North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd. & anor v An Bord Pleanala & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings concern a judicial review challenge to a decision made by An Bord Pleanála on 19th December 2016, granting planning approval under section 182B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for the North-South 400kV Interconnector development. This project involves a 400kV overhead line circuit approximately 138km in length, including about 34km in Northern Ireland, linking substations in County Meath and County Tyrone. The interconnector aims to provide a second high-capacity all-Ireland electricity interconnector. The applicants sought various reliefs, including orders of certiorari quashing the approval decision and declarations of breaches of EU Directives and constitutional rights. The procedural history involves extensive environmental impact statements, public submissions, a 35-day oral hearing, and a lengthy inspector's report.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether EirGrid requires the consent of landowners to make an application for approval under section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
2. Whether EirGrid is entitled to make the application for approval for the North-South Interconnector under section 182A.
3. Whether the designation of An Bord Pleanála as competent authority under the PCI Regulation was valid and whether this designation gives rise to bias or affects the validity of the decision.
4. Whether the decision of An Bord Pleanála complies with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Habitats Directive.
5. Whether the decision was affected by delay or considerations arising from Brexit.
6. Whether the planning decision contains an error on the face of the record concerning jurisdiction over development located partly in Northern Ireland.
7. Whether the assessment of access, alternatives, health impacts, and other environmental matters was adequate.
8. Whether the conditions attached to the approval, including those relating to access and liaison with landowners, were lawful and appropriate.
9. Whether the applicants have sufficient standing to bring claims on behalf of affected landowners (jus tertii).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework governing the planning consent process for strategic infrastructure developments under the Planning and Development Act 2000, particularly sections 182A and 182B. It examined whether EirGrid required landowner consent to make the application and concluded that the legislation does not mandate such consent. The court distinguished the decision in Frescati Estates v. Walker as inapplicable to EirGrid's statutory role as a transmission system operator empowered to carry out development without landowner consent, especially given the statutory powers of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) to acquire wayleaves and construct infrastructure.

The court analysed the relationship between EirGrid and ESB, supported by the Infrastructure Agreement, concluding that EirGrid, as the transmission system operator, is the entity intending to carry out the development, while ESB, as transmission system owner, undertakes construction under EirGrid’s direction. The court rejected arguments that the requirement for landowner consent arises from application forms or letters accompanying the application, finding these to be descriptive rather than prescriptive of legal requirements.

Regarding the designation of An Bord Pleanála as competent authority under the PCI Regulation (EU Regulation No. 347/2013), the court held that European regulations are directly applicable and binding without the need for implementing domestic legislation. It found that the designation by administrative letter complied with the regulation and that no legal infirmity arises from this process. Allegations of bias were rejected on the basis that An Bord Pleanála’s role as competent authority is largely administrative and coordinating, without substantive decision-making power that would affect impartiality.

The court addressed concerns about delay and Brexit, finding the delay issue irrelevant to the relief sought and Brexit considerations speculative at the time of the decision. It held that the decision was correctly made considering the UK’s EU membership status at that time and that no legal basis existed to invalidate the decision on Brexit grounds.

On environmental and planning matters, the court reviewed the inspector’s report and supporting evidence. It found that access routes, although not themselves subject to planning consent, were properly considered as part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The court upheld the imposition of conditions relating to access, construction management, and liaison with landowners as lawful and appropriate under the Boland criteria. It rejected arguments that the conditions unlawfully delegated decision-making or exceeded the scope of the application.

The court considered the adequacy of the assessment of alternatives, including undergrounding and route options. It found that EirGrid conducted a comprehensive evaluation consistent with the requirements of the EIA Directive and that the inspector’s acceptance of the overhead line as the optimal solution was well-founded. The court rejected the contention that a full EIA of rejected alternatives was required.

Health impact concerns, including electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, were addressed through extensive scientific evidence and expert reports. The court accepted the inspector’s findings that the development complies with international guidelines and that no causal link between exposure and health effects was established.

The court found no merit in arguments that the planning decision unlawfully included development in Northern Ireland or that the applicants had standing to advance claims on behalf of third parties.

Holding and Implications

The court refused all relief sought by the applicants.

The court held that there is no legal requirement for landowner consent for applications made by EirGrid under section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It affirmed that EirGrid is entitled to make the application as the statutory transmission system operator, with ESB undertaking construction under statutory powers. The designation of An Bord Pleanála as competent authority under the PCI Regulation was lawful and did not give rise to bias or invalidate the decision. The environmental assessments, including access, alternatives, and health impacts, were adequate and supported by extensive evidence. The planning conditions imposed were lawful and appropriate. Finally, the applicants lacked standing to assert certain claims on behalf of affected landowners.

No new precedent was set; the decision confirms the application of existing legal principles to planning consent processes for strategic infrastructure developments involving public utilities and the direct applicability of EU regulations in such contexts. The direct effect of the ruling is to uphold the planning approval granted to EirGrid for the North-South Interconnector project.