The High Court rejected a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s 2004 grant of planning permission for a Fallen Animal Inspection Unit at Achonry, County Sligo. Mr Justice Bryan McMahon concluded that the Board had sufficient information to carry out an environmental impact assessment and that the applicant had not been denied fair procedures.
Volkmar Klohn, a local organic farmer and member of the Achonry Development Group, challenged the Board’s decision to grant permission to Moloney and Matthews Animal Collection Limited. Sligo County Council had refused permission in November 2003, citing concerns that included shortcomings in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and additional traffic. The developer and the Group appealed to the Board, which granted permission on 30 April 2004.
Klohn argued that information provided during the appeal substantially changed the project, leaving the original EIS inadequate. He also said the Board had failed to carry out a proper environmental assessment and that he and other participants should have been allowed to comment on submissions dated February and March 2004.
The judge held that the Board was responsible for deciding whether the EIS complied with the regulations and whether further information was significant. The Board had stated that, considering the original EIS and appeal submissions, it had enough information for a proper assessment. The court found that the EIS met the requirements concerning alternatives and the relationship between environmental factors, and that any minor defects did not prevent a proper assessment.
The judge also found that the Board was entitled to conclude that the February and March submissions did not contain significant new environmental information. He said the rule requiring notice of significant additional information did not apply to those submissions because the Board had not requested them. Klohn and the Group had participated throughout the process and had opportunities to make submissions about the changes they considered material. The consultation process was not required to continue indefinitely.
The court was reviewing the legality of the Board’s process, not deciding the planning merits afresh. It concluded there had been no significant breach of the relevant regulations or EU obligations and no denial of a fair hearing. The judgment rejected the grounds advanced for intervention and left the Board’s planning permission in place. The court did not itself grant or vary planning permission.