The High Court has refused An Taisce leave to appeal a judgment that dismissed its challenge to planning permission for a proposed cheese manufacturing facility.
In a judgment delivered on 2 July 2021, Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed the application for leave under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The application concerned the court’s earlier decision, in April 2021, to dismiss An Taisce’s judicial review of the permission. The ruling concerns permission to appeal; it does not decide a further appeal on the substance of the planning decision.
An Taisce proposed four points of law it said were of exceptional public importance. They concerned scientific doubt about the developer’s Natura Impact Statement, whether effects associated with milk production should have been assessed, the earlier judgment’s reference to government policy, and water-body status under the Water Framework Directive.
The judge said An Taisce had mischaracterised the earlier ruling on scientific evidence. He clarified that a planning authority is not required to accept an uncontradicted Natura Impact Statement, which could contain flaws apparent on its face. In this case, however, the material before the authority did not raise scientific doubt, and An Taisce had not demonstrated that the developer’s material would itself have raised doubt for a reasonable expert.
On milk production, the judge maintained that its connection to the proposed factory was too remote to require assessment on the evidence presented. The milk was to come from about 4,500 unidentified farms across eastern Ireland, potentially varying from year to year. He clarified that effects of a project require assessment whether or not they are site-specific, but said he had not found these effects to be effects of this project.
The judge also said he had not concluded that An Taisce’s proceedings were a collateral attack on government policy. He described his earlier reference to policy as an account of the perceived argument and litigation dynamic, and said that reference did not reduce the scope to challenge an individual planning decision.
On water issues, he said one aspect of the case had not been pleaded and the remaining points lacked an evidential basis in the material as a whole. The receiving waterbody had been assigned “good” status. A further argument about unassigned waterbodies in the River Suir catchment was, he said, a complex point not pleaded in the case.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The judgment also discussed delay in environmental cases and possible procedural reforms, while stating that the application failed because it did not meet the existing legal tests.