The High Court has dismissed Peter Sweetman's challenge to an industrial emissions licence for Anglo Beef's rendering plant at Christendom, Ferrybank, County Waterford, after finding that he lacked sufficient standing to pursue the case.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued the revised licence in June 2023 for a plant processing more than 100,000 tonnes of animal by-products annually into meat and bone meal and tallow.
The court recorded that odour had been a significant local concern. The EPA inspector noted 107 odour complaints since 2013 and 89 valid public submissions during the licence review. Residents described nausea, closed windows, disruption to gardens and social gatherings, and effects on schools, nursing homes and visitors.
Sweetman's legal challenge, however, was not directed at those particular effects. He argued that there was a systemic gap in Irish law because an EPA-initiated review under section 90(4)(a)(i) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 was not expressly subjected to environmental impact assessment in the same way as certain other licensing processes.
Mr Justice David Holland found that Sweetman lived in Rossport, County Mayo, was not within the environmental effects of the Ferrybank plant, had not participated in the EPA licensing process and had not explained that non-participation in evidence.
The judge accepted Sweetman's long-standing involvement in environmental litigation, but held that a general interest in environmental protection was not enough in this case. He characterised the proceedings as an actio popularis — effectively an attempt by a member of the public to litigate a general issue of legality without being personally affected.
The court held that neither Irish nor EU environmental law required Sweetman to be given standing on those facts. His proceedings were dismissed.
Importantly, the court did not determine whether a rendering plant falls within the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive category described in English as "knackers' yards", nor whether the revised industrial emissions licence constituted development consent requiring an environmental assessment. Those substantive questions were left open.