The High Court has refused a judicial review challenging An Bord Pleanála’s approval of the Killaloe bypass and related road works in County Clare. Mr Justice McDermott ruled that the Board had lawfully assessed the scheme’s environmental effects and could grant consent subject to conditions.
The applicants, Peter Sweetman and The Swans and the Snails Ltd, sought to quash the Board’s March 2013 decision and obtain declarations concerning an area of wet woodland on the western side of the River Shannon. They argued that the woodland included Annex I priority alluvial habitat and should receive “shadow protection” under the EU Habitats Directive, despite not being designated or listed as a European site. They also argued that permanent habitat loss within a Special Area of Conservation necessarily harmed the site’s integrity, and that the Board’s environmental assessment and construction-management condition were unlawful.
The judgment recounted conflicting habitat assessments made during the planning process. The Council’s material described about 0.25 hectares along the proposed route as degraded woodland that did not qualify as priority habitat. It identified 0.15 hectares nearby as priority habitat that could be temporarily affected and later reinstated, alongside a proposed 0.076-hectare area of new habitat. The Inspector accepted the evidence supporting those assessments and recommended approval with mitigation measures, including ecological supervision.
The court found that the site at issue was not part of the Lower River Shannon candidate Special Area of Conservation and had never been included on Ireland’s proposed list of candidate sites. It rejected the claim that the Board could confer equivalent legal protection on an unlisted site through a parallel “shadow protection” process. The court was also not satisfied that Ireland had failed to meet its obligations to select sites for conservation.
On environmental assessment, the court found that the Board considered the Environmental Impact Statement, the Natura Impact Statement, further information, submissions and the Inspector’s report. It held that the Board completed its own environmental impact and appropriate assessments, concluding that the development would not significantly harm the environment or adversely affect the integrity of the Lower River Shannon site, subject to conditions.
The applicants also challenged a condition requiring a construction management plan before work began. The court held that the condition operated within the broader requirement to implement mitigation measures already set out in materials considered through public consultation and the planning process. It found the Board had sufficient information to impose the conditions and had not unlawfully delegated its decision-making.
The court refused the application. It did not quash the consent or grant either declaration sought.