The 1974 Control of Pollution act (COPA) was the first piece of legislation intended to provide a comprehensive system of control over waste disposal in Britain. Although there were a number of weaknesses with the Act these have to a large extent been removed with the advent of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and 1995. The development of waste management by local government mirrors society's change in understanding waste and its implications.

The main failings of the COPA 1974 were with accountability, consistency and scope of control:

• Under COPA a licensing regime was introduced where a licence was required from the waste disposal authority (WDA) for the deposit of household, industrial or commercial waste, referred to generally as "controlled waste".

• The WDA in Wales and the Metropolitan area was generally the District Council whilst in the rest of England the WDA was the County Council.

• WDA's had a range of administrative and regulatory functions, including

  • Duty to arrange for the disposal of controlled waste

  • Duty to make a waste disposal plan

  • Responsibility for the operation of the licensing system

• An application for a waste disposal licence had to be made in writing to the WDA who had a duty to consult:

  • The waste collection authority (WCA), which was usually the district council, and

  • The National Rivers Authority.

  The only mechanism for refusal on environmental grounds was that the disposal would pose a threat of water pollution or to public health.

  The WDA also had to have regard to the town planning system. Before a licence could be granted a valid planning permission had to be in existence for the use of the site. This placed the emphasis on whether and where to have a waste disposal site with the planning permission stage and put constraints on the WDA.

  It meant that the conditions of operation that the WDA might attach to a waste disposal licence could not overlap or have impact on the planning permission, and yet the conditions attached to the planning permission inevitably had an effect on the operation of the site. For example conditions relating to aftercare and traffic movement to and from the site.

  The WDA was therefore restricted in what conditions it could attach to the waste disposal licence. In addition the WDA had only limited powers to take action. Variation or revocation of the licence was possible only in restricted circumstances, and yet licences could be transferred between parties with the WDA having little if any influence.

• Inability to control the 'cowboys'. Licences could also be surrendered at any time allowing the holder to relinquish any future responsibilities. The operator was still responsible for any conditions imposed by the planning permission but this right to surrender the licence effectively made it impossible to properly monitor the sites once the operation had ceased.

• Finally planning permission was often granted many years beforehand and did not fully take environmental considerations into account. The WDA's couldn't attach conditions such as aftercare or restoration and the town planning system could only alter or revoke previously given planning permission by paying compensation.

In addition to the discussion above the WDA's operated disposal sites as well as regulating them. This undermined public confidence since the "poacher" was also the "gamekeeper" and the standards of control in different parts of the country were variable, below is a House of Commons Environment committee statement.

"Against this laissez faire background it is not surprising to find that there is no consistency of standards between one waste disposal authority and another. In many, the standards are extremely low, encouraging the operation of contractors who have no regard for the potential dangers to the environment."