The High Court has refused Michael Hoey’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála decisions approving pig houses at two sites in County Laois.
In a judgment delivered on 6 December 2018, Ms Justice O’Regan refused the relief sought in a judicial review concerning decisions made on 2 March 2016. One approval related to one pig house and ancillary structures at Graigueafulla, Clonaslee. The other related to two pig houses and ancillary structures at Corbally, Clonaslee. The court also refused the declaratory relief sought.
Hoey’s grounds included claims that the Board had not properly assessed the effects of spreading slurry from the proposed farms, including cumulative environmental effects and effects on European sites. The judge said the issue of slurry spreading had been considered in the material before the Board, including the Environmental Impact Statement. That material identified farmers expected to purchase manure and the locations of their farmland. It also indicated that the developments would reduce manure output by 15% and that the manure would be organic rather than have the high chemical content described as prevailing at the time.
The judge said the Board’s statement that slurry spreading did not require planning permission was not pivotal to its conclusions. Whether separate permission was required for spreading was not under consideration in the planning applications for the pig units. The court was satisfied that the Board had considered the cumulative effects, and found sufficient evidence to support its conclusions on effects on European sites.
The judgment also rejected other grounds, including claims about a gap in the appropriate assessment and the Board’s reliance on recipients’ obligations under regulations governing slurry. The judge considered some grounds too vague or immaterial to the decisions under challenge.
During the hearing, Hoey sought to add grounds concerning the Environmental Protection Agency. The judge refused permission to amend, noting that the EPA had told Laois County Council in January 2016 that it could not make a determination until a planning decision had been made, and that this position had not been challenged at the time.
The judgment said additional arguments raised during the hearing—including complaints about agency coordination and consistency with another planning decision—were outside the pleaded grounds or had not been properly advanced. The court concluded Hoey had not met the burden required to quash either decision or obtain the declaratory relief sought.