The High Court has dismissed Ryanair Designated Activity Company’s judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s permission for an underpass and related works at Dublin Airport.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2025, Humphreys J. rejected the two grounds Ryanair continued to pursue: that the permission conflicted with the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan’s provisions on aircraft stands, and that the board had failed to apply the Water Framework Directive properly. Ryanair had withdrawn its other grounds.
The underpass is intended to provide access between the airport’s eastern and western campuses beneath runway 16/34. The planning inspector found that the works would reduce the number of aircraft stands, contrary to the local area plan, but considered the reduction temporary because replacement stands were intended. Ryanair argued that the loss was material and that there was no evidence it would be temporary.
The judge said the inspector’s reasoning about the temporary loss was not ideal. However, he held that section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which addresses material contraventions of development plans, does not apply to local area plans. In this case, the distinction between whether the contravention was material and whether permission should be granted despite it was therefore not legally decisive. The inspector’s report, read as a whole, was not a sufficient basis to quash the permission.
On water, Ryanair argued that the board had considered whether the project would cause deterioration in water status but had not separately addressed whether it might jeopardise the achievement of good status. The Cuckoo Stream, which runs through the site and was to be culverted and diverted during construction, was described by the inspector as having “Bad Ecological WFD status.” The inspector concluded that mitigation would prevent deterioration in surface water or groundwater.
The judge found that Ryanair had not identified a factual basis showing how this project could jeopardise good water status without causing deterioration, or why that question required separate treatment. He also rejected the argument that the directive requires each permitted project to make a positive contribution to restoring water quality. The inspector’s acceptance of some limits in the available groundwater information did not establish that the assessment was unlawful.
The court dismissed the proceedings. Its order provided for no order as to costs unless a party applied otherwise by written legal submission within seven days of the judgment. The matter was listed for 24 February 2025 to confirm the order.