The decision is seen as vital in underpinning the current regulations and means companies handling flower pots and similar items will have to buy evidence (PRNs) to prove they are adhering to the regulations. If the High Court had supported the magistrates then a number of other product users and manufacturers would have also argued that their products were not packaging. Among such items are lipstick containers, cores and reels for paper and casks and kegs.
The case centred around an action brought by the Environment Agency against one of England’s top nurseries, Hilliers Garden Centres of Winchester. Counsel for Hilliers argued in June 2000 that the pots should not be counted in the regulations as they were part of the growing process.
Supporting Hilliers' view, the stipendiary magistrate said that the primary purpose of the pot was for the growing of the plant.
“Without the pot, there will be no plant.” And, he said that the plastic flower pot was a means by which a plant could be produced and was not a piece of sales equipment.
Welcoming today’s judgement, Jeff Cooper, producer responsibility co-ordinator for the Environment Agency, said: “As far as we are concerned it provides clarification, not only for the pots but also for a range of other items.”
Andrew McIntyre, Hilliers garden centre manager, said that it was unlikely that the judgement would see any more plant pots recycled. “We have run schemes to collect and sort pots but because they are made of different materials we have had problems in finding anyone to recycle them.
“Really this is just another levy on growers and realistically will be passed on to customers.”
Subscribe for free