The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by Guessford Limited, trading as Oxigen Environmental, over the waste accepted and processed at its recycling facility in Barnan, County Offaly. It upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the facility’s planning permission covered construction and demolition waste only and did not authorise timber shredding.
The case was brought by nine applicants under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. They alleged that the company’s activities breached the planning permission granted in 2010. The appeal concerned the meaning of that permission and whether the activities at the site were authorised.
The court said the permission had to be read objectively alongside the planning application documents incorporated into it. Those documents, including the public notices and application forms, described the proposal as a recycling facility for construction and demolition materials. The court found that references in an environmental report to commercial and industrial waste described the company’s background and existing operations, rather than the development for which permission was sought.
The company argued that the application documents should be read together and that the permission covered the activities described in the report. The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. It held that the permission did not authorise commercial or industrial waste, and that the permission’s condition requiring compliance with submitted plans and particulars did not expand the development’s stated scope.
On timber, the court noted that the application documents did not refer to shredding. A noise report submitted during the planning process listed the main plant at the site but did not include a shredder. The court concluded that the permission did not authorise timber shredding.
The judgment referred to the company’s environmental reports for 2016 and 2017, which classified most of the waste accepted at the facility under municipal waste categories rather than construction and demolition categories. It also noted an affidavit from the company’s head of planning and compliance accepting that commercial and industrial waste was received. The court found that accepting and processing waste outside the permission amounted to unauthorised development.
The appeal court did not reopen the High Court’s exercise of discretion to grant relief: the company had not appealed that issue in its notice of appeal. It found no basis to interfere with the orders made under section 160, which were intended to end the unauthorised activity. The appeal was rejected.
The court indicated provisionally that the applicants were entitled to their appeal costs. Any party seeking a different costs order could apply for a short hearing within ten days of electronic delivery of the judgment.