The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge by Stan O’Reilly to Wicklow County Council’s revocation of his waste facility permit for C&D Recycling at Merrymeeting, Rathnew, County Wicklow.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2014, President Kearns held that the council’s notice gave Mr O’Reilly clear instructions on how to apply for a review of the permit and warned that failure to do so within 25 working days would lead to revocation. The court rejected his application for an order quashing the council’s 7 March 2014 decision.
The council had issued a review notice on 2 January 2014, saying it had reason to believe there had been a material change in the nature, focus and extent of waste-related activity at the facility. It required an application form and supporting material, including site maps, an independent calculation of the waste on site, a fire safety report, waste characterisation studies, a lease, insurance details and a tax clearance certificate.
Mr O’Reilly wrote to the council on 15 January asking it to explain the alleged change. The council replied on 20 January with two drawings: one showing the proposed site layout in 2009 and another based on a November 2013 survey. The permit holder did not submit the review application or the requested information. On 7 March, the council revoked the permit and advised him to apply to surrender it.
For Mr O’Reilly, counsel argued that his letter was a timely submission under the regulations, that the council had not adequately explained its concerns, and that the revocation breached legitimate expectations and fair procedures. Counsel also challenged the notice’s clarity and the reasons given for revocation. The council argued that the regulations required a review application and supporting information, and that the January letter did not meet that requirement.
The court found that the notice and covering letter contained the required information and made clear that an application for review was mandatory. It held that the council’s drawings gave further detail about the change in the site’s layout and the accumulation of waste. Mr O’Reilly’s letter did not satisfy the notice, and he provided none of the required material.
The court rejected the arguments based on legitimate expectation, unclear notice, unfair procedures and inadequate reasons, and dismissed the claim. It did not grant the requested order quashing the revocation. The judgment records that a former permit holder may appeal a revocation to a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 working days; it does not state that such an appeal was brought.