A local man has lost a High Court attempt to overturn the granting of planning permission for an incinerator near Duleek, Co Meath.
The High Court has also said it will ask the Supreme Court to make a final determination on an important point of law likely to affect similar environmental cases, including a challenge to the development of the State's first toxic waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy, Co Cork.
While dismissing Mr Eric Martin's judicial review challenge yesterday on all grounds, Mr Justice Smyth said he would ask the Supreme Court to determine a legal question raised in the case - as to whether an EC Directive (EC 85/337) relating to the carrying out of environmental impact assessments has been properly transposed into Irish law.
While he himself had rejected Mr Martin's claim that the directive had not been properly transposed, the judge noted the issue of the transposition of the directive had implications for other legal cases and public projects and said he believed the issue should be finally determined.
The judge asked the parties to make submissions on the precise wording of the question to be decided by the Supreme Court and said he would adjourn this, and all other matters, including costs applications, to December 7th.
The fact that the matter will now go to the Supreme Court will further delay the development of the proposed incinerator.
The 25 acre-site of the proposed development at Carranstown is about three kilometres north of Duleek and some two kilometres from Donore village. Mr Martin, of Newlanes, Duleek, is a retired production manager and a member of the No Incineration Alliance - a group of farmers, local residents and business people living in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator.
Meath County Council had in 2002 granted permission for the development, subject to certain conditions including that the facility would only accept waste which was generated and produced in the north-east region of counties Louth, Meath, Cavan and Monaghan and that the annual tonnage for thermal treatment/recycling would not exceed 172,000 tonnes a year.
Indaver appealed that latter condition, while a number of people appealed the decision to grant permission. An Bord Pleanála held an oral hearing over four days after which its inspector recommended permission be refused. However, the board decided on March 3rd, 2003, to grant permission.
In his challenge to that decision, Mr Martin claimed the permission is invalid because a European Directive relating to environment impact assessments (EIA) had not been properly implemented into Irish law.
He claimed that the board failed to carry out an EIA in accordance with the relevant EC Directive and that this failure stemmed from the failure of the State to properly transpose the directive's provisions into Irish law.
That claim was rejected by the State, An Bord Pleanála and Indaver Ireland, the developer of the proposed incinerator. They argued the directive permits two or more competent authorities carrying out an EIA.
They said the council and the board on the one hand, and the Environmental Protection Agency on the other, were in a position to consider the interaction between certain factors specified in the directive.
In his lengthy judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth said the judicial review challenge was solely confined at hearing to a challenge to the legality of An Bord Pleanála's decision to grant permission for the development.
Having considered all the relevant legislation and other relevant legal cases, the judge said he rejected Mr Martin's argument that only one authority could make an integrated environmental impact assessment of the project.
He accepted the State's submission that there could be one or more decision in a development consent. He said the EC directive envisaged a decision of a "competent authority or authorities".
