The High Court has refused an environmentalist’s challenge to planning permission for a 19.5km uprate of the Bellacorick-Castlebar 110kV overhead power line in County Mayo.
Mr Justice Hedigan’s judgment, delivered on 10 June 2016, concerned a decision by An Bord Pleanála on 11 August 2015 to permit works to the line. The applicant argued that the works were improperly divided into two parts to avoid an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and that the decision breached the EIA and Habitats Directives.
The overall line is 37.235km long. Part 1, about 17.5km, was uprated in 2013. The application before the Board concerned Part 2, approximately 19.5km, between Bellacorick substation and angle mast 100 in the townland of Puglish. The proposed works included replacing conductors and altering existing structures, with no change to the line’s alignment or construction of additional polesets.
The Board granted permission after Mayo County Council had approved the application. It concluded that the development was not likely to have significant environmental effects requiring an EIA, and that it would not adversely affect the integrity of European sites. It also found that the project had not been split to avoid an EIA. The Board had considered the effects of Part 2 in combination with Part 1.
The applicant contended that the full uprate should have been assessed as one project before any work began. The respondent and notice parties argued that the two phases reflected the scheduling of electricity network outages, and that there was material before the Board to support its decision. They also said the combined works fell below the thresholds for a mandatory EIA.
The court held that dividing a large project into stages is not inherently wrong. The relevant question was whether the division was made to avoid an EIA. It decided that assessing this involved planning expertise, including judging the reasons for scheduling works at different times, and that the Board’s decision was subject to rationality review under the principles in O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála.
The court found there was substantial material in the reports before the Board capable of supporting its decision. The applicant bore the burden of establishing irrationality and had not done so. The relief sought was refused. The judgment therefore left the Board’s permission in place; it did not quash the decision.