Waste company challenges bin collection proposal

A WASTE collection company has claimed before the High Court that proposals by Dublin's four local authorities to change the …

A WASTE collection company has claimed before the High Court that proposals by Dublin's four local authorities to change the household bin collection system are an unlawful attempt to remove competition by private operators.

Nurendale Ltd, trading as Panda Waste Services, Rathdrinagh, Beauparc Business Park, Navan, Co Meath, claims that moves to alter the current waste permit regime - which allows a number of collectors to operate - to one where the local authorities or a single private operator appointed by them carries out the collections are an abuse of the councils' dominant market position.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern yesterday gave leave to Martin Hayden SC, for Panda, to challenge, in judicial review proceedings, the decision by the councils to vary their waste management plan.

Panda claims the councils are essentially attempting to stop the collection of waste by the private sector and are seeking a fundamental change in the organisation of the market so as to "effectively remove competition".

READ MORE

It also claims an "ulterior" motive by the councils to ensure they have control over household waste and where it is sent for disposal or treatment.

Mr Hayden said there had been "a war of attrition" by assistant city manager Matt Twomey, who had indicated he wanted to take back control of the waste collection service.

This was because a waste incinerator was to be built for Dublin at Poolbeg and the city council wanted to ensure it would be able to direct the "raw material" required for this facility, Mr Hayden said.

In an affidavit, Eamon Waters, managing director of Panda Waste, said the company was set up in 1990, it now employed 250 people with an annual turnover of about €50 million, and functioned under a waste permit system administered by Dublin City Council on behalf of all four local authorities.

In 2005, Panda implemented a business plan in which it focused on the domestic waste collection market, particularly in Dublin, where the local authorities "enjoyed a monopoly on waste collection" for 50 years, Mr Waters said.

Panda had competed in Dún Laoghaire, Fingal and South Dublin Council areas and had bought the Smurfit recycling plant in Ballymount. It had developed a base of 28,000 domestic customers in Dublin, its total investment was €14.9 million and it now employed 104 people in waste-collection in Dublin alone.

Mr Waters said there was a number of attempts by the city council to "harass" and force Panda out of the market, including questioning whether its permit was valid in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and preventing it from providing glass collection using bylaws administered by the councils.

The next move was the recent review of the entire waste collection permits system under the management plan, which ran until 2010, he said. The review was completed on March 3rd last and the variation being proposed was that collection of household waste would be by a single operator, either the local authority or an operator chosen following a tendering process.

If the local authorities regained their "monopoly", they would be in a position to increase the price of collection "as much as they want since there will be no more competition left in the market". He said tendering would not be compulsory but optional and a successful tenderer would simply be an agent of the councils who would retain complete control over what happens to the waste.

Attempts to "harass" Panda out of the market had continued with five summonses issued recently against the company for minor alleged infringements in relation to their premises.

Mr Waters said the right of his company to collect waste in Dublin was under threat and Panda would suffer irreparable loss and damage if the change goes ahead.

Mr Justice McGovern was told a separate application for an injunction preventing the councils from reviewing the company's waste collection permit did not need to proceed as the company was still operating.