Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses a judicial review challenge to a decision of the the Planning Board’s board to refuse permission, on appeal, to the Applicant for, inter alia, retention permission for the permanent continuation of the use of the existing waste processing and transfer facility and the continued use of the existing buildings on site associated with same, and planning permission for new proposed stormwater attenuation storage tanks and associated stormwater treatment infrastructure, on the grounds that: where there is a reliance on a previous use which involved above threshold levels of waste in seeking retention permission for a lesser level of use, a full environmental impact assessment should have been conducted in respect of the said above threshold use for planning purposes.
High Court - Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) - section 37 - permission refused - waste processing and transfer facility - stormwater attenuation storage tanks and treatment infrastructure - given Environmental Protection Agency grants and licence - included in Fingal County Development Plan 2017-2023 - permission refused - use different from intended use - insufficient information submitted - 1998 - permission granted - 10,000 tonnes of annual waste - since expanded - 2001 - licence granted for 60,000 tonnes - August 2004 - permission for use of stone road and stone area - storage and hard standing for parking - retention of single-storey buildings - no effect on waste throughput - April 2005 - permission refused - December 2010 - three-year permission and retention permission granted - could not exceed 25,000 tonnes per annum - September 2011 - permission refused for change of use of existing green waste storage building - contrary to land use zoning objectives - May 2012 - permission granted for establishment of authorised treatment facility - August 2014 - five-year permission - not exceeding 21,900 tonnes per annum - October 2019 - application to increase to 49,500 tonnes per annum withdrawn - didn't exceed 25,000 tonnes from 1998 to date - July 2019 - current five-year permit granted - 21,900 tonnes - previous volumes 36,391 tonnes - 27th February, 2020 - permission expired, application to renew - 24,900 tonnes sought - planning statement said 60,000 tonnes had previously gone through site - 24,900 tonnes was just below threshold for mandatory EIA - EIA and AA screening reports submitted - reduction to 24,000 tonnes - 12th April, 2021 - Planning Authority grants permission - 17 conditions - one restricts permission for three years - applicant and third party appealed - 7th May, 2021 - third party by letter - 10th May, 2021 - applicant sought permanent grant of permission - 23rd September, 2021 - inspector's report - 6th December, 2021 - respondent direction - refused permission as insufficient information to assess impact on protected European sights - insufficient information to assess impact on environment - waste disposal and recovery development contravenes land zoning and objective - 11.5 - not a series of temporary permissions that "amount to" permanent permission - refusal due to recycling not exceeding throughput of 10,000 tonnes was correct in law - contrary to objective - correct to refuse - high threshold where insufficient information alleged - material before the court sufficient to refuse permission - applicant can't argue decision flawed because respondent didn't accept the inspector's conclusions - assumed future non-compliance - section 35 - potential future non-compliance - this is part of the process - section 35(4) - procedure to be followed - section 35(6) - appeal to the High Court - permission not refused pursuant to section 35(6) - respondent ultimately makes the decision - whether decision tainted by failure to determine whether EIA/AA required - 2000 Act - section 177U(4) - Planning and Development Regulations 2001 - section XX - effect on environment - respondent said more information required - severability - invalid reason does not mean invalid decision - correct not to granted where EIA and AA issues - needed a full report - application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now