The High Court refused Glancré Teoranta’s application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that none of its proposed questions met the statutory criteria of exceptional public importance and desirability in the public interest.
The application followed an earlier High Court judgment declining the company’s judicial review challenge concerning a proposed waste recovery plant at Muingmore. In the present judgment, delivered on 13 July 2006, Mr Justice John MacMenamin considered whether the court should certify questions about the proximity principle in waste management plans and a ministerial direction on waste movement.
The company proposed questions about whether the EU Waste Framework Directive meant the proximity principle did not apply to waste recovery within national boundaries; whether a ministerial direction issued under section 60 of the Waste Management Acts was relevant to the planning appeal; and whether a presumption should arise that An Bord Pleanála had regard to such a direction.
The judge said the earlier decision interpreted the Connaught Waste Management Plan in light of its own terms. It did not establish a general interpretation applicable to other waste management plans, which used the proximity principle in different ways. The court had also found that applying the plan’s proximity principle to recovery was compatible with EU law. MacMenamin J said those findings did not establish a point of exceptional public importance requiring clarification.
On the section 60 direction, the earlier judgment had found that the applicant had not established that An Bord Pleanála failed to consider it. The inspector had referred to the direction and quoted a relevant part of it, and the court applied a rebuttable presumption that the Board had followed proper procedures. The court had also found it unclear whether the direction applied to the circumstances of this case or would have changed the outcome. MacMenamin J stressed that this was a finding confined to the case’s facts, not a ruling on the direction’s application more generally.
The judge said the company had already advanced its proximity arguments before the Board and in the judicial review proceedings, and that another appeal would not serve the public interest. He also cited the planning legislation’s aim of promoting certainty and finality and dealing with challenges promptly.
The ruling concerned certification for a further appeal only. The court refused to certify any of the proposed questions; it did not decide the underlying planning appeal anew.