The High Court refused leave for an early judicial review challenge to the planning process for the proposed 400kV North/South electricity interconnector, ruling that the applicants should generally wait for An Bord Pleanála’s final decision before going to court.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 12 May 2016. The applicants were North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited and Maura Sheehy. They sought to stop the board from continuing its consideration of EirGrid plc’s development consent application, including an oral hearing, and challenged the Minister’s designation of the board as the competent authority under an EU energy infrastructure regulation.
The project was proposed to run from Woodlands Station in County Meath, through Cavan and Monaghan, to a proposed substation at Turleenan, Moy, County Tyrone. EirGrid applied to the board for approval on 9 June 2015. The board’s oral hearing began on 7 March 2016. The applicants had first sought an injunction to prevent it; the judge refused that request on the morning the hearing was due to start and directed that the leave application proceed on notice.
The applicants alleged, among other things, that the application and environmental assessments did not comply with legal requirements, that changes to access routes during the hearing required an adjournment, and that the board’s roles created a conflict. Those were allegations at the leave stage, not findings that the process or application was unlawful.
The judge held that the special planning-law time limits in section 50 did not apply to the intermediate steps challenged in this case. He said applicants would generally not have to bring separate court proceedings over each procedural step, and that time to challenge would usually run from the final decision. He also found the applicants’ complaints arguable, but did not decide whether they had substantial grounds to succeed.
The application was refused because it was premature: the board was still considering the consent application, and could address many of the applicants’ objections itself. The refusal was expressly without prejudice to a later judicial review if consent were granted. Any such application would have to be brought within eight weeks of that decision and meet the substantial-grounds test. The court said its ruling on when the present complaints were out of time would govern any later proceedings between these parties.