Planning dispute referred to Europe

GALWAY BYPASS:THE SUPREME Court has agreed to refer to the European Court of Justice key issues in a legal dispute over An Bord Pleanála's go-ahead for the €317 million Galway city outer bypass road.

The referral to Europe means the proposed road project faces further delays.

The five-judge court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, yesterday granted the application for referral made by the State and by environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman.

An Bord Pleanála, which granted approval for the road project in late 2008, and Galway City Council had opposed referral.

Friends of the Irish Environment have welcomed the decision. “This first referral of an Irish environmental case to the European Court will greatly strengthen environmental protection in Ireland.”

The Chief Justice, referring to Galway City Council’s concern about incurring a further €2.8 million expenditure next month through having to restart the compulsory purchase process because existing consents will lapse, said it was a matter for the legislature that compulsory purchase laws did not cater for such situations.

The European Court of Justice will now be asked to clarify provisions of the EU habitats directive and the sides have been given two weeks to draft appropriate questions for that court. The final decision on the exact question to be referred will be made by the Supreme Court.

The case centres on the interpretation of article 6.3 of the habitats directive which stipulates that any plan likely to have a significant effect on a protected site must be appropriately assessed as to its implications for the site’s conservation objectives.

Article 6.3 also prohibits approval of any plan which adversely impacts on the “integrity” of the site.

In allowing the bypass, An Bord Pleanála found the road would have a “localised” severe impact on the Lough Corrib Special Area of Conservation but would not adversely affect the “integrity” of the site.

The Attorney General disagreed and argued that, as the project involved the destruction of some protected limestone paving which could not naturally renew itself, this breached Article 6.3.

The State says the board appeared to have taken the view that the integrity of the site was not breached because only a portion of the protected site was affected. However, the State believes the directive contains a systematic prohibition on doing anything causing permanent deterioration to a protected habitat.

The State wants the European court to define what is meant by “adverse impact” on the “integrity” of a protected site and particularly to define what is meant by “integrity”.