The High Court has ruled that An Bord Pleanála failed to properly assess whether floodlighting at Tarmon National School could affect protected Greenland White-fronted geese at the nearby Bellanagare Bog Special Protection Area (SPA).
Ms Justice Bolger found that the Board had not adequately considered whether the development could hinder the geese’s potential return to the SPA, whose conservation objective is to maintain or restore the favourable condition of its protected bird species. The judgment, delivered on 27 May 2024, concerns the Board’s January 2022 grant of planning permission for 21 floodlights at the school in County Roscommon.
Dark Sky Roscommon, an NGO, brought the judicial review. It argued that the Board had failed to assess the development’s environmental impact and address concerns in an ecological report about the geese. The Board and the school’s board of management, which was a notice party, said the inspector had considered the issues and was entitled to rely on an expert report that found no significant effect.
The geese have not been recorded at Bellanagare Bog in recent years. The inspector concluded that the lights would not significantly affect them, in part because they had left the site and would avoid artificial light if they returned. But the judge said the inspector had not properly considered what that avoidance could mean for the SPA’s restoration objective, or the concern that lights might divert birds travelling between places to forage.
Two ecological reports were before the inspector. The notice party’s report said the geese no longer used the SPA and would likely avoid illuminated areas. A report submitted by another objector raised concerns about light pollution, winter bird movements and the lack of assessment of possible ecological effects. The judge said that report raised reasonable scientific doubt about whether the development could affect the SPA’s qualifying interest. She said the Board could not resolve that doubt simply by preferring the notice party’s expert.
The court held that the Board had failed to carry out sufficient screening for appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The judge emphasised that considering whether a development could impede restoration did not require the developer to take positive steps to restore the geese. She also noted that two of the 21 lights were permitted to remain on after 10pm, contrary to the expert report’s statement that the lights would all shut off then.
The judge did not decide a separate argument about ecological corridors because it had not been fully pleaded and the applicant had not been granted leave to seek judicial review on that ground.
The court has not yet made final orders. It will hear further submissions on their scope and application, as well as costs, at a mention listed for 19 June at 10.30am. The judge’s indicative view was that the applicant, having succeeded, was entitled to its costs.