Galway residents bring fresh High Court challenge against waste facilty

A Fine Gael senator is among a group of residents who have brought a fresh High Court challenge against a decision to grant a permit for a waste transfer facility in Co Galway.

Senator Aisling Dolan is one of 10 people opposed to Galway Co Council’s decision to grant a permit to Bruscar Bhearna Teoranta, Trading as Barna Recycling, for a waste transfer facility and the disposal of waste at lands at Poolboy, Ballinasloe, east Co Galway.

Those taking the challenge live within 1km of the proposed facility. They are supporters of the Ballinasloe Says No community campaign which opposes the development.

The group has serious concerns about the proposed development’s impact on the local environment, including areas of environmental significance.

Why Nissan needs more than a gamble on solid-state batteries

---

The best way to finance a new car

---

French investor pays €28.6m for Dublin and Kilkenny investments

---

Tricky judgments on when to reduce interest rates

---

Senator Dolan, who lives 800m from the proposed facility, was elected as an Independent to Galway Council in 2019, before joining Fine Gael. She unsuccessfully contested the Roscommon-Galway constituency for the party in the 2020 general election before being appointed to the Senate.

In 2019 the council granted a permit in respect of a proposed water transfer station at the site. That decision was the subject of an earlier High Court challenge against the council.

With the consent of the council, the court made orders quashing that decision which was remitted back to the local authority for reconsideration.

In 2020 the council refused to grant permission.

The developer reapplied for the permit, which was granted by the council last March.

The residents, however, claim that the decision is flawed and should be set aside.

The residents are represented by Michael O’Donnell and have brought fresh judicial review proceedings against the council where they seek an order quashing the decision to grant the permit. Counsel told the court that the latest action has been brought on two core grounds. The first is that the council failed to carry out a screening for an appropriate assessment to determine if the development would have significant effects on the environment, or if an Environmental Impact Assessment was required.

Counsel said that the proposed development is in proximity to the river Suck Callows which is a designated Special Protection Area. The second argument is that the council did not properly consider issues relevant to EU directives on habitats, including emissions from the proposed development.

The developers of the proposed facility are a notice party to the action.

The matter came before Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo, on an ex-parte basis, on Monday.

The judge adjourned the case to a date in July.