ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNERS have welcomed a ruling by the European Court of Justice reversing an Irish Supreme Court judgment which they say has serious implications for how Irish planning authorities assess major projects.
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling in the case of the European Commission vs Ireland in which the court found that Ireland had failed to properly implement the EU’s environmental impact assessment directive in the case of major projects.
Solicitor Joe Noonan, acting for the Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (Chase), had argued that Ireland had breached the EU directive in the way it had split the statutory approval functions for major projects between the EPA and An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Noonan had also argued that Ireland had breached the directive by failing to require either the EPA or An Bord Pleanála to perform an assessment of environmental impacts as required.
Under article 2 of the council’s 1985 EIA directive, planning permission can only be given after an assessment is carried out on all significant projects which, because of their nature, size or location, could have significant effects on the environment.
Article 3 of the 1985 EIA directive says any assessment must look at the impact of a project on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage as well as the interaction between any of these subjects.
The European Court of Justice found that Ireland had failed to properly transpose article 3 and had failed to properly implement the requirements of article 2 in cases where the Irish planning authorities and the EPA both have decision-making powers concerning a project.
The court also ruled that Ireland was in breach of the directive by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation, not transposing the EU EIA directive into Irish law and ordered Ireland to pay costs in the case.
Mr Noonan said it was a significant decision and would come into effect immediately. It would apply to any major projects in the pipeline while the consequences of the ruling with regard to any retrospective application would also have to be considered.
The ruling would require consideration by both the Department of the Environment and the Attorney General as it marked a reversal of a 2007 Supreme Court decision which found the State could split the statutory approval functions between the EPA and planning authorities, he said.
The Department of the Environment said the part of the judgment relating to demolition works had been clarified by a 2008 amendment to the 2001 planning and development regulations regarding which aspects of demolition were exempt from planning permission requirements.
A second part of the judgment relating to the transposing article 3 of the 1985 directive had been remedied through the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, said the department in its statement.
“A response to the final substantive element of the judgment regarding split decision-making will require further consideration by the State,” it said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label european court of justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label european court of justice. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Friday, 30 October 2009
EU ruling on waste water hits permission for one-off housing
IT will be increasingly difficult to secure planning permission for one-off rural homes that aren’t connected to public sewers, following a judgment of the European Court of Justice yesterday.
The Luxembourg-based court ruled that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations to comply with an EU directive that waste water from septic tanks is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health.
The ECJ said standards used in granting planning permissions "did not ensure a level of environmental and human health protection as high as that pursued by [the EU] directive".
During the hearing in the case, the commission heavily criticised Ireland’s track record on environmental protection, especially in relation to the handling of waste from septic tanks. It argued that various Irish environmental laws had not enabled pollution to be reduced in practice. It is estimated there are around 400,000 households in Ireland which rely on septic tanks to collect waste water.
The commission claimed there were "serious shortcomings" throughout Ireland which were capable of adversely affecting the environment. EU officials claimed such problems were linked to deficiencies in construction, unsuitable siting, insufficient capacities, maintenance and inspection as well as "inactivity" by local authorities.
However, the commission said the sole exception were by-laws introduced in Co Cavan which had adequately addressed the issue of the disposal of domestic waste waters in the countryside through septic tanks.
In contrast, the Government insisted that, contrary to claims by Brussels, the existing national legislation fully met Ireland’s obligations under the EU directive.
However, State lawyers acknowledged that Ireland had not expressly or specifically transposed the 1975 directive into national legislation even though they argued that Irish law as a whole ensured compliance with all the obligations arising from the EU legislation.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The Luxembourg-based court ruled that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations to comply with an EU directive that waste water from septic tanks is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health.
The ECJ said standards used in granting planning permissions "did not ensure a level of environmental and human health protection as high as that pursued by [the EU] directive".
During the hearing in the case, the commission heavily criticised Ireland’s track record on environmental protection, especially in relation to the handling of waste from septic tanks. It argued that various Irish environmental laws had not enabled pollution to be reduced in practice. It is estimated there are around 400,000 households in Ireland which rely on septic tanks to collect waste water.
The commission claimed there were "serious shortcomings" throughout Ireland which were capable of adversely affecting the environment. EU officials claimed such problems were linked to deficiencies in construction, unsuitable siting, insufficient capacities, maintenance and inspection as well as "inactivity" by local authorities.
However, the commission said the sole exception were by-laws introduced in Co Cavan which had adequately addressed the issue of the disposal of domestic waste waters in the countryside through septic tanks.
In contrast, the Government insisted that, contrary to claims by Brussels, the existing national legislation fully met Ireland’s obligations under the EU directive.
However, State lawyers acknowledged that Ireland had not expressly or specifically transposed the 1975 directive into national legislation even though they argued that Irish law as a whole ensured compliance with all the obligations arising from the EU legislation.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
EU court raps Ireland over waste water treatment
THE EUROPEAN Court of Justice has reprimanded Ireland for not properly implementing EU rules on waste water in rural areas, which the European Commission said has caused “serious damage to the environment”.
In its judgment the EU court, which sits in Luxembourg, took the European Commission’s side, which said there were “serious shortcomings” in the way septic tanks and other private waste water treatment systems are installed and maintained throughout the countryside.
The European Court said that Ireland – with the exception of Co Cavan, which introduced water pollution bylaws in 2004 – had failed to properly implement a 1975 EU directive on waste. The Government has been ordered to pay its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the EU executive in the case.
Minister for the Environment John Gormley said in reaction to the judgment, “We know that in far too many instances septic tanks or onsite sewage treatment systems are causing pollution. The absence of a licensing and inspection system is a major weakness in our overall environmental management structures and this needs to be addressed.” He said he was launching a public consultation to look into the issue.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on drinking water released this year found that the quality of private water supplies was inferior to those maintained by public authorities. It says that over 31 per cent of private group water schemes were contaminated with E. coli at least once during 2007 (184 out of 586).
However, Labour Party MEP Nessa Childers, the only Irish member of the European Parliament’s environment committee, described the court’s ruling as a “damning indictment” of the Government’s and Minister for the Environment John Gormley’s “green credentials”.
“The Greens should explain why a commitment in the new programme for government to introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and waste water treatment systems has been tarted-up and cynically presented as a new policy departure,” she said.
Gerard O’Leary of the EPA’s environmental enforcement office said proper treatment of waste water from septic tanks and other systems was a public health issue.
“If these systems are not designed and don’t dispose of the effluent properly, it’s lodged on your site, and . . . you can guarantee that E. coli is present.”
He said the EPA had been identifying concerns in drinking water reports for several years. More than 400,000 Irish homes had septic tanks in 2006, according to census data, due to the large number of scattered settlements in rural areas.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
In its judgment the EU court, which sits in Luxembourg, took the European Commission’s side, which said there were “serious shortcomings” in the way septic tanks and other private waste water treatment systems are installed and maintained throughout the countryside.
The European Court said that Ireland – with the exception of Co Cavan, which introduced water pollution bylaws in 2004 – had failed to properly implement a 1975 EU directive on waste. The Government has been ordered to pay its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the EU executive in the case.
Minister for the Environment John Gormley said in reaction to the judgment, “We know that in far too many instances septic tanks or onsite sewage treatment systems are causing pollution. The absence of a licensing and inspection system is a major weakness in our overall environmental management structures and this needs to be addressed.” He said he was launching a public consultation to look into the issue.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on drinking water released this year found that the quality of private water supplies was inferior to those maintained by public authorities. It says that over 31 per cent of private group water schemes were contaminated with E. coli at least once during 2007 (184 out of 586).
However, Labour Party MEP Nessa Childers, the only Irish member of the European Parliament’s environment committee, described the court’s ruling as a “damning indictment” of the Government’s and Minister for the Environment John Gormley’s “green credentials”.
“The Greens should explain why a commitment in the new programme for government to introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and waste water treatment systems has been tarted-up and cynically presented as a new policy departure,” she said.
Gerard O’Leary of the EPA’s environmental enforcement office said proper treatment of waste water from septic tanks and other systems was a public health issue.
“If these systems are not designed and don’t dispose of the effluent properly, it’s lodged on your site, and . . . you can guarantee that E. coli is present.”
He said the EPA had been identifying concerns in drinking water reports for several years. More than 400,000 Irish homes had septic tanks in 2006, according to census data, due to the large number of scattered settlements in rural areas.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
EU court raps Ireland over waste water treatment
THE EUROPEAN Court of Justice has reprimanded Ireland for not properly implementing EU rules on waste water in rural areas, which the European Commission said has caused “serious damage to the environment”.
In its judgment the EU court, which sits in Luxembourg, took the European Commission’s side, which said there were “serious shortcomings” in the way septic tanks and other private waste water treatment systems are installed and maintained throughout the countryside.
The European Court said that Ireland – with the exception of Co Cavan, which introduced water pollution bylaws in 2004 – had failed to properly implement a 1975 EU directive on waste. The Government has been ordered to pay its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the EU executive in the case.
Minister for the Environment John Gormley said in reaction to the judgment, “We know that in far too many instances septic tanks or onsite sewage treatment systems are causing pollution. The absence of a licensing and inspection system is a major weakness in our overall environmental management structures and this needs to be addressed.” He said he was launching a public consultation to look into the issue.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on drinking water released this year found that the quality of private water supplies was inferior to those maintained by public authorities. It says that over 31 per cent of private group water schemes were contaminated with E. coli at least once during 2007 (184 out of 586).
However, Labour Party MEP Nessa Childers, the only Irish member of the European Parliament’s environment committee, described the court’s ruling as a “damning indictment” of the Government’s and Minister for the Environment John Gormley’s “green credentials”.
“The Greens should explain why a commitment in the new programme for government to introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and waste water treatment systems has been tarted-up and cynically presented as a new policy departure,” she said.
Gerard O’Leary of the EPA’s environmental enforcement office said proper treatment of waste water from septic tanks and other systems was a public health issue.
“If these systems are not designed and don’t dispose of the effluent properly, it’s lodged on your site, and . . . you can guarantee that E. coli is present.”
He said the EPA had been identifying concerns in drinking water reports for several years. More than 400,000 Irish homes had septic tanks in 2006, according to census data, due to the large number of scattered settlements in rural areas.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
In its judgment the EU court, which sits in Luxembourg, took the European Commission’s side, which said there were “serious shortcomings” in the way septic tanks and other private waste water treatment systems are installed and maintained throughout the countryside.
The European Court said that Ireland – with the exception of Co Cavan, which introduced water pollution bylaws in 2004 – had failed to properly implement a 1975 EU directive on waste. The Government has been ordered to pay its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the EU executive in the case.
Minister for the Environment John Gormley said in reaction to the judgment, “We know that in far too many instances septic tanks or onsite sewage treatment systems are causing pollution. The absence of a licensing and inspection system is a major weakness in our overall environmental management structures and this needs to be addressed.” He said he was launching a public consultation to look into the issue.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on drinking water released this year found that the quality of private water supplies was inferior to those maintained by public authorities. It says that over 31 per cent of private group water schemes were contaminated with E. coli at least once during 2007 (184 out of 586).
However, Labour Party MEP Nessa Childers, the only Irish member of the European Parliament’s environment committee, described the court’s ruling as a “damning indictment” of the Government’s and Minister for the Environment John Gormley’s “green credentials”.
“The Greens should explain why a commitment in the new programme for government to introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and waste water treatment systems has been tarted-up and cynically presented as a new policy departure,” she said.
Gerard O’Leary of the EPA’s environmental enforcement office said proper treatment of waste water from septic tanks and other systems was a public health issue.
“If these systems are not designed and don’t dispose of the effluent properly, it’s lodged on your site, and . . . you can guarantee that E. coli is present.”
He said the EPA had been identifying concerns in drinking water reports for several years. More than 400,000 Irish homes had septic tanks in 2006, according to census data, due to the large number of scattered settlements in rural areas.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 19 July 2009
EU's highest court upholds complaints against Ireland
THE GOVERNMENT has broken EU law by failing to conduct environmental impact assessments before allowing work to start on private road projects.
The European Union’s highest court has also ruled that the Irish public is being denied its right under EU law to appeal against developments that could have a significant effect on the environment without facing prohibitive legal costs.
In a judgment yesterday, the European Court of Justice said the practice whereby Irish courts could choose to waive legal costs for an unsuccessful party appealing on environmental grounds did not conform to European law.
The court said it “is merely a discretionary practice on the part of the courts” and could not be regarded as “valid implementation of the obligations arising from” EU directives dating from 1985 and 2003.
The EU directives set out that the procedures established by governments for appealing projects on the basis that they may have a significant effect on the environment should not be “prohibitively expensive”. They form part of a series of EU laws passed over the past three decades aimed at giving the public more rights to participate in the planning project for developments.
The ruling from the European Court of Justice could prompt a major reform of Irish law regarding the financing of planning appeals on environmental grounds.
A spokesman for Minister for the Environment John Gormley said he welcomed the clarification given by the court.
“It is a complex judgment that relates to agencies and bodies outside the Department of the Environment,” Mr Gormley said. “We will engage proactively with the Attorney General and other State agencies to see how best we can implement the judgment.”
The Government said the first part of the judgment, related to not conducting environmental impact assessments before work began on private road projects, had been addressed by the Government.
It has also pledged to try to address a third complaint upheld by the European Court of Justice against a lack of public participation in the planning consent processes handled by agencies such as the Office of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture.
The court found that there were not adequate opportunities for the public to appeal certain types of projects handled by these departments. It found this was contrary to EU law.
However, the European Commission, which took the case against Ireland, was not successful in arguing several other points where it felt the Government had not properly transposed EU directives into national law. For this reason the court ruled that the commission and the Government should bear their own costs in the case.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The European Union’s highest court has also ruled that the Irish public is being denied its right under EU law to appeal against developments that could have a significant effect on the environment without facing prohibitive legal costs.
In a judgment yesterday, the European Court of Justice said the practice whereby Irish courts could choose to waive legal costs for an unsuccessful party appealing on environmental grounds did not conform to European law.
The court said it “is merely a discretionary practice on the part of the courts” and could not be regarded as “valid implementation of the obligations arising from” EU directives dating from 1985 and 2003.
The EU directives set out that the procedures established by governments for appealing projects on the basis that they may have a significant effect on the environment should not be “prohibitively expensive”. They form part of a series of EU laws passed over the past three decades aimed at giving the public more rights to participate in the planning project for developments.
The ruling from the European Court of Justice could prompt a major reform of Irish law regarding the financing of planning appeals on environmental grounds.
A spokesman for Minister for the Environment John Gormley said he welcomed the clarification given by the court.
“It is a complex judgment that relates to agencies and bodies outside the Department of the Environment,” Mr Gormley said. “We will engage proactively with the Attorney General and other State agencies to see how best we can implement the judgment.”
The Government said the first part of the judgment, related to not conducting environmental impact assessments before work began on private road projects, had been addressed by the Government.
It has also pledged to try to address a third complaint upheld by the European Court of Justice against a lack of public participation in the planning consent processes handled by agencies such as the Office of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture.
The court found that there were not adequate opportunities for the public to appeal certain types of projects handled by these departments. It found this was contrary to EU law.
However, the European Commission, which took the case against Ireland, was not successful in arguing several other points where it felt the Government had not properly transposed EU directives into national law. For this reason the court ruled that the commission and the Government should bear their own costs in the case.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 18 January 2009
ECJ: Ireland in breach of environmental rules
Ireland is in breach of European directives in relation to the effects of environmental projects, the advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said.
The decision follows a complaint to the European Commission about a proposed €100 million development of the Curragh racecourse in Co Kildare.
The redevelopment was finally approved by An Bord Pleanála a year ago, more than two years after the Irish Turf Club first sought planning permission. Kildare County Council originally granted permission for the development in October 2006, but local farmer Percy Podger appealed to An Bord Pleanála on behalf of Friends of the Curragh Environment.
Podger claimed that the planning application was invalid and the environmental impact statement was inadequate. He also complained to the European Commission about breaches of EU directives.
The commission brought an action against the government in September 2007 for failing to transpose parts of several directives into Irish law, and for not informing the commission about subsequent changes to the law. Ireland said the court should dismiss the action. However, ECJ advocate general Juliane Kokott, in her opinion delivered last Thursday, said Ireland had failed to ensure adequately that road construction projects likely to have significant effects on the environment were subject to development consent and an assessment about their effects before consent was given.
She also said that Ireland had failed to ensure public participation in drawing up programmes relating to the environment.
It had also not made practical information on administrative and judicial review procedures available to the public, and had failed to inform the commission of High Court judgments concerning the Friends of the Curragh Environment, she said.
The commission also said that legal costs could be very high in Ireland, running into hundreds of thousands of euro.
The Irish government said that legal aid was available and potential applicants could also use the Ombudsman’s free complaints procedure, but Kokott said these arguments were ‘‘hardly compelling’’, as the legal aid scheme did not apply to procedures covered by the directive and the Ombudsman could not make binding decisions.
She said access to justice under Irish planning law was the focal point of the action, and anyone exercising their rights to bring court proceedings should ‘‘not be penalised, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement’’.
Member states had to provide practical information about access to justice; just publishing legislation was not sufficient. Kokott ordered that Ireland and the commission should each meet their own costs. Her opinion will now be considered by the court, which will give its ruling shortly.
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
The decision follows a complaint to the European Commission about a proposed €100 million development of the Curragh racecourse in Co Kildare.
The redevelopment was finally approved by An Bord Pleanála a year ago, more than two years after the Irish Turf Club first sought planning permission. Kildare County Council originally granted permission for the development in October 2006, but local farmer Percy Podger appealed to An Bord Pleanála on behalf of Friends of the Curragh Environment.
Podger claimed that the planning application was invalid and the environmental impact statement was inadequate. He also complained to the European Commission about breaches of EU directives.
The commission brought an action against the government in September 2007 for failing to transpose parts of several directives into Irish law, and for not informing the commission about subsequent changes to the law. Ireland said the court should dismiss the action. However, ECJ advocate general Juliane Kokott, in her opinion delivered last Thursday, said Ireland had failed to ensure adequately that road construction projects likely to have significant effects on the environment were subject to development consent and an assessment about their effects before consent was given.
She also said that Ireland had failed to ensure public participation in drawing up programmes relating to the environment.
It had also not made practical information on administrative and judicial review procedures available to the public, and had failed to inform the commission of High Court judgments concerning the Friends of the Curragh Environment, she said.
The commission also said that legal costs could be very high in Ireland, running into hundreds of thousands of euro.
The Irish government said that legal aid was available and potential applicants could also use the Ombudsman’s free complaints procedure, but Kokott said these arguments were ‘‘hardly compelling’’, as the legal aid scheme did not apply to procedures covered by the directive and the Ombudsman could not make binding decisions.
She said access to justice under Irish planning law was the focal point of the action, and anyone exercising their rights to bring court proceedings should ‘‘not be penalised, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement’’.
Member states had to provide practical information about access to justice; just publishing legislation was not sufficient. Kokott ordered that Ireland and the commission should each meet their own costs. Her opinion will now be considered by the court, which will give its ruling shortly.
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)