The High Court quashed Offaly County Council’s 20 December 2016 decision to review a waste facility permit for Guessford Limited, trading as Oxigen, at Barnam, Daingean, Co Offaly. Ms Justice O’Regan ruled that a full appropriate assessment was required before the council made its decision and that its reasons for granting the review were not reasonably clear. She remitted the matter to the council.
The judicial review was brought by ten applicants, all of whom the judgment says reside in Offaly. They sought certiorari of the council’s decision to review the permit. The permit allowed annual disposal of up to 24,500 tonnes, below the 25,000-tonne threshold that would require a mandatory environmental impact assessment. The council said it had carried out screening to determine whether a full environmental impact assessment was required.
The central issue was the council’s screening for appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive. The judge considered a 12-page report dated 8 December 2016. Its final section said impacts on designated areas were limited and could be controlled through mitigation measures or permit conditions. The judge found that the report did not rule out the possibility of a significant effect on the nearby Raheenmore Bog Special Area of Conservation without relying on mitigation. The report was at least equivocal, she said, and it was inappropriate to use mitigation measures at the screening stage to avoid a full second-stage assessment.
The judgment records that the applicants had initially received incomplete copies of two reports dated 8 December 2016. They successfully amended their grounds to challenge the reference to mitigation in the complete appropriate-assessment screening report.
The judge also found that the council’s decision letter did not explain why it preferred Guessford’s application over the applicants’ opposing submissions. Although the letter referred to the application, permit conditions and reasons for those conditions, the judge said it gave no reasonably clear reasons for granting the permit review itself.
Other grounds did not succeed. The court found insufficient evidence to establish a planning-compliance breach, noting an unannounced inspection by the council’s planning department and that separate proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 had been initiated after the challenged decision and had not yet been heard. The applicants also failed to prove that the council had disregarded their submissions merely because the decision did not mention them.
The court concluded that the council lacked jurisdiction to review the permit without the required full appropriate assessment. It quashed the 20 December 2016 decision and remitted the matter to the council.