North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd & anor v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2019] IESC 8 (19 February 2019)

North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd & anor v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2019] IESC 8 (19 February 2019)

The Board was not lawfully designated as competent authority under the PCI Regulation because such designation required a statutory act; however, this did not vitiate the planning permission granted under s.182B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as the planning decision was a separate statutory process. No objective bias arose from the Board's dual role, and there was no obligation to conduct a full EIA of alternatives. The Espoo Convention argument was not properly raised and did not affect the outcome.

Citation
[2019] IESC 8
Parties
Applicant/appellant: North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited; Applicant/appellant: Maura Sheehy; Respondent: An Bord Pleanala; Respondent: Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment; Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party/respondent: EirGrid Plc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Permission) / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires Doctrine, Objective Bias, Environmental Impact Assessment, Implementation of EU Regulations, Transboundary Environmental Obligations
Administrative Law Planning and Environmental Law European Union Law Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires Doctrine Objective Bias Environmental Impact Assessment Implementation of EU Regulations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited

Applicant/appellant

Maura Sheehy

Applicant/appellant

An Bord Pleanala

Respondent

Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent

EirGrid Plc

Notice Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning Permission) / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether An Bord Pleanala was lawfully designated as the 'competent authority' under the PCI Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the Board's dual role created objective bias
  3. 3 Whether invalid designation vitiated the planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Board was not lawfully designated as competent authority under the PCI Regulation because such designation required a statutory act; however, this did not vitiate the planning permission granted under s.182B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as the planning decision was a separate statutory process. No objective bias arose from the Board's dual role, and there was no obligation to conduct a full EIA of alternatives. The Espoo Convention argument was not properly raised and did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanala under s.182B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 upheld
  • No order for further EIA of alternatives