The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Usk and District Residents Association Limited to a waste licence for a proposed landfill at a quarry in Usk, Dunlavin, Co. Kildare.
The licence was granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Greenstar Holding Recycling Limited on 8 June 2004. The association sought an order quashing that decision, but leave to proceed had been limited to two grounds concerning the statutory requirement to use the best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC).
The challenge focused on the separation between the landfill and a nearby occupied house referred to in the judgment as the Corrigan house. The licence required a minimum 100-metre distance between the non-hazardous landfill footprint and any dwellinghouse, occupied or unoccupied, present when the licence was issued. In the zone between that distance and the quarry face, only inert waste could be deposited. The licence also required a no-landfilling zone shown in the project’s environmental impact statement, subject to landscaping conditions.
The association argued that the buffer arrangements did not meet BATNEEC and that the EPA had failed to determine what BATNEEC required in this case. Its submissions relied, among other material, on guidance recommending a 50-metre setback for housing to protect against landfill gas, and on draft EPA guidance referring to 250 metres for sensitive occupied dwellings. Greenstar had originally proposed a landfill footprint that came within 31.5 metres of the house. The EPA’s inspector recommended a 50-metre buffer; the EPA instead imposed a 100-metre limit for non-inert waste while allowing inert waste closer to the house.
The court found that BATNEEC had to be assessed in light of the combined environmental safeguards, rather than by judging the buffer distance alone. It accepted evidence that the EPA considered the landfill design, including full containment and gas extraction, along with the licence conditions. The judge concluded there was material on which the EPA could find that the package of measures was suitable, and that the court had no basis to revisit that decision under the applicable review standard.
The court also rejected the argument that the EPA had a separate obligation to define BATNEEC for each application. It held that the legislation required the agency to satisfy itself that BATNEEC would be used under the proposal and conditions, but did not expressly require a standalone determination of what BATNEEC was.
The judge disallowed the association’s claim and found no basis to quash the EPA’s licence decision. The judgment did not revoke or vary the licence.