England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

 


ORDER

UPON HEARING Mr James Pereira of Counsel (instructed by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, Leeds) for the claimant, Mr Timothy Horlock QC of Queens Counsel (instructed by Eversheds, Nottingham) for the Defendant, and Mr Richard Drabble QC of Queens Counsel and Mr Reuben Taylor of Counsel (instructed by Cameron Smith Mckenna, London) for the Interested Party

IT IS ORDERED THAT the claimant be given permission to move to judicial review

AND IT IS DECLARED THAT

1. When determining, for the purposes of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, whether to refuse or grant a permit, and in the latter case what conditions should be included in a permit issued in respect of an installation as defined in Schedule 1 , a regulator authority,

a. when considering the application of the tests of " Best Available Techniques" to the proposed installation, must have regard to, but not be confined to, the particular size, configuration, design and process proposed in the application for a permit for an installation containing an activity listed in Schedule 1;

b. in considering an application for a permit to conduct a Schedule 1 activity in an installation requiring a permit under the Regulations, (including its decision whether to grant or refuse a permit pursuant to Regulation 10(2)), a regulator authority, when applying the test of "Best Available Technique" must consider whether the installation would better satisfy the relevant criteria set out in the Regulations, if the installation were devised to be of a different size, configuration, design or process from that proposed by the applicant for the permit;

c. is entitled, pursuant to Regulation 10(2) to refuse to grant a permit to an installation for the carrying out of an activity of a description in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, if the Best Available Technique analysis conducted by it shows that the installation would better satisfy the relevant criteria set out in the Regulations, if the installation were devised to be of a different size, configuration, design or process from that proposed by the applicant for the permit.

AND IT IS ORDERED THAT

(1) The IPPC permit IPPC/A2/01/04 issued by Chester City Council on 2^nd March 2005 to Quinn Glass Limited and relating to an installation at Quinn Business Park, Ash Road, Elton, Cheshire CH2 4LF be quashed

(2) Permission to appeal is given to the Interested Party, limited to

a. arguing that the degree to which the technique, production capacity and process configuration proposed by an applicant is determinative of the process, criteria and considerations by which the application is to be judged by the regulator authority.

b. arguing that the quashing of the permit should be deferred .

(3) Permission to the Interested Party to appeal on other grounds is refused.

(4) On the Interested Party's undertaking to file and serve a Notice of Appeal within 14 days, the effect of this Order (save as to costs) is stayed pending the determination of that Appeal or further order of the Court of Appeal

(5) The Defendant pay 75% of 90% of the costs on a standard basis of the Claimant, to be assessed if not agreed, save that there be no order as to the costs of attendance at Preston today.

(6) The Interested Party pay 25% of 90% of the costs on a standard basis of the Claimant, save that there be no order as to the costs of attendance at Preston today.

(7) Permission is refused for appeals by each of the three parties on grounds relating to the award of costs, or by the Claimant on the grant of a stay.

His Honour Judge Andrew Gilbart QC

Deputy High Court Judge

24^th October 2005

Ý
Ü