The High Court has ordered that special environmental costs rules apply to Anne King’s judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s confirmation of a compulsory purchase order for a proposed wastewater treatment plant near Roundstone, Co Galway. The ruling decides how costs are to be allocated at the end of the proceedings; it does not decide whether the CPO was valid or whether the project requires an environmental impact assessment.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said Ms King had established strong grounds for arguing that the CPO decision formed part of a multi-stage development consent under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. He stressed, however, that he was not making a definitive ruling on that question at this preliminary stage.
Uisce Éireann, formerly Irish Water, plans to develop the plant and associated infrastructure near Roundstone. It made the CPO in December 2019 and applied to An Bord Pleanála for confirmation after objections were lodged. An inspector recommended that the order not be confirmed, citing more suitable sites. The board confirmed it on 3 March 2022, concluding that the preferred site had not been shown to be less suitable than alternatives and citing, among other considerations, reuse of an existing outfall, reduced disruption on Main Street and lower archaeological risk.
Ms King, an affected landowner and an objector to the CPO, began judicial review proceedings and later obtained leave to pursue them. Her October 2023 motion asked the court to determine in advance whether the special costs rules under section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applied.
The judge said the CPO decision involved consideration of environmental effects and alternative locations. He noted that confirming the order narrowed the options for a later planning application, which Uisce Éireann intends to make. An Bord Pleanála argued that site selection could be reconsidered at that stage. The judge said the earlier decision could carry significant weight, even though it would not formally bind the later planning process.
The court considered that deciding whether the CPO was part of development consent would require a full hearing, because that issue overlaps with the substantive judicial review. Instead, it weighed the strength of Ms King’s argument and the potential prejudice to the parties. It found the risk of refusing costs protection greater, as that could leave her exposed to costs and deter her from continuing.
The order directs that costs in the judicial review be allocated under section 50B. The judge said it is intended to be final and conclusive for these proceedings, even if the trial judge later finds that the CPO decision was not subject to the EIA Directive. The ruling does not determine the judicial review’s outcome. The judge’s provisional view was that Ms King should recover the costs of the costs motion from An Bord Pleanála; submissions on that issue and directions for the substantive case were scheduled for 13 February 2024.