A member of a Co Waterford environmental group has lost an attempt to bring a High Court challenge to the granting of planning permission for a landfill development near Dungarvan.
It was claimed the proposed 25- hectare (62-acre) landfill development at Garrynagree would have an adverse impact on a rare, endangered and protected mussel species in the nearby Lickey river.
Margaret Power of the Lickey Concern Group argued that the landfill would affect the freshwater pearl mussel which is extinct in many parts of Europe and is protected under the European Commission habitats directive. It was said to flourish in the Lickey, particularly in the area adjacent to the proposed landfill.
Ms Power contended that the conservation of freshwater pearl mussels was a matter of community importance.
An Bord Pleanála, in granting permission, had made a decision which was in conflict with EU law and appeared to ignore the recommendations of an inspector who carried out an environmental impact assessment on the development, whose existence at all was contrary to the habitats directive.
The court heard that the European Commission had written to the Government in March 2004 saying it was not convinced that the proposal of Garrynagree as a suitable waste-disposal site was consistent with EU legislation and it took the view that Ireland had failed to fulfil certaiobligations under the relevant European waste directive.
However, in December 2004 An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the landfill subject to a reduction in size.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Quirke said legislation introduced in 2000 required that "substantial" grounds be established before the court could grant leave to bring a judicial review challenge to certain planning decisions.
Ms Power had not established any substantial grounds to support her claim that the granting of permission by the board had breached various directives.
The courts could not intervene to quash decisions of administrative tribunals unless there was evidence of illegality in the making of those decision, the judge said. The function of the court was to determine whether the decision was legal, not whether it was correct. There was no evidence of illegality in this case.
The board had considered a substantial amount of evidence and material, including from experts on the pearl mussel. It was not obliged to accept the view of an expert that the development would adversely affect the pearl mussel.
No evidence had been adduced indicating whether the Government took the opportunity to submit observations to the European Commission relating to what it had said about the development, the judge also said.
Nor was evidence adduced indicating that the commission took action against Ireland alleging any breach of EU law in relation to the landfill. In those circumstances, he could not agree that the view expressed by the commission comprised a substantial ground for leave.
Ms Power had also failed to establish substantial grounds for her claim of a breach by the board of the commission regulations on environmental impact assessments, Mr Justice Quirke held.