Agency fights €65m road

A challenge by An Taisce over planning approval for a controversial €65m road widening scheme on the N86 road between Tralee and Dingle has opened before the Commercial Court.

An Taisce wants orders quashing a November 2014 decision of An Bord Pleanála granting approval for the scheme, proposed by Kerry County Council, to improve the road from Dingle to Annascaul and from Gortbreagoge to Camp Road.

The board previously refused permission for the scheme but that decision was overturned by the High Court in 2013. The matter was then sent back to the board and it approved the scheme in November 2014.

In its challenge to that decision, An Taisce claims the road project was not adequately assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.

Opening the case, James Devlin, for An Taisce, said the core argument was that an environmental impact study should have been carried out on the full project.

The 32km project is significant in scale and the area of its location had a high concentration of cultural heritage, he said.

While it may be considered the environmental impact on one section is not significant, the cumulative impact may be and may require a more comprehensive system of environmental impact assessment, he said. Small-scale impacts must be considered in the context of the overall scheme, he argued.

An Taisce claims, when the board approved the scheme, it had no information on the project’s impact on a 4.2km stretch between Annascaul and Gortbreagoge in terms of habitat loss or on fauna. It is also claimed the hairpin bends are natural geological features.

The 28km project between Dingle and Annascaul, which is on hold pending the outcome of the case, would see a straightening and widening of the road and part of the scheme east of Annascaul has been completed.

In his 2013 judgment overturning the board’s earlier refusal to approve the scheme, Mr Justice Peter Charleton cited a failure by the board to consider the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. Among the reasons the council advanced for the scheme was a plan to include a cycleway on each side of the road, plus a hard margin for maintenance and pedestrian use, the judge noted.

Upholding the council’s challenge to that refusal, Mr Justice Charleton said everyone agreed the road needed upgrading but the board’s view was the road should not be so wide as to be obtrusive on the landscape. Cars were to be accommodated but cyclists were to share the road, the judge noted.