Judge orders action against “unlawful” Quinn Glass factory

In his judgement yesterday at London’s High Court, Judge Mole QC concluded that the Quinn facility was unlawful and told Chester West and Chester Councils to issue enforcement notices against it within 14 days.

The notices should, he said, “require the removal of the Quinn Glass buildings and works and the cessation of the Quinn Glass activities”.

Quinn is now likely to appeal the judge’s ruling in the case, which was brought by rival Ardagh Glass and was heard at the start of March. In a statement, Quinn said that as it had the right to appeal, the Court of Appeal would “reconsider all points”.

In his judgement, Judge Mole said: “It is common ground that the Quinn Glass development is currently unlawful.”

He said that Quinn Glass had accepted that it had taken a “calculated risk” in building the facility, which now employs more than 600 staff, without full planning consent.

Quinn began enabling works for the construction of the plant in October 2003, the judge said, but only submitted a planning application for the works in July 2004. Permission had previously been granted for a smaller facility, but not for the plant that was built. The company has since been seeking retrospective planning consent for the facility, which is built on the site of a former power station.

The judge said that he “entirely agreed” with a local resident who said in a witness statement on the case that it would be “disgraceful” if Quinn Glass were to achieve “immunity” from correct planning procedures.

Ardagh Glass, which brought the case against Quinn, Chester City Council and Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council – the predecessors to the newly-formed Chester and Chester West councils – welcomed the verdict.

Ardagh finance director Keith Swindell said: “This exceptional move by the High Court to require enforcement action against an unlawful glass facility is the right decision for the UK planning system and the UK glass industry.”

However, Ardagh did not succeed in persuading the judge to issue a stop notice against the Elton plant, meaning that Quinn can now appeal against the judge’s order to issue the enforcement notices and against the notices themselves.

Should Quinn take the second option, the company would appeal directly to Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Quinn has indicated, however, that it will take the first option and appeal the judgement. In a statement on the verdict, it said: “As all three parties have been granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal will reconsider all points.”

The crux of the argument will now be whether Quinn can prove “exceptional circumstances” at the plant which would justify a decision by the Secretary of State to grant planning permission retrospectively.

In the judgement, Judge Mole said that the Secretary of State could only grant retrospective consent for a development requiring an environmental impact assessment – which has never taken place on the Quinn facility – if it could be proved that exceptional circumstances were in place.

Ardagh’s Swindell claimed it was “clear that no exceptional circumstances exist at Elton”, although the point is likely to be contested by Quinn.

In its statement, Quinn accused Ardagh of trying to “frustrate the planning process” and said: “Quinn Glass believes this judgement now clears the way for a determination of its current planning application and looks forward to having this matter finally resolved.”

Popular Articles