The High Court has dismissed An Taisce’s judicial review of planning permission for a cheese manufacturing plant at Belview Science and Technology Park in Co Kilkenny, including its challenge concerning the climate effects of milk supplied to the plant.
In a judgment delivered on 20 April 2021, Mr Justice Humphreys held that the planning board was not required to assess the upstream effects of milk production where that production was too remote from the plant to be assessed in site-specific terms. The court said those broader effects belonged to consideration of general policy rather than an individual planning application.
Kilkenny County Council granted permission for the plant in November 2019. An Taisce appealed, arguing that meeting climate targets required reducing the national dairy herd and that dairy production caused adverse environmental effects. An Bord Pleanála granted permission in June 2020, generally following its inspector’s report. The proposed plant was expected to require 450 million litres of milk a year from 2022, sourced from Glanbia suppliers on 4,500 farms, according to the judgment’s account of the environmental report.
The judge rejected An Taisce’s challenges concerning the Habitats Directive, treated effluent, the Water Framework Directive and the National Emissions Ceilings Directive. He noted that An Taisce had not put contradictory scientific evidence before the board on the relevant habitats and water issues. The validity of the board’s decision had to be assessed against the material before it, and the court found no basis to conclude that the board’s analysis was unreasonable on that record.
The judgment also addressed the limits of the case. Several environmental points had not been raised during the planning process, and the judge said that omission had consequences when assessing whether the board’s decision was lawful. He outlined questions about access to court under the Aarhus Convention that might warrant a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU in a different case, but said they did not arise because the applicant’s challenged points failed.
On the central climate issue, the judge distinguished general government policy from the assessment of a particular project. He said policy documents can be subject to judicial review where a justiciable legal standard applies, but An Taisce could not use this planning challenge to indirectly contest broader policy choices. The court did not rule on whether the State’s climate and agricultural policies were correct.
The court dismissed the application. It directed the parties to liaise with the List Registrar to have the case listed on the next convenient Monday to address consequential matters. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later listing.