Permission for Judicial Review of Council Decision on Incinerator in Ryburn

1 August 2021

The Courts have given permission for judicial review into Calderdale incinerator permit decision to proceed, please find attached a copy of the Court Order.

In summary the Order by HH Judge Kramer sitting as a judge of the High Court stated that permission to proceed to a substantive hearing was granted on all grounds of the challenge.

The Grounds for Challenge are listed below, the Judge's observations concerning the grant of permission are set out in the attached Order.

GROUND OF CHALLENGE 1

The decision was unlawful because the Council erred in law in believing that if the application was not determined on 8th February 2021 then it would deemed to be refused. Consequently the Council acted unlawfully, by relying on this error of law, in: (a) not having requested further information as an option and in deciding to approve the application without requesting further information; (b) deciding to use urgency to disapply the call-in procedures.

GROUND OF CHALLENGE 2

The Cabinet had no rational basis for failing to follow the WYG recommendation that more information be obtained on habitats and emissions, including sulphur dioxide.

GROUND OF CHALLENGE 3

The Council failed to have regard to relevant considerations, namely guidance in the Environmental Permitting General Guidance Manual on Policy and Procedures for A2 and B installations (GGM) on the assessment of harm and applied a test which was not in the guidance.

GROUND OF CHALLENGE 4

The SWIP environmental permit and the varied waste management licence permit on most of the remainder of the site leave an unregulated area around the incinerator building. The incinerator could not therefore operate. There are also a series of activities which are part of the incinerator operation, as described in the application, which would take place in the Waste Management Licence ("WML") part of the site, but inconsistently with that licence. No regard was had to this by the Council.

Given the forthright nature of the Judge's comments on the reasons put forward to resist the claim and likely prospect of success, the Council should be questioning whether it is justified in spending citizens' money in continuing to fight this case. Rather it should now accept the JR challenge is valid and submit to judgement on that basis.

Thanks to the Benbow Group for this update.

Tweet