The High Court has rejected the domestic law grounds in a challenge to planning permission for 320 homes in Trim, but will in principle refer several European law questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A formal reference had not yet been made at the time of the judgment: the court directed the parties to make further submissions first.
Eco Advocacy CLG brought judicial review proceedings against An Bord Pleanála, with Keegan Land Holdings Limited as notice party, seeking to quash the board’s 27 October 2020 permission for the development at Charterschool Land, Manorlands. The site is near the River Boyne and River Blackwater protected areas and contains a recorded monument. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Humphreys on 27 May 2021.
The judge dismissed the domestic law complaints, which included claims about the board’s consideration of planning submissions, its reasons and the reasonableness of its decision. He also found that some issues had not been adequately pleaded. The court did not quash the permission on those grounds.
The EU law issues concerned environmental impact assessment (EIA) and appropriate assessment (AA) screening. The applicant argued, among other things, that mitigation measures should not have been considered at screening and that concerns raised by Meath County Council and An Taisce had not been properly addressed. Those bodies raised concerns including the adequacy of surface water management and possible effects on the river system.
The judgment describes a drainage system that would collect and treat surface water before discharging it to a stream about 100 metres south of the site, which flows into the Boyne. The judge said the legal treatment of design features that reduce environmental effects, and the reasons required when expert concerns are raised during screening, were not clear enough to resolve without a CJEU ruling. He also set out questions concerning what documents must identify the competent authority’s reasons and whether relevant EIA screening factors must be expressly addressed.
The court said the proposed questions concerned the interpretation of EU law, were necessary to decide the case and were not acte clair. It therefore decided in principle to make a reference under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, subject to a later formal order. The parties were directed to provide written submissions to help prepare that order, and could propose relevant amici curiae. The judgment did not decide the EU law issues or finally determine the judicial review challenge.