Rockware Glass Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chester City Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Rockware Glass Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chester City Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
Draft 25 October 2005 11:54 Page 2
Case No: CO/3242/05Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2250 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEENS BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURTRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLJudgement handed down at The Law CourtsOpenshaw PlaceRingwayPrestonPR1 2LLDate: 24th October 2005Before :HIS HONOUR JUDGE GILBART QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Richard Gordon QC and James Pereira (instructed by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, Leeds) for the ClaimantTimothy Horlock QC and Robert Darbyshire (instructed by Eversheds, Nottingham) for the DefendantReuben Taylor (instructed by Cameron Smith Mckenna, London) for the Interested PartyHearing dates : 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th September, 24th October 2005- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JUDGEMENTIndexJUDGE GILBART QC: Introduction1 This case concerns a substantial industrial installation for the manufacture of glassware at a former power station at Elton, on the borders of the districts of the City of Chester and Ellesmere Port and Neston . That area is one long known for its substantial industries (including petrochemicals) and refineries. In particular, these works have been designed to be the largest container glass factory in Europe. It is a development by Quinn Glass Limited, a major manufacturer of glass, but in production terms a relative newcomer to the UK.2 Its construction and operation require various authorisations, but two in particular, namely the grant of planning permission under TCPA 1990 and a permit under the IPPC regime for pollution control. I shall describe the details of that regime in due course.3 This challenge relates to the grant of an IPPC permit by Chester City Council (`` Chester CC'') on 2nd March 2005. It was issued following a decision on the application by the Chief Executive Mr Paul Durham, and was said to be issued under delegated authority.4 It is argued by Rockware Glass Limited (`` Rockware'') which company is a rival glass manufacturer, and which had objected to the grant of a permit, that (a) Mr Durham had no authority to decide to issue the permit(b) The Council had failed properly to interpret and apply the relevant EU Directive (Directive 96/61/EC relating to Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control ) and the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 SI No 1973, (`` PPC Regs'') which were made pursuant to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999(c) The Council had misinterpreted the statutory guidance note SG2 issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to the PPC Regs.(d) The Council had taken irrelevant considerations into account and had failed to take material considerations into account(e) It was irrational to have reached a decision on the application for a permit when he did not take steps to determine whether the concurrent planning application had been called in for determination by the First Secretary of State5 The Defendant City Council seeks to dispute those grounds. In addition it also contends that Rockware has insufficient interest to bring these proceedings. It also seeks to persuade me that if I find any of the substantive grounds of challenge made out, I should not exercise my discretion in favour of quashing the permit. 6 Quinn also dispute the grounds, and argue that Rockware has no sufficient interest to bring these proceedings. It also contends that Rockware failed to bring them promptly, and argues that if I find any of the substantive grounds of challenge made out, I should not exercise my discretion in favour of quashing the permit. 7 Mr Justice Bean gave directions on 10th June 2005, allocated it to a Deputy Judge and ordered that the hearing of the application for permission be heard with by all parties present, followed immediately by the substantive hearing if permission were granted. As was anticipated by Mr Justice Bean, and as is usual in my experience, it was agreed by all parties before me that the matter should proceed as a final hearing.8 Rockware applied to amend its Grounds . In my judgement, the matters where it sought to amend its case all arose directly from the material which each of the three parties had. Chester CC CHESTER CC did not oppose the amendment. Quinn did, but Mr Taylor frankly accepted that he could not claim that his clients were disadvantaged in the preparation of their case. I therefore gave permission for the amendments.9 At the hearing, I held that Rockware had sought permission for judicial review promptly, but that I would give my reasons in this judgement. I do so at paragraphs 176-179 below. Structure of judgement10 I shall deal with the judgement under the following heads(a) Identifying the central issues(b) Engineering context(c) The Application in quest...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
