The High Court has referred six questions of European Union law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a challenge to planning permission for 320 homes in Trim, Co Meath. The High Court did not decide the remaining grounds of the challenge; it adjourned those proceedings pending the CJEU’s decision.
Eco Advocacy CLG is challenging An Bord Pleanála’s October 2020 permission for Keegan Land Holdings Ltd’s development at Charterschool Land, Manorlands. The case concerns the board’s decisions, following screening, that neither an environmental impact assessment nor an appropriate assessment was required.
The challenge raises questions about what reasons a planning authority must give for those screening decisions, whether it must address relevant criteria under the environmental impact assessment rules, and whether standard design features that may reduce environmental harm can be considered at the appropriate assessment screening stage. Another question concerns the authority’s duty to address scientific concerns raised during public consultation. A further question asks whether a court may consider an EU law complaint where the party’s pleadings do not identify the precise provisions or interpretation relied on.
The questions arise in part from concerns raised during the planning process. Meath County Council’s heritage officer queried the assessment of hedgerow removal and the timing of bat surveys, and said the board should satisfy itself that the surface water system would protect European sites. An Taisce raised concerns about water quality in a stream that flows to the River Boyne, including possible effects on trout spawning habitat. The board’s inspector concluded that a full assessment was not required; the High Court judgment records that the inspector considered trout was not a qualifying interest of the relevant conservation site.
In the judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys set out his proposed answers to the six questions. Those views are not a final ruling by the CJEU. The High Court’s order directs the applicant to lodge hard-copy pleadings for transmission to the CJEU within 28 days and adjourns the balance of the case until that court has ruled.
The proceedings had already resulted in an earlier judgment, which rejected preliminary objections and dismissed grounds based on domestic law and certain EU law points. The remaining EU law issues were then referred for consideration. The High Court has not, in this judgment, quashed the planning permission or finally resolved the outstanding challenge.