The High Court ruled that waste at a site in Knockacrin, Timahoe, must be removed and the land remediated in line with the approach sought by Laois County Council. The court found the respondents’ cheaper alternative inadequate, but deferred settling the precise terms and timetable of the order until further submissions.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2006, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the Council was entitled to seek removal of all waste brought onto the land to an authorised facility, followed by restoration to the standard of normal agricultural land in the area. The Council’s motion sought relief under the Waste Management Acts 1996–2000 and the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The respondents accepted they had operated without a waste permit or licence and had not applied for one. The judgment said the main dispute concerned what remediation was needed. The respondents proposed digging up and screening the material, sending recyclable fractions for processing and retaining inert soil, stones and gravel on site. Eileen Scully’s affidavit described the plan as environmentally beneficial and cost effective, subject to Council supervision and an agreed plan and timetable.
The Council’s engineer, Mr Cobbe, disputed that the proposal would adequately address pollution. He said material described as recyclable could itself be contaminated and unacceptable to recycling plants. He also referred to about 10,000 tonnes of waste brought onto the site, a figure the judgment said was not substantially disputed. The respondents said the Council’s proposed works would cost about €1.5 million, which they could not afford.
Justice Peart held that lower cost could favour a less burdensome solution only if it were equally effective. He was not satisfied that the respondents’ plan adequately met the required removal and remediation objectives. The judgment referred to the “polluter pays” principle and said the court could not impose a remedy that was unlikely to achieve the environmental objectives of the legislation.
The court also decided that orders should be made against the first three respondents, identified in the judgment as the company’s individual directors, as well as against Scully Skips Limited. However, it did not determine whether an order should be made against the fifth respondent, whom the judge understood to own the land and who may have had no part in the activities.
The precise order remained unsettled. The judge listed the matter for further submissions on its terms, including the specific work required and deadlines, and urged the parties to agree a timetable. If they could not agree, the court said it would set terms after hearing them.