The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter Sweetman’s appeal over an Environmental Protection Agency licence for an intensive poultry farm at Rathcahill, County Limerick. The court held that the licence authorised poultry rearing within the installation boundary and did not authorise or regulate the later use of poultry litter or wash water on other lands.
The licence, granted in February 2019 to notice party Michael Noel O’Connor, covered a facility with capacity for 74,000 broiler chickens. Sweetman sought to quash the EPA’s decision, arguing that it should have assessed lands where poultry litter and wash water might be spread, or restricted the material to composting.
The appeal concerned the scope of the EPA’s licensing duties. Sweetman argued that land spreading was an inevitable consequence of poultry rearing and that the material could constitute waste and emissions requiring assessment. He also challenged the reliance placed on other regulatory controls, including the Nitrates Regulations. The EPA maintained that its licence covered only the scheduled activity of rearing poultry at the installation, and that land spreading was outside its licensing authority.
The court said the licence’s conditions, including requirements to record movements of organic fertiliser off-site, did not authorise spreading on third-party lands. They acknowledged possible end uses and set out record-keeping and handling requirements. The court also noted that the legislation made conditions addressing off-site waste recovery or disposal permissive rather than mandatory.
The court agreed with the High Court that the EPA had acted within its powers. It held that the EPA was not required, as part of this licensing decision, to assess destination lands for possible spreading. The judgment did not determine whether particular poultry litter or wash water would legally count as waste in every circumstance; it concluded that the licence did not authorise the off-site end use at issue.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s preliminary view was that there should be no order as to costs, as in the High Court. It allowed the parties 21 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to make written submissions if they sought a different costs order.