New Dursey Island cable car planning challenged by environmental group

The current cableway facilitates the operation of a single six-person cable car used by about 20,400 visitors each year, according to planning documents. The two new cable cars would be able to carry 15 people each, with monthly users capped at 5,000. Picture: Denis Minihane

An environmental group has launched a High Court challenge seeking to quash planning permission for the development of a new cable car system connecting Co Cork’s Beara Peninsula and Dursey Island.

An Bord Pleanála gave Cork County Council the go-ahead in November last for the decommissioning of the existing cableway structure and the construction of a new two-way cableway, with operating stations and a mainland exhibition centre, cafe and car park.

The current cableway facilitates the operation of a single six-person cable car used by about 20,400 visitors each year, according to planning documents. The two new cable cars would be able to carry 15 people each, with monthly users capped at 5,000.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave leave to the Friends of the Irish Environment Limited (FIE), permitting it to proceed with its judicial review challenge over the planning permission. He adjourned the matter to a later date.

In a sworn statement, FIE director Kieran Cummins said the environment where the infrastructure is being placed is “highly sensitive”, with both the island and mainland sides captured within the Beara Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA).

He said he believed the popularity of photo-sharing social media sites such as Instagram had generated a “new level of interest in the drama and beauty” of Dursey Island in recent times.

FIE, represented by Oisin Collins SC, instructed by O’Connell & Clarke Solicitors, challenges the board’s decision on a number of domestic and European law grounds.

It claims the board “erred” in concluding that the development does not adversely affect the integrity of European sites when this allegedly could not have been ascertained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. 

It alleges the board does not scientifically justify its reasons for setting a monthly limit of 5,000 visitors and said the estimated 60,000 annual visitors was a “very significant increase” in traffic to Dursey island.

The applicant also claims the board failed to properly provide any actual assessment either in an Environmental Impact Assessment or Appropriate Assessment as required by national and European Union law.

Environmental effects

FIE notes that the board’s own inspector “opined negatively” about the environmental effects of the proposed development and recommended planning permission be refused on environmental grounds. 

In particular, FIE claims, the inspector recommended refusal due to the likelihood of significant adverse effects on the nearby Beara Peninsula SPA and Kenmare River Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Further, the applicant claims the board erred in assuming the chough – which is part of the crow family – is a ground nesting bird and not properly assessing the impacts of the proposed development on its nesting.

FIE also allege the decision is invalid due to it allegedly contravening the EIA and Habitats directives.

As well as a quashing order, FIE seeks various declarations, including that the State failed to properly transpose sections of the European Birds Directive by failing to put in place special conservation measures to ensure the survival and reproduction of the chough and gull-like Northern Fulmar birds in connection with the Beara Peninsula SPA.

FIE’s case is against An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General, while Cork County Council is a notice party.