Rockware Glass Ltd., R (on the application of) v Quinn Glass Ltd & Anor

Rockware Glass Ltd., R (on the application of) v Quinn Glass Ltd & Anor

The regulator is required to consider whether alternative configurations, size, or design would achieve lower emissions and constitute BAT. The permit issued by Chester City Council was unlawful due to failure to properly apply BAT, misinterpretation of guidance, failure to consider available techniques, and lack of proper delegation. Compliance with EQS alone does not satisfy the Directive. The permit was lawfully quashed and the appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Rockware Glass Ltd; Respondent: Quinn Glass Limited; Respondent: Chester City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Applications for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (ippc), Best Available Techniques (bat), Delegation of Local Authority Powers, Environmental Permitting, Judicial Review
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (ippc) Best Available Techniques (bat) Delegation of Local Authority Powers Environmental Permitting Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rockware Glass Ltd

Applicant

Quinn Glass Limited

Respondent

Chester City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the regulator must consider alternative plant configurations and techniques when applying BAT under the IPPC regime
  2. 2 Whether the permit issued by Chester City Council complied with the requirements of the IPPC Directive and domestic regulations
  3. 3 Whether the decision to grant the permit was lawfully delegated

Ratio Decidendi

The regulator is required to consider whether alternative configurations, size, or design would achieve lower emissions and constitute BAT. The permit issued by Chester City Council was unlawful due to failure to properly apply BAT, misinterpretation of guidance, failure to consider available techniques, and lack of proper delegation. Compliance with EQS alone does not satisfy the Directive. The permit was lawfully quashed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Applications for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permit quashed; effect of quashing order deferred until Chester City Council's decision on new permit application, conditional on undertakings by Chester and Quinn to proceed with reasonable despatch.
  • All parties have liberty to apply to the Court of Appeal.