The High Court has rejected a judicial review brought by Eileen Stack Shanahan and Gerard Sheehan against An Bord Pleanála’s approval of a road scheme that includes a bypass of Macroom, Co Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2012, Ms Justice O’Malley refused the relief sought. She found no material flaw in the Board’s procedure, said it had considered the relevant material and concluded that its decision was not manifestly unreasonable. She stressed that judicial review was not an appeal on the merits of the road scheme.
The applicants, a married couple who live at Carrigaphooca Manor House near Macroom, challenged the Board’s 7 April 2011 approval for Cork County Council to develop about 22 kilometres of dual carriageway from Baile Bhuime to Coolcour, bypassing Macroom. They argued that the route would damage the landscape setting of Carrigaphooca Castle and Carrigaphooca Stone Circle, both registered national monuments. Their house is a protected structure, and the judgment says the proposed road would pass about 200 metres from the castle.
The Board’s inspector recommended refusing approval, finding that traffic projections did not justify a dual carriageway west of Gurteenroe junction and that the western section would have significant adverse visual and landscape effects. The Board nevertheless approved the full scheme. It said the strategic importance and poor condition of the Cork-Kerry road link, and the difficulty of upgrading the existing road, justified construction. It also concluded that the limited options for bypassing nearby villages meant the landscape effects did not warrant refusal.
The court found that the Board had given clear reasons for departing from the inspector’s recommendation. It had also considered the inspector’s conclusions on Carrigaphooca Castle, the applicants’ house, the stone circle and a Civil War monument at a nearby bridge. Conditions required mitigation measures and a photographic and mapping record of historic and cultural sites before relevant works began. The record, with descriptions of associated historic events, was to be made available at Macroom public library; road signage was also to identify the sites.
The applicants sought to add a challenge to a compulsory purchase order, confirmed on 7 April 2011, nearly a year after a court direction on amendments. The judge rejected that application, finding that it sought new relief based on new grounds and that the requirement to seek leave could not be set aside. She also declined to hear submissions from notice party Peter Sweetman on matters outside the leave granted.
The judgment noted concerns about whether section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 could make it harder for people to obtain legal representation in environmental cases. The applicants had not sought direct relief on that issue, and the court made no order granting such relief. It refused the reliefs sought in the judicial review.