Ryanair dropped claims that An Bord Pleanála failed to adequately consider the Government’s 2023 Climate Action Plan and obligations to carbon budgets and emission limits in its failed High Court challenge to the board’s decision to green light a €200 million underground cargo tunnel at Dublin Airport.
The airline also withdrew its claim that the board failed to consider the impact Dublin Airport Authority’s (DAA) development might have on bats.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the challenge in a judgment on Friday.
Ryanair’s challenge ultimately was grounded in the claim that the board’s permission was in breach of the European Commission’s Water Framework Directive, which aims to protect water quality and corresponding Irish regulations, as the appeals board did not ensure the project would not jeopardise the status of a body of surface water.
‘The motor industry is changing, but we’re here to stay’: BMW Ireland’s boss on EVs, innovation and the road ahead
If you worked in the UK there is an opportunity to boost your pension
Trump trade - a quick guide to US tariff plans
Declining birth rate means there will be fewer people of working age to support the growing number of pensioners
Mr Justice Humphreys rejected this argument, stating that the airline didn’t demonstrate any factual basis that the project “could have jeopardised the attainment of good water status”.
The judge also noted that a suggestion that under the Water Framework Directive, any planning permission granted must positively contribute to “the restoration of good status to any relevant water bodies lacks any authority whatsoever and is clearly unworkable”.
“A vast number of projects won’t contribute positively to water quality: the directive only requires that they don’t make things worse,” he said.
The airline also maintained in its challenge that the board did not recognise that the proposed development is inconsistent with the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan, as it requires the loss of two aircraft stands.
An Bord Pleanála’s inspector noted aircraft operations will be constrained during construction and until replacement stands are provided. The inspector said this is “clearly a significant issue for aircraft operators” but the “short-term” reduction in stands is not a reason to refuse permission.
Ryanair said there had been no more than an “expressed hope or intention” to relocate these stands after a separate application for planning permission is made. On that basis, it said, there was no evidence before the board that the loss of stands would be for only a short period.
While the judge said he tended to agree with parts of the Ryanair’s argument on this point, he said the airline relied on Section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in making this argument, a subsection that he said does not apply to cases of material contravention of local area plans.
Ryanair initiated the proceedings against An Bord Pleanála’s decision on the development in June 2024, asking the High Court to quash the decision. DAA was a notice party in the proceedings.
The DAA’s proposed 1.1km tunnel is to run beneath the “crosswind” runway. The operator has said the tunnel is needed to improve access and safety on the airfield and to facilitate segregation of aircraft and ground vehicles.
