Regulator 'did not breach boy's human rights'

A mother who took the Environment Agency (EA) to court over its handling of a controversial landfill site has been unsuccessful in her attempt to prove the agency breached her son's human rights.

Rebecca Currie's son Mathew, 9, lived near Walleys Quarry in Silverdale, Staffordshire and an independent medical report concluded that emissions from the site were "materially contributing" to his ill health.

Continued exposure to the gases would be "detrimental to both his quality of life and his life expectancy" it added.

Despite this, Mrs Justice Lieven ruled the EA's management of the site's operator was reasonable.

Walleys Quarry was the only landfill site which fell within Band F (the worst grading) in every year between 2021-2024, and it also had the highest number of complaints of any site in England, according to court documents.

"In my view, throughout the relevant period the EA knew or ought to have known that it was likely that significant quantities of waste contaminated with gypsum were being brought onto the site," Mrs Justice Lieven said.

Nevertheless, she also said: "In terms of the proportionality of the effort and resources devoted to the site, I do not think the EA can be criticised."

The Environment Agency said it was considering the judgement carefully and was unable to comment further.

Walleys Quarry stopped accepting waste in November 2024 and the operator went into liquidation on 28 February 2025.

Since then the site has been deemed "abandoned" but contractors working on behalf of the EA have been repairing and capping the landfill.

Ms Currie's legal team had argued the EA was in breach of its "positive operational obligations" under articles two and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights while the site was in operation.

The most recent legal hearing – which took place in November, but was concluded this week – was the second judicial review brought by Ms Currie on behalf of her son Mathew in relation to the site.

Her first claim succeeded in part, but the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.

"I do not in any way wish to minimise the impact of the site emissions over the period in question," Mrs Justice Lieven said, "but it is important to maintain the distinctions between the duties that arise under different articles in the ECHR."

The EA had good reason to believe its actions were beginning to have a positive impact at the time, she said.

"With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see that the EA should have moved more quickly to close the site," she said.

However, the agency had a duty to act proportionately, she added, and there was a significant risk that earlier or harsher steps could have prompted a legal appeal by the company.

Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.