The Supreme Court dismissed Eric Martin’s appeal against planning permission for a proposed waste management and incinerator facility at Duleek, Co Meath. It rejected his challenge to the division of environmental assessment responsibilities between An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and said there was no need to refer the issues to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The appeal followed a High Court decision refusing Martin’s application to challenge the Board’s grant of planning permission to Indaver Ireland Limited. The Board had granted permission subject to conditions after an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and an oral hearing. The proposed development requires both planning permission and an EPA waste licence before it can proceed. The judgment does not say whether the EPA granted a licence.
Martin argued that Ireland’s laws implementing European environmental assessment directives were deficient. In particular, he said the Board should have assessed the risk of pollution from operating the facility, that a full assessment should have happened at the planning stage, and that the law required one body to conduct an integrated assessment.
The judgment describes the Board’s assessment as covering the construction phase, while legislation excluded pollution risks arising from the licensed activity from its remit. Those risks were for the EPA to assess when considering a waste licence application. The Court said there was no dispute that the project required an EIA, or about the substance of the Board’s assessment within its statutory role. It also noted that the evidence before it did not establish the status or details of any EPA licensing process.
The Court held that “development consent” under the directive could comprise decisions by more than one competent authority. Planning permission alone did not authorise the whole project: the facility could not operate without an EPA licence, and the EPA could refuse a licence or impose conditions affecting the project. The Court also rejected the argument that the required assessment had to be completed by the Board before planning permission was granted. It concluded that the Board’s and EPA’s respective assessments could take place at different stages, before the combined consent to proceed was given.
On the claim that a single body had to make a global assessment, the Court said the directive did not impose that requirement. It considered that the Board assessed environmental effects associated with construction and the EPA was required to assess relevant effects associated with operation.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court also declined to refer the questions to the EU court, finding no reasonable scope for doubt on the issues before it.