An Taisce refused leave to appeal in the cheese factory case
An Taisce has been denied leave to appeal the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to the authorization of a controversial Glanbia continental cheese factory in Kilkenny.
In a judgment delivered today, Justice Richard Humphreys concluded that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by An Taisce met the criteria for a certificate of leave to appeal.
None of the grounds identified points of law of exceptional public importance arising from its judgment last April dismissing the An Taisce case against An Bord PleanÃ¡la and the state, he ruled.
In contesting the building permit granted to Kilkenny Cheese Ltd, An Taisce claimed that the environmental effects of dairy inputs for Belview Cheese Factory, Kilkenny – being developed under a joint venture agreement with Glanbia’s partner in Durch Royal-A-Ware – were not properly taken into account for the purposes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Directives.
Achieving the state’s climate goals requires reducing the national cow herd, not increasing it, and the dairy industry as a whole is not sustainable due to the negative environmental impacts it creates, a- he asserted.
An EIA report for the developer noted that the dairy herd is expected to grow from 1.4 million to 1.7 million cows by 2025, with each cow expected to produce more milk during that time, giving an expected increase. of about 1.6 billion liters of milk by 2025, the court heard.
In his April judgment, Justice Humphreys said An Taisce’s real grievance was about government policy and that the issues raised were not a basis for challenging this authorization under the Town Planning Code. General programmatic policies cannot be subject to the same type of site-specific regulations as individual planning requests, he said.
An Taisce then sought leave to appeal that decision but, in another judgment Friday, the judge refused the necessary certificate.
No exceptional points of law of public importance have been established for the reasons given, including whether the indirect environmental effects of the project, including those due to the production of milk, fall within the scope of the assessment required under of Article 2.1 of the EIA Directive and Article 172 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, he ruled.
The judge noted that he saw no need to further clarify this issue on appeal given a Supreme Court ruling in another case, Fitzpatrick v An Bord PleanÃ¡la.
The applicant maintained that even if milk production is too remote to form part of the project, its effects remain an indirect effect of the project.
He disagreed, saying the effects were “too far away.”
Addressing another ground of appeal, he said An Taisce misinterpreted his judgment because the conclusion of the proceedings was an indirect attack on government policy.
He had not concluded so at all, had not made any reference to the doctrine of collateral attack at all, and his judgment could not be regarded as one.
Among other findings, he held that no ground of appeal had been raised regarding the question of whether An Taisce was precluded from arguing that the decision of the board of directors was contrary to the requirements of the Framework Directive on l ‘water.
Based on these and other findings, he refused leave to appeal.