Landfill rules are recycled after groups rubbish plan

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has applied unprecedented conditions to a controversial landfill which was designed to cater for much of the refuse generated in Co Tipperary.

Tipperary (South Riding) County Council said yesterday that despite new and strengthened conditions it would be proceeding with its plan to build a facility capable of handling 40,000 tonnes of waste a year at Hardbog near Carrick-on-Suir.

The plan had met strong objections from a large number of organic farms in the area and the local Camphill Community, which caters for adults with special needs. This led the EPA to stage its first oral hearing into a waste management licence application, though the agency indicated its intention to grant the licence.

The council had been accused by Hardbog and Grangemockler Environmental Group of selecting the site because of its remoteness, and of ignoring the potential impact on a unique cluster of organic farms including one operated by the Camphill Community.

The group's spokesman, Mr Josef Teppan, who is also a founder of the Camphill Community, said they were "not displeased" with the outcome. The community recycles almost all its waste and brings any which it cannot to facilities elsewhere.

The EPA has stipulated the size of the landfill must be reduced from 40 acres to less than eight. In addition, a 75-metre corridor must be installed around the facility. This land must be capable of being farmed up to organic standards. Only refuse from the council or its registered contractors will be allowed on the site. Access will only be allowed via the main road in the area during construction and operation.

In addition, the council will have to spend at least £30,000 a year, or 2 per cent of "gate money", on environmental projects in the area. The council must install an extended cattle path through the area to ensure dairy cows are not disturbed by the development.

While the EPA was of the view that it was possible to "engineer around the problem", Mr Teppan accepted that unprecedented conditions (which run to 49 pages) had been put in place. Notwithstanding the council reaction, he believed the local authority would have to think long and hard about proceeding under such constraints.

He believed that in effect it amounted to the EPA saying "No" to the development.

Mr Teppan said the outcome indicated the EPA was "getting better at matching reality with idealism" in terms of locating and designing landfills. The hearing was significant, he said, as it was the first time his group's concerns had been listened to, and this was reflected in the conditions.

The council's senior environment engineer, Mr Raymond O'Dwyer, said the EPA had taken on board the concerns of local people. It had added some conditions and made others more specific to allay concerns. "We feel we can live with it," he added.

He accepted extra costs would be involved but said the viability of the project would not be threatened by the move to reduce the size of the landfill. The local authority could not negotiate further as a licence was being issued after taking objections into account.