The High Court has refused to quash An Bord Pleanála’s authorisation of part of the Galway City Outer-Bypass, rejecting a judicial review challenge brought by Hands Across the Corrib Ltd.
In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2009, Mr Justice Birmingham granted the company leave to challenge the Board’s interpretation of the Habitats Directive and the 1997 Habitats Regulations. But after the substantive hearing, he found that ground had not been made out and declined to quash the decision.
The company argued that the Board could not conclude the authorised road works would avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of a protected site when National Parks and Wildlife Service expert Dr Julie Fossit considered the site’s integrity would be affected. The judge said the experts broadly agreed on the physical effects of the proposal; their dispute concerned how those effects should be classified. He rejected the challenge after hearing it.
The court refused leave on the company’s complaint that the Board had failed to give adequate reasons. It also refused leave on the other grounds specific to this case, finding they did not amount to substantial grounds for contending that the decision was invalid.
Those grounds included claims that environmental review procedures and public participation arrangements were inadequate, including for Irish speakers; that the environmental impact statement and assessment were deficient; and that alternatives and mitigation measures had not been properly addressed. The judge found the language arrangements did not obstruct meaningful participation. He also rejected complaints about cross-examination, the lack of a written transcript, the project’s level of detail, the local authorities’ cooperation, and alleged damage during earlier site investigations.
The company had sought a merits review of the Board’s decision, arguing that public transport options could better address Galway’s traffic problems. The judge held that the environmental review rules entitled the company to challenge the legality of the decision, not to have the court re-decide the project’s merits.
The judgment concerned the part of the wider proposal authorised subject to conditions. The Board had refused approval for another portion. The court did not make a ruling on any costs application in the judgment; it noted that the Board had discretion to contribute to hearing costs, but the company had no automatic entitlement. The judge also declined to refer questions to the European Court of Justice at that stage.