A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge taken by an environmentalist against the granting of a licence by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a chicken farm in Co. Limerick.
Justice Conleth Bradley refused Peter Sweetman’s application for a judicial review seeking to quash the EPA’s decision to grant an industrial emissions licence in February 2019 to Michael Noel O’Connor.
The licence, which was granted subject to conditions, authorised the rearing of 74,000 broiler chickens at a site at Rathcahill West, Templeglantine, Newcastle West.
Sweetman, who was represented by James Devlin SC, argued that the EPA should have assessed the consequences of granting the licence, in particular the use of poultry litter and wash water for land spreading of organic fertiliser or as waste on lands outside of the installation.
The environmentalist also sought related declarations about the EPA’s general approach to such decisions.
Chicken farm
In his opening comments, James Devlin said that the basic issue is “you can’t have chicken production on any scale, and certainly not on this scale, without also producing chicken manure”.
“Disposing of the chicken manure is one of the key environmental issues arising from an enterprise of this sort,” he added.
Devlin argued that the poultry litter and wash water constitute ‘emissions’ and ‘waste’ and that their application on lands outside of the installation where the poultry rearing occurs should have been assessed and addressed by the EPA.
It was claimed that the EPA has a particular obligation to assess, authorise and regulate ‘the consequences of poultry rearing’.
Devlin told the court that Sweetman’s main concern related to the possible land spreading of the poultry litter and wash water generated from the operation of the intensive poultry farm in an area or in a manner which could impact on a protected site.
Sweetman contended that the EPA could not have been certain that the poultry litter and wash water would be sent for land spreading because it did not know the location of the recipient lands and for that reason the poultry litter and wash water could not be defined as a by-product, and were, instead, waste.
It was noted that the only activity covered by the licence is the rearing of poultry at the one location.
In response, the EPA stated that no appropriate assessment (AA) was required for land spreading as Michael Noel O’Connor did not apply for such a licence.
The agency submitted that, on the facts of this case, the poultry litter and wash water are animal by-products and not a waste or emission.
It added that their future use and regulation offsite are governed by the Animal By-Products Regulations and may also be treated as organic fertiliser.
The agency said that the use and regulation of such material off-site are not governed not by the Industrial Emissions Directive, but by the Nitrates Regulations.
The EPA added that the spreading of agricultural slurry which contains nutrients such as phosphate and nitrate is regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM).
Judge
Justice Conleth Bradley said that the EPA inspector’s report stated that the chicken farm was not located within a European site and there was no surface water or groundwater pathway
from the litter generated at the installation when the chicken houses were stocked.
The judge ruled that the agency when considering the application which was made to it from O’Connor, correctly defined “the ambit of its statutory and regulatory powers”.
This did not extend to the authorisation of the possible end-use of the poultry litter or wash water generated from the intensive poultry rearing as organic fertiliser or as waste on lands outside of the installation.
Justice Bradley noted that Peter Sweetnam’s concern was “not this particular poultry farm, but rather the approach of the agency to this issue in general”.
“It is not the function of the court, however, on an application for judicial review to give what could amount to an advisory opinion on the approach of a decision making body generally or further to do so in the absence of a particular context,” the judge said.
Justice Bradley added that Sweetman was incorrect to assume that the decision of the EPA envisages that there may be or can be future land spreading of the poultry litter or wash water on lands outside of the installation.
The judge said that “it is at least open to question whether the applicant’s concerns may in reality be against the competent authority under the Nitrates Regulations, namely the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine”.