Environmental Trust Ireland v an Coimisiún Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice David
• Judgment Date: 19 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 387
• Docket Number: Record No: 2025/754JR

In the Matter of Section 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, As Amended

Between:

Environmental Trust Ireland

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Aughinish Alumina Ltd

and

Limerick Alumina Refining Ltd

Notice Parties

[2026] IEHC 387

Record No: 2025/754JR

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Strategic infrastructure development – Planning permission – Applicant seeking certiorari quashing the respondent’s decision to grant strategic infrastructure development planning permission to the first notice party – Whether the respondent failed to have regard to the development plan

Facts: The applicant, Environmental Trust Ireland (ETI), applied to the High Court seeking certiorari quashing the impugned decision of the respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Commission), made on 31 March 2025, to grant Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) planning permission under s. 37G of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to the first notice party, Aughinish Alumina Ltd (AAL), for a proposed development at Aughinish Island, County Limerick (where it operated an alumina refinery). Much of Core Grounds 1 and 2, and all of Core Ground 12, were not pursued. The remaining Core Grounds were as follows: Core Ground 1A-E and Core Ground 2A-F – procedural issues; Core Ground 3 – Bauxite Residue Disposal Area (BRDA) seepage risk; Core Ground 4 – material contravention (flooding); Core Ground 5 – heavy metal concentrations in groundwater; Core Ground 6 – material contravention of the development plan (no ecological impact assessment); Core Ground 7 – the cumulative effect of quarrying; Core Ground 8 and Core Ground 9 – the bottlenose dolphin (strict protection and assumption of habituation); Core Ground 10 – out of date environmental reports; and Core Ground 11 – environmental impact assessment (AAL’s failure to put information before the Commission).

Held by Holland J that all grounds of challenge would be dismissed save that: (a) on Core Grounds 1 and 2, he would grant relief declaratory of breaches of ss. 111 and 146 of the 2000 Act – he invited ETI and the Commission to agree the terms of such declaration and he would hear them on that issue if needs be; (b) he would quash the impugned decision on Core Ground 3, as irrational for want of an evidential basis for the conclusion that basal seepage through the base of the BRDA would continue to be negligible during the construction/operational phase of the proposed development, before its closure in or about 2039, and on Core Ground 4, for the Commission’s failure to have regard to the development plan, in particular its Strategic Flood Risk Assessment in Development Plan, within the meaning of the Flood Risk Guidelines, as to flood risk. For the avoidance of doubt, Holland J held that this judgment did not find that the proposed fevelopment posed unacceptable risk as to either flood risk or risk of seepage of alkaline effluent through its base. He held that those were issues for the Commission to decide, not the courts. Holland J held that it was, rather, a decision that, as a matter of law, further and better consideration of those issues was required to inform a lawful decision whether the proposed development should be permitted.

Holland J provisionally considered that the impugned decision, as quashed, should be remitted to the re-decision of the Commission and that ETI should have costs. Holland J would hear the parties in both respects.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David HOLLAND DELIVERED 19 JUNE 2026

Contents

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND DELIVERED 19 JUNE 2026	1
INTRODUCTION	4
Chronology of Planning Application	11
What this Case is Not About	13
Pleadings in Judicial Review	13
IMPUGNED DECISION	14
10 CORE GROUNDS — Listed	15
PRELIMINARY ISSUES & PLEADING OBJECTIONS	17
Opinion Evidence of Michelle Hayes	17
Expert Evidence of Mary Kate Bolger	19
Pleading Objections	20
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS – MERITS, IRRATIONALITY, EXPERT EVIDENCE, GLOSSARY & RUSSIAN DOLLS	20
CG 1 & 2 – PROCEDURAL ISSUES	25
Statutory Context	25
Destruction of Initial Inspector's Report	26
Computerised Records	26
Breach of s.111(7) PDA 2000 – Duty to Keep Records of Meetings	30
A Concatenation	30
Breach of s.246 PDA 2000 — Initial Inspector's Report – A Document “Relating to the Matter”?	30
Declarations	33
CG3 – BRDA SEEPAGE RISK	35
CG3 — ETI Pleadings & Position	35
CG3 — Commission & AAL Position	36
CG3 — Seepage – Materials Before Commission & Rationality of Impugned Decision	37
CG3 — Decision	45
CG3 – Postscript – Seepage Travel Time & Soft Spots	45
CG4 — FLOODING	46
CG4 — ETI Pleadings & Position	47
CG4 — Flood Risk Guidelines	50
Flood-Vulnerability of Proposed Development	51
Flood Zoning	51
Flood Risk in Planning Permission Applications — SSFRA	53
Flood Zoning absent explicit Flood Zoning & SSFRA in Flood Zone C	54
Some Comment on Flood Risk Guidelines	55
CG4 — Development Plan & SFRA as to Flooding	56
Policy CAF P5, Managing Flood Risk & Objective CAF O20, Flood Risk Assessment	56
SFRA, §4 Identification of Flood Risk, §5 Policy Response (FRA Requirements)	57
CG4 — Conclusions as to Development Plan/SFRA Flood Risk Requirements	61
CG4 — EIAR on Flooding	63
EIAR — Engineering Design Report	63
EIAR Chapter 10 – Hydrology & Hydrogeology	65
EIAR Chapter 8 — Soils, Land & Geology	72
EIAR Chapter 16 — Major Accidents	72
EIAR Chapter 17 — Climate	76
CG4 — LCCC on Flooding	77
CG4 — An Taisce Observation	78
CG4 — AAL Response to An Taisce	79
CG4 – Impugned Decision & Inspector's Report, February 2025.	79
CG4 – Commission position	86
CG4 – AAL Position	87
CG4 — Flooding – Discussion & Decision	88
Groundwater Flooding	88
Flood-Zoning the Site	88
Climate Central Map	89
Irrationality & Material Contravention	90
Failure of Regard to 2022 Development Plan	90
Discretionary Relief	98
Decision	100
CG5 – HEAVY METALS IN GROUNDWATER	100
CG5 – ETI's Plea & Submissions	100
CG5 – Commission & AAL Position	102
CG5 — Inspector's Report	103
Conceptual Site Model, NIS & EIAR	104
CG5 – Discussion and Decision	108
Irrationality	108
WFD	111
Heavy Metals — Conclusion	114
CG6 – NO ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT — MATERIAL CONTRAVENTION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN — FLORA	115
CG6 – ETI's Plea & Submissions	115
CG6 — Commission & AAL Position	115
CG6 – Evidence	116
CG6 – Flora — Decision	118
CG7 – CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF QUARRYING	118
CG7 – ETI'S PLEADINGS & SUBMISSIONS	118
CG7 — Commission & AAL Position	120
CG7 – Application for Permission, NIS, EIAR	121
CG7 – 2 MMRAs	122
2020 MMRA	122
CG7 — IEL	125
CG7 — Submissions to Commission, Inspector's Report/Impugned Decision	127
CG7 – Evidence	131
Duffy	131
Smyth & Corrigan	132
Bolger	133
Fennessy	139
CG7 – Discussion & Decision	141
The Plea	141
Onus of Proof/RAS Medical & Choice of Baseline	142
Blast Noise Cumulation Mechanisms	143
Habitat Directives – Disturbance	144
G7 — Irrationality & Decision	146
CG8&9 BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN – STRICT PROTECTION & HABITUATION	146
CG8&9 – Consideration Together	146
CG8 – Strict Protection of Bottlenose Dolphins	147
CG8 — Considered Discretely — Strict Protection — Decision	150
CG8 – Article 12, Habitats Directive & Development Consent	150
CG9 — Habituation of Bottlenose Dolphins – Introduction & Inspector's report	154
CG9 — Habituation of Bottlenose Dolphins – ETI's Position	155
CG9 — Habituation of Bottlenose Dolphins — Commission & AAL Position	156
CG9 – Habituation of Bottlenose Dolphins — Discussion & Decision	157
CG10 — ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS OUT OF DATE	160
CG11 – EIA & AA — INFORMATION INCOMPLETE	160
CG10 – ETI's Pleadings — Irrationality	160
CG11 — Context	161
CG11 — ETI's Pleadings & Submissions	162
CG10&11 – Commission & AAL Position	164
CG10 & 11 – Discussion & Decision	166
CG10 — Legal Character of the Plea	166
Law — Information required for EIA – Comprehensive & Up-to-Date	166
G10 — Letter of 13 December 2023	168
CG11 — As Pleaded	172
CG11 — Undisclosed Information & Duty to Update	172
CG11 – Decision	173
CG11 – MRRA 2023 & EPA Site Visit Report 2024	173
CONCLUSION	176
Glossary of Acronyms	177

INTRODUCTION 1

1 ETI 2 seeks certiorari quashing the “Impugned Decision” of the Commission, 3 made on 31 ^st March 2025, to grant SID 4 planning permission under s.37G PDA 2000 5 to the first Notice Party (“AAL”) for a “Proposed Development” at Aughinish Island, County Limerick (where it operates an alumina refinery), such development to include: 6

• • Vertical expansion of its existing 184 ha Bauxite Residue Waste Area (“BRDA” 7) from its existing maximum permitted height of 32mOD 8 to 44mOD to enable annual deposition of up to 1 million m ³ of bauxite residue, (a waste product of alumina 9 refining – also known as “red mud” and consisting mainly of oxides of iron, aluminium and titanium) with a projected total deposition of about 8 million m ³ to closure of the BRDA in about 2039. 10

• • Vertical expansion of its existing Salt Cake Disposal Cell (“SCDC” 11), within the BRDA, containing dissolved salt cake (caustic liquor leachate) from a maximum height of about

  29mOD to about 31.25mOD 12 to allow disposal of an additional 22,500m ³ of salt cake. 13 Salt cake is also a waste product of alumina refining. About 27,000m ³ of rock fill will...