The Court of Appeal has dismissed Maura Harrington’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to quash an EPA licence for activities at the Bellanaboy Bridge gas terminal in Co Mayo, part of the Corrib gas field development.
In a judgment delivered on 6 April 2020, the court upheld the High Court’s rejection of her challenge to the revised industrial emissions licence. The appeal focused on two issues: whether the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive required one integrated assessment of the entire project, and whether the activities covered by the original 2007 licence had been substantially commenced within its seven-year period.
On the assessment issue, the President agreed with the High Court that the directive did not require a single integrated assessment. The court said national authorities could entrust the assessment to several entities. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v An Bord Pleanála and a European Court of Justice ruling in Case C-50/09.
The court also rejected Harrington’s argument concerning the 2007 licence’s duration. Under section 92 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, as amended, the licence would cease to have effect if the EPA formed the opinion that the licensed activity had not been substantially commenced within the specified period and notified the licensee of that opinion. The court said the EPA had formed no such opinion and had issued no such notice.
The judgment noted that Harrington had presented no evidence suggesting the activity had not been substantially commenced within seven years. It referred instead to letters from Shell’s environmental adviser to the EPA in September and November 2014, concerning the intended start of operations and confirming that the terminal was operating under the licence. The court concluded that the complaint about the licence’s duration failed.
Harrington had also argued in the High Court that the environmental assessment was inadequate. The High Court found she had not identified specific shortcomings and dismissed her application for judicial review. That earlier decision also refused the reliefs sought and found no need to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. The Court of Appeal held that none of the grounds advanced warranted interfering with the High Court’s approach and dismissed the appeal. The other two judges agreed with the President’s conclusions.