The High Court dismissed Peter Sweetman’s application for orders under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 concerning Shell E&P Ireland Limited’s gas terminal development near Bellanaboy Bridge, Co Mayo. Mr Justice T.C. Smyth delivered the judgment on 14 March 2006.
The application originally sought a range of declarations and injunctions alleging unauthorised works, planning breaches and environmental and waste-related violations. At the hearing, only two issues were pursued: alleged non-compliance with Conditions 1 and 37 of the planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála in October 2004. Sweetman conceded that the relief sought under water pollution and waste legislation was not properly pursued in these proceedings. The case against Lennon Quarries Limited and T.J. Lennon was struck out by agreement after the court was told that retention permission had subsequently been granted for the quarry.
On Condition 1, the dispute concerned excavated peat temporarily deposited on adjoining lands owned by Coillte Teoranta during road realignment works. The judge found that about 1,000 cubic metres—roughly 9% of the excavated material—had been placed on part of the Coillte lands. He accepted that the temporary storage was incidental to carrying out the permission and, in any event, amounted to exempted development under the applicable regulations. He found substantial compliance with those regulations.
Condition 37 required security for reinstatement of the terminal site after operations ceased. Shell had proposed a parent-company guarantee, and Mayo County Council had agreed to the proposed form and amount of security, though formal documentation remained outstanding. The judge held that the planning authority was entitled to accept that security and found substantial compliance with the condition.
The judge said he would also have refused the requested orders even if Shell had breached either condition or carried out unauthorised development. He cited the alleged breaches’ technical nature, Shell’s good faith, the planning authority’s position, potential hardship and delay by the applicant. He also criticised material inaccuracies in the applicant’s affidavits, including the failure to report that the road realignment had been completed to the planning authority’s satisfaction in February 2005.
The court dismissed the application. Its finding that Shell had not failed to comply with the planning permission or carried out the alleged unauthorised development was framed from the filing of Shell’s replying affidavits on 31 March 2005 onward.