The High Court has refused Martin Harrington leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging An Bord Pleanála’s 2004 planning permission for a gas terminal and peat deposition site at Bellanaboy, Co Mayo.
In a judgment delivered on 26 July 2005, Ms Justice Macken held that Harrington had not raised the legal grounds he wished to pursue during the planning appeal. Under section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, she found, an applicant generally must have raised those grounds personally to establish the required substantial interest. It was not enough that another appeal participant had raised similar issues.
Harrington, an electrician who lived about 15 miles from the proposed terminal, argued that An Bord Pleanála had wrongly relied on the Health and Safety Authority’s interpretation of “establishment” under the EU Major Accident Hazards Directive. He contended that the term should include an upstream gas pipeline, including a section of about 900 metres beyond the terminal’s security fence, and that the Board had failed to obtain adequate technical advice about it.
The respondents and notice parties disputed that interpretation. They argued, among other things, that the pipeline was separately authorised and that the Board had considered relevant health and safety issues. The court noted that the Health and Safety Authority had advised on potential major accidents and recommended conditions, which the Board adopted. The Board had also sought further comment from the Authority during the appeal.
The judge rejected Harrington’s claim that the pipeline necessarily formed part of the “establishment” for the Directive. She distinguished a gas transport pipeline from pipework serving an installation and found that the materials before the court did not establish that the wider land or pipeline fell within the relevant definition. She also found no independent obligation on the Board to determine the establishment’s scope separately from the competent authority’s technical advice.
The judgment noted that planning conditions required an independent safety audit covering the combined pipeline and terminal before operation. It also found that Harrington had not shown that a different assessment of the pipeline would have changed the outcome, or established substantial grounds to contend that the permission was invalid.
The court dismissed the application for leave. It did not decide the delay issue separately, saying it would have found that Harrington had not moved promptly if necessary. It also made no specific findings on his subsidiary claim against Ireland and the Attorney General, but said no material or argument presented established substantial grounds to challenge the Directive’s transposition into Irish law. The judgment concerned permission to start proceedings; it did not quash or otherwise determine the validity of the planning permission in a full judicial review.