The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by the Ratheniska Timahoe and Spink (RTS) Substation Action Group and Environmental Action Alliance Ireland against An Bord Pleanála’s approval of the Laois–Kilkenny Reinforcement Project.
Mr Justice Haughton delivered the judgment on 14 January 2015. The applicants had sought certiorari to quash the Board’s decision of 23 April 2014 approving electricity transmission infrastructure and associated works. EirGrid plc, which applied for approval, was joined as notice party.
The court considered five grounds for which leave had been granted: alleged deficiencies in the public notices; failure to carry out and record a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA), including assessment of cumulative effects and human health; inadequate reasons; failure to carry out an appropriate assessment (AA) under the Habitats Directive; and failure to award the applicants costs for participating in the approval process.
On the notices, the court held that the description of uprating the Ballyragget–Kilkenny line complied with the statutory requirement to state the project’s nature and location. The line was authorised and built to 110kV standards, although it was operating at 38kV. The judge said the notices and accompanying material did not materially mislead the public.
The applicants raised concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) near homes and possible future wind farms. The Board had departed from its inspector’s recommendation to seek further information on EMF exposure and possible realignment. The court found that the Board had relevant scientific material before it, including international guidance, and gave adequate reasons for its decision. It also found that the Board had considered cumulative environmental effects. It was not required to assess wind farms that had not yet received planning permission.
On the AA, the Board had screened the River Nore SPA and concluded that significant effects were unlikely, while completing an assessment for the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation. The court accepted the Board’s conclusion that, subject to mitigation measures, the project would not adversely affect that site’s integrity. Conditions required implementation of mitigation measures and environmental supervision during construction.
The court also rejected the costs ground, holding that the Board had discretion to award no contribution and that participants had no automatic entitlement to costs. It did not consider a separate argument about the Board’s reasons for making a nil costs award, because that issue was outside the grounds for which leave had been granted.
The judge confirmed that the applicants had not succeeded on any permitted ground and ordered that the proceedings be dismissed. The court had declined to let the applicants broaden their challenge to include additional arguments for which leave had not been granted.