uncertainty, especially if various activities are being performed by different legal entities. We will elaborate on this in a different blog entry in this series.

 

Team

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Symposium 'From Stint to Fipronil: a compensation fund for victims of energetic government intervention in crisis situations

Seminar - Stibbe is organising a symposium in Amsterdam on Thursday 7 November entitled 'From Stint to Fipronil: a compensation fund for victims of energetic government intervention in crisis situations'. During this symposium, Stibbe lawyer Tijn Kortmann and Prof. Pieter van Vollenhoven, alongside other experts,  will speak about the compensation fund which, according to van Vollenhoven, injured parties should be able to call upon if a decision by the government turns out to be too drastic.

Read more

08.10.2019 NL law
Democratische legitimiteit gemeenschappelijke regelingen terug op de kaart

Short Reads - Op 26 augustus 2019 is de internetconsultatie gestart van een wetsvoorstel dat de Wet gemeenschappelijke regelingen (Wgr) wijzigt. Een gemeenschappelijke regeling is een samenwerking tussen bijvoorbeeld decentrale overheden als gemeenten en provincies. Bekende voorbeelden zijn een Omgevingsdienst, een gemeenschappelijke regeling afvalverwerking of een shared services center.

Read more

10.10.2019 NL law
Valérie van 't Lam and Jan van Oosten speak during the Day of the Environmental and Planning Act

Speaking slot - Valérie van ’t Lam has been invited to speak at the “Companies, Environment and the Environment plan” session during the Day of the Environmental and Planning Act (Omgevingswet), which will be held on 10 October 2019. Besides Valérie, Jan van Oosten will speak at the session “Transitional law and the Environmental and Planning Act”.

Read more

08.10.2019 NL law
Annotatie bij CBb 30 juli 2019: het College concludeert dat appellant in dit geval voldoende procesbelang heeft bij beroep tegen een boete van nul euro die eigenlijk volgens het College geen boete mag worden genoemd

Short Reads - In het primaire besluit heeft de Autoriteit Consument en Markt vastgesteld dat drie bedrijven het kartelverbod hebben overtreden. Bij hetzelfde besluit heeft de ACM tevens twee feitelijk leidinggevers, waaronder appellant, beboet. De ACM heeft voor appellant een boete van € 170.000,- passend geacht, maar een boetekorting van 100% toegepast en de boete verlaagd tot € 0,-. Appellant en de onderneming waar hij werkzaam was, waren namelijk de eersten om het kartel vrijwillig te melden bij de mededingingsautoriteit (zogenoemd clementieverzoek).

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring