EU rules against Ireland on planning

IN a judgment which could have far-reaching implications, the EU has ruled that Ireland had wrongly interpreted the requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for certain planning projects.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) took the action because it claimed the Irish Government’s implementation of the EIA directive was deficient.

Officials in Brussels argued that Ireland relied exclusively on size as the reason for determining whether an EIA should be carried out for certain kinds of projects.

However, the European Commission said the directive required other factors to be taken into account, such as location, the sensitivity of the geographical area and the potential impact on landscapes of historical and archaeological significance.

Commission lawyers claimed Irish law which set thresholds based on the size of a project, failed to take account of sensitive locations.

They claimed projects which required the removal of hedgerows were not subject to an EIA because Irish environmental legislation did not recognise that their removal was liable to have an adverse effect on the bio-diversity of the countryside.

Ireland was also criticised for the lack of selection criteria applied to trial fish farms as Irish law only required an EIA to be conducted if the Minister for the Environment felt such aquaculture projects would have significant effects on the environment.

However, lawyers for the Government insisted that the commission had misinterpreted the scope of the Irish legislation. They claimed that while certain classes of development were exempted from needing an EIA because of size, such an exemption was not applicable to projects that could have significant effects on the environment.

However, the ECJ ruled that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by the manner in which the Government had transposed it into Irish law.

Reacting to the judgement, Labour MEP, Prionsias de Rossa, called on the Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, to carry out a full review of the legislation for EIAs.

“This is the third occasion in two years in which the Government has been found to be at fault in relation to the EIA directive,” he said. He pointed out the Government was also facing challenges over incomplete EIAs on incinerators, industrial plants and major archaeological sites.