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 for reconsideration and it approved the scheme in November 2014.
In its challenge to the November 2014 decision, An Taisce claims the road project was not adequately assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
The case, before Mr Justice Robert Haughton, is expected to run for four days.
Opening the case, James Devlin SC, for An Taisce, outlined the core argument is that an environmental impact study should have been carried out on the full road project.
The 32km road project is significant in scale and the area of its location, the Dingle peninsula, 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 significant 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 An Bord Pleanála approved the scheme, it had no information on the impact of the project on a 4.2km stretch of the road between Annascaul and Gortbreagoge in terms of the habitat loss or on fauna. It is also claimed the hair pin bends are natural geological features. The 28 km project between Dingle and Annascaul, which remains 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 badly 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 with other vehicles, the judge noted.
