7
THE HIGH COURT
DUBLIN
COURT NO. 12
Record No. 2017/344JR
BETWEEN:
HELENA MERRIMAN, MICHAEL REDMOND, ADRIENNE MCDONNELL, PETER COLGAN, ELIZABETH MCDONNELL, TREVOR REDMOND, PATRICIA DEIGHEN, MARGARET THOMAS, NOEL REILLY, HELEN GILLIGAN, JAMES SCULLY, FERGUS RICE, NOEL DEEGAN, VALERIAN SALAGEAN, SIDNEY RYAN, GREG FARRELL, SHEELAGH MORRIS, JIMMY O'CONNELL, SILE HAND, DECLAN MCDONELL, ELIZABETH ROONEY & DESMOND O'CONNOR
and
FRIENDS OF THE IRISH ENVIRONMENT CLG APPLICANTS
and
FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONDENT and
DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PLC FIRST NOTICE PARTY
and
IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SECOND AND THIRD
NOTICE PARTIESand
RYANAIR DAC FOURTH NOTICE PARTY
ACTION HEARD BY MR. JUSTICE BARRETT
ON FRIDAY, 13TH OCTOBER 2017 - DAY 7
Gwen Malone Stenography Services certify the following to be a verbatim transcript of their stenographic notes in the above-named action.
______________________ GWEN MALONE STENOGRAPHYSERVICES
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANTS: MR. JERRY HEALY SCMR. OISIN COLLINS BL
INSTRUCTED BY: O'CONNELL & CLARKE SOLICITORS
FOR FRIENDS OF THE IRISH ENVIRONMENT CLG: MR. JOHN KENNY BL
INSTRUCTED BY: FP LOGUE SOLICITORS
FOR FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL: MR. CONLETH BRADLEY SCMR. TIM O'SULLIVAN BL
INSTRUCTED BY: THE LAW AGENTMS. HELEN O'NEILL
FOR DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY: MR. GARRET SIMONS SC
MR. BRIAN KENNEDY SCMR. FINTAN VALENTINE BL
INSTRUCTED BY: ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS
FOR IRELAND & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: MR. DENIS McDONALD SC
MR. CIARÁN TOLAND SCMR. CHRISTIAN KEELING BLMS. SUZANNE KINGSTON BL
INSTRUCTED BY: CHIEF STATE SOLICITORS OFFICE
FOR RYANAIR DAC: MR. MARTIN HAYDEN SCMR. DAMIEN KEANEY BL
INSTRUCTED BY: PHILIP LEE SOLICITORS
COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to any other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
3
THE HEARING RESUMED ON FRIDAY,
13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 AS FOLLOWS:
REGISTRAR: The matter at hearing.
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. KENNY RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
MR. KENNY: Good morning, Judge. Judge, just before I
embark on the two remaining topics I just want to very
briefly refer back to two matters arising from my
submissions yesterday, and they are: Firstly, I would
ask the Court to just open volume 1 of the pleadings at
page 134. This arises in the context of my submissions
in respect of climate change and the document I have
brought the Court's attention to is the Inspector's
Report from 2007, when permission was originally
granted, and what was being discussed by the Inspector
at the relevant page is a submission being made by
Mr. Ian Lumley from An Taisce in relation to the
climate implications from the construction of the
proposed runway. And Mr. Lumley says, at the large
paragraph on the right-hand side of the page:
"Mr. Lumley, on behalf of An Taisce, presented an
in-depth statement/submission to WBQ on the issue of
emissions and climate change and the impact of the
aviation sector on same. He is of the opinion that the
relevant section of the EIS is entirely deficient in
addressing the issue. He contended that in declaring
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:01
11:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
4
that there would be no adverse impact on climate from
additional aircraft arising from the more than doubling
of the airports current capacity no validation or
reference was provided to substantiate that claim."
He then goes on to consider the implications of Kyoto
protocol and can I just bring the Court's attention to
the last paragraph on that page:
"While I fully acknowledge An Taisce's express view on
this issue and, indeed, accept the premise of Mr.
Lumley's presentation, I consider that the concerns
raised go far beyond the remit of this assessment in
terms of the acceptability or otherwise of a 3,110
metre parallel runway. In my opinion, the issue is of
strategic importance and must be tackled at national
and international level, from which clearly stated
policies and objective to address the concerns would be
formulated."
Then he goes on to say over the page:
"I do not consider that the current proposals can or
should fail on this basis."
The reason I am bringing the Court's attention to that
passage is not the veracity or the correctness of what
the Inspector or Mr Lumley said or otherwise, it is
simply this: That the inspector, and by extension the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
5
Board, purported to say in 2007: Well look, you have
made a submission on climate change but that's
something that has to be dealt with at an international
or trans-boundary level. In my respectful submission,
the Respondent, in this decision, has adopted a similar
if not the exact same position and I say the Respondent
is not entitled to do that because of the intervention
in the meantime of the 2015 Act.
The second clarification, in case it was less than
clear, Judge, when I was discussing the Pro-Baine
decision at the conclusion of my submissions on EIA, to
make it very clear, in my respectful submission, what
occurred in Pro-Baine was an extension of time with no
intervention in the physical landscape. The court said
if there had been an intervention in the physical
landscape then the obligation to submit an EIA arises.
In my respectful submission, there is both an extension
of time and an intervention in the physical landscape
and, in my respectful submission, the obligation to
submit an EIS and conduct an EIA must arise. In case
that was less than clear.
Judge, if I may move on to the Habitats Directive.
Before I open the law in relation to the Habitats
Directive, I think there is no dispute as between
myself and my Friends but that this runway, or this
proposed runway has never been assessed for the
purposes of the Habitats Directive. It wasn't assessed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:05
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
6
in 2007 and no assessment was conducted by the
Respondent in the course of the decision under
challenge. I am not making the case and I can't make
the case that it must have been subjected to an
assessment for the purposes of the Habitats Directive
in 2007. As the Respondents rightly say, I'm now out
of time to do that. And there is no such argument in
my submissions and there is certainly no such arguments
in Mr. Healy's submissions.
What I am saying is that if there was a failure to
conduct an assessment in 2007, when there should have
been such an assessment, there was an obligation on the
Respondents, in the first instance, and on this
honourable Court, in the second instance, to remedy
that defect. It is not simply a crude argument of
well, it didn't happen in 2007 and, therefore, it has
to happen now. At a subsequent consent stage, in my
respectful submission, the national authority, whether
as a Respondent to this Court, has to address any such
deficiency which it inherits from the earlier consent
procedure.
A useful summary of the applicable principles and the
applicable law is contained in the judgment of
Mr. Justice Finlay Geoghegan in Kelly -v- An Bord
Pleanála which is in, I believe, Book 2. It is at Tab
27, Judge. If I could bring the Court to paragraph 22,
it is on internal page 9 of the decision, where
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:06
11:07
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
7
Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan -- what was before the
Court in that case was an application by a wind farm
developer to develop a wind farm in Co. Roscommon. The
Board had conducted an Appropriate Assessment and there
was a dispute as between Mr. Kelly and the Board as to
the adequacy of that dispute. What the case really
boiled down to was: Were the reasons provided by the
Board adequate? That, obviously, does not arise in
this case, for the simple reason that there was no
assessment; ergo there was no reasons. But I think the
identification of Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan of the
applicable principles was useful. She starts at
paragraph 22:
"In these appeals, the third statutory requirement
imposed on the Board relates to its obligations and in
particular the carrying out of an appropriate
assessment pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats
Directive as implemented by Part XAB of the Planning
and Development Act. There is some dispute as to the
extent of the obligations imposed and in particular the
nature of the reasons which must be given by the Board.
Whilst the provisions of Part XAB are more detailed
than Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, it was common
case between the parties at the hearing that they are
intended to and do impose similar obligations on the
Board to those imposed by Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive as construed by reference to the case law of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
8
the Court of Justice.
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, insofar as
relevant, provides:
"6(2) Member States shall take appropriate steps to
avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the
deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of
species as well as disturbance of the species for which
the areas have been designated, in so far as such
disturbance could be significant in relation to the
objectives of this Directive.
6(3) Any plan or project not directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site but likely to
have a significant effect thereon, either individually
or in combination with other plans or projects, shall
be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site in view of the site's
conservation objectives. In the light of the
conclusions of the assessment of the implications for
the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4,
the competent national authorities shall agree to the
plan or project only after having ascertained that it
will not adversely affect the integrity of the site
concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained
the opinion of the general public."
And then she goes on the describe the overriding --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:09
11:09
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
9
that doesn't arise in this case and is not relevant.
Paragraph 25:
"As appears Article 6(3) envisages a two-stage process
which is implemented in greater detail by ss. 177U and
177V of the Planning and Development Act".
And she then goes on to describe screening and the
subsequent Appropriate Assessment. There was a dispute
in that case as to whether the Board was obliged to
first conduct a screening and then, ultimately, a full
Appropriate Assessment. Again, that doesn't arise in
this case. And if I might skip on to where she
discusses that particular element of the -- past that
particular element of dispute to paragraph 33 of the
judgment. Sorry, paragraph 32, Judge.
"Sub-section 177V(1) also expressly requires the
appropriate assessment to be carried out before consent
is given for a proposed development. Further
Sub-section (3) provides that "Notwithstanding any
other provision in this Act", the Board shall give
consent to a proposed development only after having
determined that the...proposed development shall not
adversely affect the integrity of a European site".
Sub-section (4) then "subject to the other provisions
of the Act" permits consent to be given where
modifications or conditions are attached and the Board
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
10
has determined that "the proposed development would not
adversely affect the integrity of the European site if
it is carried out in accordance with the consent and
the modifications".
33. As appears, the respective effects on the decision
making process of the Board of the environmental impact
assessment and the appropriate assessment (where both
have to be carried out by the Board prior to taking its
planning decision) are quite different. In carrying out
an environmental impact assessment, the Board is
required to conduct an examination, analysis and
evaluation of and identify the direct and indirect
effects of the proposed developments on the matters
specified in section 171A(1). However, the outcome of
that examination, analysis, evaluation and
identification informs rather than determines the
planning decision which should or may be made. The
Board has jurisdiction in its discretion to grant
consent regardless of the outcome of the EIA though of
course it impacts on how it should exercise its
discretion.
34. In contrast, the Board, in carrying out an
appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) and s.177V,
is obliged, as part of same, to make a determination as
to whether or not the proposed development would
adversely affect the integrity of the relevant European
site or sites in view of its conservation objectives.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
11
The determination which the Board makes on that issue
in the appropriate assessment determines its
jurisdiction to take the planning decision. Unless the
appropriate assessment determination is that the
proposed development will not adversely affect the
integrity of any relevant European site, the Board may
not take a decision giving consent for the proposed
development unless it does so pursuant to Article 6(4)
of the Habitats Directive. It is agreed that the
decisions made by the Board herein were not taken
pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.
Hence, for the purposes of these appeals, the Board was
precluded from granting consent for the proposed
developments unless, having conducted an appropriate
assessment in accordance with Article 6(3), as
construed by the Court of Justice of the European
Union, it reached a determination that the proposed
development will not adversely affect the integrity of
the European sites."
So I just pause there, Judge. The Court is comparing
and contrasting the exercises undertaken by consent
authorities for the purposes of EIA and for the
purposes of Appropriate Assessment. She states, and
there is no dispute about this, that EIA is a process
which informs the exercise of a consent authority's
discretion, but that whatever the result of that EIA
the consent authority would retain a jurisdiction to
grant consent for the proposed development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:13
11:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
12
On the contrary, under the Habitats Directive there is
no jurisdiction to grant permission for a proposed
development unless the consent authority has excluded
the possibility of significant effects on a European
site. And the content of what that consent authority
has to consider or the threshold which it must vault
was considered by Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan in the
following paragraphs. Could I just bring the Court
briefly to paragraph 35:
"35. The requirements of an appropriate assessment and
of the legal test that the proposed development "will
not adversely affect the integrity of a European site"
have been considered by the Court of Justice Waddenzee
(Case C-127/02) [2004] ECR I-7405, at para. 61 of its
judgment, it stated:
"...under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, an
appropriate assessment of the implications for the site
concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to
its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project
which can, by themselves or in combination with other
plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation
objectives must be identified in the light of the best
scientific knowledge in the field. The competent
national authorities, taking account of the appropriate
assessment of the implications of mechanical cockle
fishing for the site concerned in the light of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
13
site's conservation objectives, are to authorise such
an activity only if they have made certain that it will
not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That
is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt
remains as to the absence of such effects"."
She goes on then to consider other decisions, the
Commission -v- Spain and more recently at paragraph 37:
"....in Sweetman (Case C-258/11), provided further
guidance as to what is required of an appropriate
assessment at para. 44 where it stated:
"44. So far as concerns the assessment carried out
under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it should
be pointed out that it cannot have lacunae and must
contain complete, precise and definitive findings and
conclusions capable of removing all reasonable
scientific doubt as to the effects of the works
proposed on the protected site concerned..."
And then there is a reference to Commission -v- Spain.
"'It is for the national court to establish whether the
assessment of the implications for the site meets these
requirements'."
So, in short, the Habitats Directive requires consent
authorities to exclude the possibility of significant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
14
affect on a European site prior to the granting of
planning permission on the basis of the four points
summarised by the Court in Kelly at paragraph 40.
"(i) must identify, in the light of the best scientific
knowledge in the field, all aspects of the development
project which can, by itself or in combination with
other plans or projects, affect the European site in
the light of its conservation objectives. This clearly
requires both examination and analysis."
(ii) Must contain complete, precise and definitive
findings and conclusions and may not have lacunae or
gaps. The requirement for precise and definitive
findings and conclusions appears to require analysis,
evaluation and decisions. Further, the reference to
findings and conclusions in a scientific context
requires both findings following analysis and
conclusions following an evaluation each in the light
of the best scientific knowledge in the field.
(iii) May only include a determination that the
proposed development will not adversely affect the
integrity of any relevant European site where upon the
basis of complete, precise and definitive findings and
conclusions made the Board decides that no reasonable
scientific doubt remains as to the absence of the
identified potential effects."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
15
So that is the threshold which, in the ordinary course,
applies to both Local Authorities and on appeal to the
Board. I don't there would be any real dispute that
that would be the applicable law if, for example, the
proposed runway had made an application for planning
permission in 2017 and the matter ultimately ended up
before the Board and an appeal was taken. That would
be the applicable law. Which of course raises the
question: How is the law identified by
Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan applicable to a situation
where no application for permission was made and
instead an application under Section 42, which purports
to exclude any assessment or re-evaluation from taking
place?
I say there are a number of elements which the Court
has to consider. I can't make the case that the runway
should have been subjected to Appropriate Assessment in
2007. I can't give evidence to that effect. But what
I can do is ask the Court to consider the following
when the Court comes to ask itself the question: Was
there an oversight in 2007 which falls to be remedied
at this juncture? And I say the following facts are
relevant. there is no dispute but that the runway
project is a project for the purposes of Annex I of the
EIA Directive. My Friends may be able to correct me,
but I know of no Annex I project which has not been
subjected to, at least, screening for Appropriate
Assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
16
Secondly, the scale of the project. This is a 3,110
metre runway by 75 metres across, which will require an
investment of somewhere in the region of €400 million.
It is a vast project. Thirdly, within 15 kilometres of
the site of the proposed runway there are nine areas of
special areas of conversation and eight special
protection areas, and there are a number, two I
believe, within five kilometres of the site of the
proposed runway. Though I'm open to correction on that
point.
So I say when the Court is asking its the question:
Was there an oversight in 2007? And does that fall to
be remedied at this stage of the consent procedure?
The Court has to have its eyes open as to the scale of
the project which is before it.
In my respectful submission, if I could bring the Court
to Tab 12 of Book 1, Judge, it is the European
Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations
2011. Now, I'm bringing the Court to these regulations
not because they directly apply. In fact, obviously, I
have to concede that they don't apply to the decision
under challenge. But where they are relevant, Judge,
is that -- if I could bring the Court to Section 42,
which is on page 332 or internal page 89, where it
states at 42(1):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:24
11:24
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
17
"42. (1) A screening for Appropriate Assessment of a
plan or project for which an application for consent is
received, or which a public authority wishes to
undertake or adopt, and which is not directly connected
with or necessary to the management of the site as a
European Site, shall be carried out by the public
authority to assess, in view of best scientific
knowledge and in view of the conservation objectives of
the site, if that plan or project, individually or in
combination with other plans or projects is likely to
have a significant effect on the European site."
So these regulations cover, in essence, all
applications for plans or projects which don't involve
the Planning and Development Act 2000. So if I want to
do anything else other than apply for planning
permission, or, in this case, an extension to a
planning permission, I would fall under the ambit of
these regulations. And why I say they are relevant, if
I can bring the Court back to internal page 8, the
definition of "Consent" for the purposes of Section 42:
""Consent" includes any licence, permission, permit,
derogation, dispensation, approval or other such
authorisation granted by or on behalf of a public
authority, relating to any activity, plan or project
that may affect a European Site, and includes the
process of adoption by a public authority of its own
land use plans or projects."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:25
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
18
If I could then bring the Court on to the definition of
the term "project" which is at internal page 15 or page
258 of the booklet, the bottom right-hand corner of the
page.
""Project", subject to the exclusion, except where the
contrary intention appears, of any project that is a
development requiring development consent within the
meaning of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to
2011, includes...."
And we can skip on over the page.
"That are to be considered for adoption, execution,
authorisation or approval, including the revision,
review, renewal or extension of the expiry date of
previous approvals, by a public authority and,
notwithstanding the generality of the preceding,
includes any project referred to at subparagraphs (a),
(b) or (c) to which the exercise of statutory power in
favour of that project or any approval sought for that
project under any of the enactments set out in the
Second Schedule of these Regulations applies;"
And, obviously, I put heavy emphasis on the fact that
the definition of "project" for the purposes of these
regulations explicitly includes the renewal or
extension of the expiry date of previous approvals,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
19
which is exactly the position before this Court. And I
say that is relevant, Judge. There is something very
strange if an application for renewal or an extension
of an expiry date of a previous approval for the
purposes of all of the consents under this Act but not
under the Planning and Development Act. I say the
Court can and should consider the fact that the
legislature has adopted a position whereby extensions
of expiry dates to previous approvals have to be
subject to a fresh Appropriate Assessment, a fresh
screening for Appropriate Assessment at the very least.
So the final authority I wish to bring the Court to in
relation to Appropriate Assessment is that of the
Brussels Airport case which is at Tab 65 of book 3. In
this case the court was concerned with an application
for the extension of an airport in Flanders. The Court
ultimately decided, for reasons which don't concern us,
that it was not a project for the purposes of the
Directive. I should say, Judge, it is the EIA
Directive. I'm making an argument by analogy. And if
I bring the Court to paragraph 37 of the decision:
"If it should prove to be the case that, since the
entry into force of the EIA Directive, works or
physical interventions which are to be regarded as a
project within the meaning of the directive were
carried out on the airport site without any assessment
of their effects on the environment having been carried
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
20
out at an earlier stage in the consent procedure, the
national court would have to take account of the stage
at which the operating permit was granted and ensure
that the directive was effective by satisfying itself
that such an assessment was carried out at the very
least at that stage of the procedure."
In my respectful submission, that is exactly the
position before this honourable Court. In my
respectful submission, the Court is considering a
situation where there was no Appropriate Assessment in
2007, there was no Appropriate Assessment by the
Respondent in 2017. I say that the Court is entitled
to consider whether there should have been such an
Appropriate Assessment by reference to the scale of the
project, by reference to the number of European sites
in close proximity to the project. And if the Court is
of the view that this is a plan or a project which has
at least the potential for a significant effect on a
European site neither the Respondent, in the first
instance, nor this honourable Court, in the second, has
jurisdiction to give its imprimatur to the decision
under challenge. I say that if the Court of Justice
has identified a remedial obligation in respect of the
EIA Directive it follows that that remedial obligation
subsists with equal force in relation to the Habitats
Directive.
Judge, if I might bring the Court to my last
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
21
substantive point, which is that there is and should be
recognised by this honourable Court as a constitutional
right to an environment which is consistent with the
bodily integrity, right to life, water, food, and
dignity of the Applicants' members and the citizens at
large.
I say as a preliminary there is no dispute that the
construction of the runway will lead to an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions. The result of an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions will lead to an increase in
the pace of climate change. I say there is no dispute
but that an increase in the pace of climate change will
directly and irrevocably impinge on each and every one
of those rights I have just mentioned. In relation to
that submission, I rely on the passages opened
yesterday from the IPPC, the IPP special report on
aviation and the report of Professor Bows-Larkin.
I agree with my Friends when they say that the
jurisdiction of the High Court to recognise an
unenumerated right is a jurisdiction to be exercised
cautiously. But even recognising that or even
accepting that, I say it is time for this honourable
Court to engage in such recognition.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Where does that right end? I
mean, if I get into my car this morning I am adding to
greenhouse gases.
MR. KENNY: If you got into your car this morning you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
22
emitted greenhouse gases. Obviously, like all rights,
it is a right which exists in balance with and in
proportion with all other rights. It is not an
absolute right. There is no, as far as I'm aware, no
constitutional right which is absolute and it will take
its place in the constitutional hierarchy, in balance
with all other rights identified under, inter alia,
Article 40.3. There is no suggestion by my clients
that it would become invaluable, inalienable, or a
right which exists to subvert all other rights around
it.
I am conscious, Judge, that I'm asking the Court to
make a jurisprudential leap. But so too were Mrs. Ryan
and Mrs. McGee in their cases before the Supreme Court.
Neither Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. McGee could point to any
textual support for their submissions that there was a
right to bodily integrity and a right to privacy.
Where I say I differ from both Mrs. McGee and Mrs. Ryan
is that I can and do rely on a scientific consensus in
my favour. Unlike, for example, Mrs. Ryan, who lost
her case essentially because she couldn't prove that
fluoridation of water actually had the harmful effects
which she contended for, there is no scientific doubt
but that the ongoing pace of, for example, climate
change will impinge ultimately on the rights identified
by me earlier.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
23
I can also rely, Judge, on what I say is an emerging
jurisprudential convention; that it is appropriate for
the superior courts to recognise exactly this type of
right. Albeit the method by which it is recognised
will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In Europe the following countries have explicitly
recognised this right Albania, Andorra, Armenia
Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary,
Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and the Ukraine. I
would also add that 177 of 193 members of the United
Nations have similarly recognised the right. So I
respectfully suggest that Ireland is an outlier, along
with North Korea, Zimbabwe and Turkish Northern Cyprus,
in not having recognised the right.
So I say there is both a scientific consensus, I say
there is an emerging jurisprudential consensus and I
say that there is an emerging theological or
philosophical consensus.
I might refer the Court, slightly unusually, to the
Papal encyclical of May 2015, Laudato Si’. I'm going
to give a copy to my Friends.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: They are probably familiar with
it already!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
24
MR. KENNY: The class of the educated amongst my Friends
quite possibly (Same Handed). It is a very long
version, Judge, it is an 87 page document, I have only
given the Court three pages of it, but if I might bring
the Court to the second page, where Pope Frances states
at paragraph 20:
"Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily
experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces
a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the
poor, and causes millions of premature deaths. People
take sick, for example, from breathing high levels of
smoke from fuels used in cooking or heating. There is
also pollution that affects everyone, caused by
transport, industrial fumes, substances which
contribute to the acidification of soil and water,
fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and
agrotoxins in general. Technology, which, linked to
business interests, is presented as the only way of
solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of
seeing the mysterious network of relations between
things and so sometimes solves one problem only to
create others.
Account must also be taken of the pollution produced by
residue, including dangerous waste present in different
areas. Each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste
are generated, much of it non-biodegradable, highly
toxic and radioactive, from homes and businesses, from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
25
construction and demolition sites, from clinical,
electronic and industrial sources. The earth, our home,
is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile
of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly
lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered
with rubbish. Industrial waste and chemical products
utilized in cities and agricultural areas can lead to
bioaccumulation in the organisms of the local
population, even when levels of toxins in those places
are low. Frequently no measures are taken until after
people’s health has been irreversibly affected.
If I could bring the Court on to paragraph 23 overleaf:
"The climate is a common good, belonging to all and
meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex
system linked to many of the essential conditions for
human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates
that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming
of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming
has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea
level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme
weather events, even if a scientifically determinable
cause cannot be assigned to each particular
phenomenon."
That encyclical was welcomed by that well-known friend
of the Catholic Church, Professor Dawkins, who called
it "bold" and "thoughtful". It is not, in my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
26
respectful submission, an encyclical which reflects a
particular religious or dogmatic view point. It is, I
would respectfully suggest, an eloquent and thought
provoking encapsulation of an emerging philosophical
consensus that environmental degradation is occurring
at an accelerating pace; that that environmental
degradation is having a profound effect on us all and
on the poor and disadvantaged, in particular, and I
would say that that philosophical consensus should be
considered in tandem with what I have described as the
jurisprudential consensus and the scientific consensus.
Which brings me to how can or should the Court go about
the identification of what I accept would be a new
unenumerated right? And if I could bring the Court to,
and I apologise for handing in the cases loose, the
case of McGee -v- The Attorney General. I will give my
Friends a copy (Same Handed). If I could bring the
Court to the decision of Mr. Justice Walsh. The Court
will be familiar with the facts of McGee. Mrs. McGee
made the argument that she needed to access
contraceptives in order to enjoy conjugal relations
with her husband because if she became pregnant again
it posed a real and present risk to her life. She
argued that the statutory prohibition on the sale of
contraceptives breached her right to privacy and, in
particular, her right to marital privacy as between
herself and her husband. If I could pick up the
decision of Mr. Justice Walsh at internal page 315,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
27
where the Court goes on to consider the interaction as
between Mrs. McGee's alleged right to marital privacy
and her right to life. And Mr. Justice Walsh says:
"So far I have considered the plaintiff's case only in.
Relation to Article 41 of the Constitution; and I have
done so on the basis that she is a married woman but
without referring to her state of health. I now turn to
the claim, made under Article 40 of the Constitution.
So far as this particular Article is concerned, and the
submissions made thereunder, the state of health of the
plaintiff is relevant. If, for the reasons I have
already given, a prohibition on the availability of
contraceptives for use in marriage generally could be
justified on the grounds of the exigencies of the
common good, the provisions of s.1 of Article 40 (in
particular, the proviso thereto) would justify and
would permit the State to discriminate between some
married persons and others in the sense that, where
conception could more than ordinarily endanger the life
of a particular person or persons or particular classes
of persons within the married state, the law could have
regard to this difference of physical capacity and make
special exemptions in favour of such persons. I think
that such an exemption could also be justified under
the provisions of s. 3 of Article 40 on the grounds
that one of the personal rights of a woman in the
plaintiff's state of health would be a right to be
assisted in her efforts to avoid putting her life in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:50
11:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
28
jeopardy. I am of opinion also that not only has the
State the right to do so but, by virtue of the terms of
the proviso to s.1 and the terms of s.3 of Article 40,
the State has the positive obligation to ensure by its
laws as far as is possible (and in the use of the word
"possible" I am relying on the Irish text of the
Constitution) that there would be made available to a
married woman in the condition of health of the
plaintiff the means whereby a conception which was
likely to put her life in jeopardy might be avoided
when it is a risk over and above the ordinary risks
inherent in pregnancy. It would, in the nature of
things, be much more difficult to justify a refusal to
do this on the grounds of the common good than in the
case of married couples general."
Judge, I'm relying on that passage because, although,
clearly, Friends of Irish the Environment Ltd. are not
in -- or CLG -- are not in a position like that of
Mrs. McGee, I say that the members of Friends, and by
extension the wider population, are equally at risk, in
terms of their bodily integrity, from the environmental
degradation that is ongoing, that is accelerating and
by which the construction of the runway in these
proceedings forms a part. I say that the evidence
before the Court from the IPPC and Professor
Bows-Larkin can leave no doubt but that climate change
poses a real and immediate risk to, at least, the
bodily integrity of the Applicants' members and the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:52
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
29
citizens at large.
And if I could bring the Court just over the page to
where Mr. Justice Walsh considers under what
circumstances the court can or should recognise a new
unenumerated right. It is page 318, the paragraph
beginning: "In the pluralist society....", the Court
says:
"In a pluralist society such as ours, the Courts cannot
as a matter of constitutional law be asked to choose
between the differing views, where they exist, of
experts on the interpretation by the different
religious denominations of either the nature or extent
of these natural rights as they are to be found in the
natural law. The same considerations apply also to the
question of ascertaining the nature and extent of the
duties which flow from natural law; the Constitution
speaks of one of them when it refers to the inalienable
duty of parents to provide according to their means for
the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social
education of their children"
And he refers to the Article.
"In this country it falls finally upon the judges to
interpret the Constitution and in doing so to
determine, where necessary, the rights which are
superior or antecedent to positive law or which are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
30
imprescriptible or inalienable. In the performance of
this difficult duty there are certain guidelines laid
down in the Constitution for the judge. The very
structure and content of the Articles dealing with
fundamental rights clearly indicate that justice is not
subordinate to the law. In particular, the terms of s.
3 of Article 40 expressly subordinate the law to
justice. Both Aristotle and the Christian philosophers
have regarded justice as the highest human virtue. The
virtue of prudence was also esteemed by Aristotle as by
the philosophers of the Christian world. But the great
additional virtue introduced by Christianity was that
of charity, not the charity which consists of giving to
the deserving, for that is justice, but the charity
which is also called mercy. According to the preamble,
the people gave themselves the Constitution to promote
the common good with due observance of prudence,
justice and charity so that the dignity and freedom of
the individual might be assured. The judges must,
therefore, as best they can from their training and
their experience interpret these rights in accordance
with their ideas of prudence, justice and charity. It
is but natural that from time to time the prevailing
ideas of these virtues may be conditioned by the
passage of time; no interpretation of the Constitution
is intended to be final for all time."
So, Judge, I say that that last observation by
Mr. Justice Walsh is of particular relevance to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
31
submission I am making. If I had been making this
submission, perhaps, 20 years ago I don't think I would
have been able to point to a scientific consensus, I
don't think I would have been able to point to a
jurisprudential consensus, and I don't think I would
have been able to point to a philosophical consensus as
to the importance of the preservation of the
environment and what I say is the appropriateness that
be recognised within, at least, Article 40.3 of the
Constitution. But, in my respectful submission, in
2017, in the midst of the environmental maelstrom
identified by the IPPC, it was high time that this
court consider recognising a new unenumerated right to
an environment consistent with the bodily integrity of
its citizens.
I don't propose to engage in all of the arguments made
against me by, in particular, the State in relation to
this argument but I will just deal briefly with two of
the arguments made.
The first is that as a company -- and it is only a
company before the Court -- I am not entitled to plead
the existence of a personal right because a company
clearly doesn't -- and I accept this -- enjoy a right
to bodily integrity. But I say that that is not the
position. If I could bring the Court to a case which
is relied upon by my Friends which is Digital Rights
Ireland at book 2, Tab 39. It is a decision of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:58
11:58
11:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
32
Mr. Justice McKechnie. If I could bring the Court to
page 267 of that decision. What Digital Rights Ireland
was concerned with was an application made by Digital
Rights Ireland, which was a company, they were
asserting that various actions by the Minister for
Communications had interfered with a number of rights
which were held by the company, who was also a personal
applicant before the court. So the court was called
upon to consider was the company entitled to argue
personal constitutional rights which were also held by
the individual litigants. The discussion, insofar as
is relevant to this case, is not really concerned with
the facts in that case.
If I could bring the Court to paragraph 32 of
Mr. Justice McKechnie's decision. He refers to Cahill
-v- Sutton and Crotty -v- An Taoiseach, which relates
to the "locus standi of natural persons", which don't
concern us in this case.
"Where the plaintiff is a corporate body do different
considerations arise? This question was considered in
S.P.U.C. v. Coogan. Referring to his decision in A.G.
(S.P.U.C.) v. Open Door Counselling Ltd., Finlay C.J.
quoted at p. 741 from p. 623 of that judgment as
follows:- "If, therefore, the jurisdiction of the
courts is invoked by a party who has a bona fide
concern and interest in the protection of the
constitutionally guaranteed right to life of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
33
unborn, the courts, as the judicial organ of government
of the State, would be failing in their duty as far as
practicable to vindicate and defend that right if they
were to refuse relief upon the grounds that no
particular pregnant woman who might be affected by the
making of an order was represented before the courts."
He rejected as misconceived the defendant’s proposition
that this paragraph was qualified by reference to the
special position of the Attorney General, and
reaffirmed at p. 742 that the "broad statement of
principle contained in this paragraph remains
unqualified". The general test with regards to locus
standi at p. 742 should thus be:-
"That of a bona fide concern and interest, interest
being used in the sense of proximity or an objective
interest. To ascertain whether such bona fide concern
and interest exists in a particular case it is of
special importance to consider the nature of the
constitutional right sought to be protected"."
Picking it up again at paragraph 34, Judge.
"Whilst Walsh J. in the same case emphasised the nature
and importance of the right in question (the right to
life of the unborn), his comments in my view have a
broader application, especially when considered in
light of the rights claimed, in the case at hand. He
stated at p. 743:-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
34
'The question in issue in the present case is not one
of a public right in a classical sense ... but is a
very unique private right and a human right which there
is a public interest in preserving ... What is issue in
the case is the defence of the public interest in the
preservation of that private right has been guaranteed
by the Constitution. It is a right guaranteed
protection by public law as it is part of the
fundamental law of the State by reason of being
incorporated in the Constitution'.
The Judge further noted the exceptional importance of
access to the courts, which was essential to the
vindication of all other rights. Thus at p. 744 with
regards to the standing, 'the essential question is has
the Plaintiff a bona fide interest to invoke the
protection of the courts to vindicate the
constitutional right in question'. In relation to
Cahill -v- Sutton, he was of the opinion at pp. 746 to
747 that:-
'The decision ... is not of such sweeping application
as it is sometimes thought. It can be understood only
in the light of the narrow ground upon which the case
was presented and argued and on the possible injustice
of the Defendant...
It is quite clear ... that even in cases where it is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
35
sought to invalidate a legislative provision the Court
will, where the circumstances warrant it, permit a
person whose personal interest is not directly or
indirectly present or in the future threatened to
maintain proceedings if the circumstances are such that
a public interest warrants it. In this context the
public interest must be taken in the widest sense.'
Finally, as the Plaintiffs was a company limited by
guarantee, established for the sole object of
protecting human life, a question arose as to its right
to bring the application. Finlay C.J. notes at p. 742
that:-
'I would accept the contention that the Plaintiff could
not acquire a locus standi to seek this injunction
merely by reason of the terms of its articles and
memorandum of association ... However the particular
right which it seeks to protect with its importance to
the whole nature of our society, constitute sufficient
grounds for holding that it is a person with a bona
fide concern and interest and accordingly has the
necessary legal standing to bring the action.'
Whilst SPUC -v- Coogan did not involve a constitutional
challenge to any particular peels of legislation, there
is no, in my view, as to why it would not equally apply
to such a case. Therefore it would thus seem to me
that, in principle, a company should not be prevented
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
36
from taking proceedings to protect the rights of others
where, without otherwise being entitled, it has a bona
fide concern and interest, taking into account the
nature of the right which it seeks to protect or
invoke."
So if I just pause there, Judge. The SPUC decision was
a decision -- it was the Society for the Protection of
the Unborn Child Limited, it was a limited company
which asserted a right to intervene in, ironically
enough given what has happened in recent weeks, the
publication by UCG students of abortion literature.
They said that it imperilled the right to life of
unborn children. It was accepted by all parties that
SPUC itself, or the members of SPUC were not directly
affected by it. And yet, the Court said the rules of
locus standi, where there is a profound public interest
in the matter being litigated, have to be interpreted
in the widest possible sense. I say I fall squarely
within the standing accorded by the Supreme Court to
SPUC.
Mr. Justice McKechnie then goes on to consider a number
of particular rights. He discusses whether the company
was entitled to assert a right to privacy, to
communications, to travel, et cetera. In relation to
some of those rights he said: No, they did not vest in
the company and the company had no entitlement to
assert them. That, I believe, are the passages upon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
37
which my Friends will rely in due course. But, I say
this is significant at internal page 79 Mr. Justice
McKechnie's -- sorry, my apologies, at paragraph 79.
In a part of the judgment entitled: "Actio popularis"
the Court said, having considered all the individual
rights:
"Despite the foregoing, it may nevertheless be possible
for the Plaintiff to litigate matters which do not, or
cannot, affect it personally and especially in limited
circumstances. The seminal case in this regard is
Crotty -v- An Taoiseach, which is referred to in detail
at paragraph 31 supra. It is sufficient to recap that
the Plaintiff's inability to point to any prejudice
specific to him personally, as distinct from him as a
member of the public, did not deprive him of the
necessary standing.
However, as noted above, different considerations may
apply to limited companies. One of the primary
concerns of rules relating to locus standi is to
prevent those litigations who are meddlesome, frivolous
or vexatious from unduly burdening the Court and those
parties whom are sued. Therefore, cases should be
brought primarily by persons who have a particular
interest in subject matter. In striving to achieve
this outcome, the courts have available the deterrent
to impose cost orders as against the former group,
which may include companies with limited liability.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
38
However, there can be a concern if such litigants are
in fact merely straw men, or straw companies, behind
which the true litigants hide so as to evade any order
for costs which might ultimately be made against them.
In those circumstances the Court must examine the
nature of the company and its purpose, lifting the veil
if required, together with the surrounding
circumstances of the case and the right which it seeks
to vindicate.
The Supreme Court in SPUC -v- Coogan recognised the
right of the Plaintiff company to litigate to prevent a
breach of the Constitution where it is had a bona fide
concern and interest, with Finlay C.J. noting at p. 742
that:-
'To ascertain whether such a bona fide concern and
interest exists in a particular case it is of special
importance to consider the nature of the constitutional
right sought to be protected'."
And there followed then a discussion in relation to the
right to life which doesn't affect us here.
If I can skip down to paragraph 82:
"Similarly, Walsh J. at p. 744 said:-
'One of the fundamental political rights of the citizen
under the Constitution, indeed one of the most valued
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
39
rights, is that of access to the courts...'
He put it further at pp. 746 and 747:-
'It is quite clear from East Donegal Co-Op and
O'Brien -v- Keogh and other decisions that even in
cases where it is sought to invalidate a legislative
provision the Court will, where the circumstances
warrant it, permit a person whose personal interest is
not directly or indirectly or in the future threatened
to maintain proceedings if the circumstances are such
that the public interest warrants it'."
If I may skip on, Judge, to the Court's conclusions on
locus standi. At paragraph 91 on page 293 of the
judgment, where Mr. Justice McKechnie said the
following considerations were relevant as to whether to
grant, in this case Digital Rights Ireland locus to
argue a particular point.
"In coming to my conclusions, and in light of the case
law considered above, I have taken into account:-
(i) the Plaintiff is a sincere and serious litigant -
it is not a vexatious litigant or a crank;
(ii) this case raises important constitutional
questions;
(iii) the impugned provisions affect almost all of the
population;
(iv) it would be an effective way to bring the action -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
40
individual owners of mobile phones would be unlikely to
litigate the matter;
(v) the Plaintiff's rights of access to the Court, and
the Court's duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure
that suspect actions are scrutinised; and
(vi) the public good, which is being sought to be
protected."
Just in relation to each of those considerations,
Judge, there's no suggestion that my clients are not
sincere and serious litigants. They have been in being
for 20 years, advocating, sometimes in very difficult
circumstances, for environmental protection. There is
no suggestion by any of my Friends that they are
vexatious, that they are crank's, or that they are
busybodies. In my respectful submission, this element
of my case raises the most profound constitutional
questions. It affects not almost all, but all of the
population. It is an effective way to bring this
action. It is unlikely, it in my respectful
submission, that you would find an individual who will
take upon themselves the grave risk of engaging in High
Court proceedings to assert the existence of an
unenumerated right and if they are unsuccessful in that
application, they will face the consequences of losing
their home in order to satisfy a costs order against
them.
In relation to the last element I say there is a clear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
41
public good at the heart of the submission I make.
Judge, I said I was going to deal with two elements of
my Friends' objections. I have to confess I've
actually forgotten the second limb which I was going to
rebut given the length of time it took me on Digital
Rights Ireland. I'll obviously deal with whatever wish
points my Friends wish to make.
Judge, that concludes my submission in relation to the
existence of a constitutional right, which leaves me
with just two brief matters to address the Court before
I conclude.
I have adopted Mr. Healy's eloquent submissions in
relation to Dellway. I'm in a slightly different
position in relation to the argument that I have a
right to be heard. I am not, and I don't pretend to
be, in the position of homeowners whose houses are in
close proximity to the airport and who will be directly
affected by jumbo jets roaring over their homes if this
is built. But I say that I, equally, enjoy a right to
be heard on the basis that the proceedings before the
Court, in my respectful submission, represent a
profound interference with environmental protection and
it is that environmental protection which my clients
exist in order to promote and vindicate.
On a less esoteric basis I say that in Dellway itself -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:16
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
42
and I don't need to bring the Court to it, but at
paragraph 442 of Mr. Justice Fennelly's decision I say
he makes it clear that the right to be heard inhered in
both Mr. McKillen and the 14 companies which were
before him. I say at no point did the Court say:
Well, Mr. McKillen enjoys a personal right to be heard
but his companies don't. I also say that my clients
have a sufficient interest in the matters before this
Court for the purposes of Section 50A of Planning and
Development Act. There has been no suggestion by any
of my Friends that I don't have standing to bring these
proceedings. My Friends dispute my ability in relation
to various elements. There's been no suggestion, and
more to the point, no attempt by my Friends to suggest
that I have no standing or to revisit.
MR. BRADLEY: Sorry, Judge, that's not the case. We've
raised it in the decision of Mr. Justice Peart in
Coll -v- Donegal County Council.
MR. KENNY: My Friends disagreed that I have a right to
participate -- to be clear. My Friends are relying on
Coll in order to ground the argument that I don't have
a right, in my understanding, to participate. My
Friend will correct me in due course if I'm wrong in
that understanding. But more to the point, Judge, if I
didn't have a sufficient interest, presumably my
Friends would have brought a motion to undo or to
vacate the grant of leave by me by Mr. Justice Noonan.
And I say it would be odd, indeed, if I enjoyed
standing to bring these proceedings but not also a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
43
right to participate in the decision before the
Respondent before the decision was taken.
Finally, Judge, if I could bring the Court, I wrongly
said I wasn't going to bring the Court, but if I could
bring the Court to the Dellway decision to paragraph
315, I believe it's in Book 2, Judge, at tab 37. If I
could bring the Court to page 315 where Mr. Justice
Hardiman discusses a number of constitutional texts
between. Paragraphs 315 and paragraphs 324
Mr. Justice Hardiman discusses a number of
constitutional texts and reaches the conclusion, in my
respectful submission, that the right to be heard is
itself a constitutional right and it does not need to
be asserted in the defence of, for example, a property
right that subsists of itself. He quotes at paragraph
318, (internal page 284):
"One consequence of the elevation of the constitutional
right to be heard would plainly be that a statute, or
statutory regulations, requiring decisions to be made
following or unfair procedures would be presumptively
invalid. But such a suggestion is unlikely to occur
since, since it will usually be possible to read an
obligation to follow fair procedures into the relevant
permissions."
The reason why I rely on that passage, Judge, is I'm
not asserting a property right, unlike the Merriman
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
44
objectors. But I say that I have a freestanding
constitutional right to make a submission and that
there is no requirement for me to identify a material
interest of mine which will be directly affected by the
impugned decision in order for that right to be imputed
into the proceedings for the Respondent.
Finally, Judge, if I could bring the Court to the
decision, again opened at some length by my Friend,
Mr. Healy, in Lackagh Quarries, which is at Book 2 at
tab 38. Judge, there's a whole series of decisions
which my Friends have cited as to the sealed nature of
Section 42 which has mandatory consequences and which
exclude both myself and Mr. Healy from that process and
they've all been rehearsed at some length in my
Friend's submissions. Obviously I'll deal with those
points in reply but I would say this, Judge. All of
those decisions, every single one of them, presumes
that Section 42 is congruent with the Constitution and
with Habitats and the EIA Directives. Those issues are
central to this case and I say my Friends cannot rely
on jurisprudence which assumes the correctness of
exactly that which is under challenge in these
proceedings.
But the final point I wish to bring the Court's
attention to is at the end of the decision in Lackagh
Quarries, where at paragraph 122 onwards -- the Court
will recall from Mr. Healy's opening of the case that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
45
the permission which was granted by An Bord Pleanála
was for ten years and then it was the understanding
that the quarry operator would have to reapply for
planning permission.
The quarry operator sought to, in fact, apply for a
fresh grant of planning permission and it became clear
that the local authority was going to require that a
fresh EIA had to be submitted. And the correspondence
is discussed at paragraphs 124 on to 127. I'll pick it
up at paragraph 128:
"The scoping of opinion..."
This is in relation to the proposed new application for
planning permission.
"The scoping opinion sought from the Planning Authority
was then furnished on 21st September 2009. In that
opinion, the Respondent made it known that an EIS,
which merely updated that which was provided in 1999,
would not be sufficient and that it would be necessary
to fully re-examine the environmental impact of the
continued use of the quarry, given the change in
circumstances that had occurred since the 1999
decision. These were stated to include inter alia the
adjacent area of conservation, the Galway City outer
bypass, the change in environmental legislation,
changes in the Galway City Development Plan 2005-2011,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
46
the Habitats Directive and the Galway City Heritage
Plan. These appear to be precisely the concerns which
it was intended to protect by the insertion of
Condition No. 2 in the original planning permission and
which considerations clearly the applicant was
determined to avoid in circumstances where it did not
pursue further an application for fresh planning
permission but rather lodged its application under
Section 42. In adopting this approach, the Applicant
has sought to frustrate the objectives of the Board
which granted the planning permission in 1999, which
was to ensure that the consequences of ongoing
quarrying to the amenities of the area could be
reassessed after ten years of quarrying. The Applicant
also sought to renege upon the terms of the agreement
in respect of which he gas been the beneficiary, both
financially and otherwise, for upwards of nine years."
He ultimately refused the quarry operator the relief
sought. I'm not accusing anybody of reneging on
anything but what I am saying, Judge, I'm inviting the
Court to, if it comes to the point where this Court is
considering whether it should exercise its discretion
in favour of the Applicants, having determined that
there was in fact a breach of one or more of the
Directives or having accepted one or more of the points
made by the Applicants, I'm going to invite the Court
to consider whether it was appropriate for the DAA to
commence works, nine working days prior to seeking an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
47
extension of time under Section 42 in circumstances
where it must have known that the commencement of works
would preclude the Respondent from assessing whether
the runway should have been subject to an appropriate
assessment. I put it no higher than that. Subject to
the Court, they are my submissions.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you very much. You know, I
used to enjoy going to the airport!
SUBMISSION BY MR. McDONALD:
MR. McDONALD: Judge, it has been agreed that I would
go next. I think Mr. Bradley may have some difficulty
in going first so I have got the task of responding to
the submissions of the Applicants.
Of course it's not ideal that I go first because I
wasn't a party to any of the things that happened
either in 2007 or indeed in 2017 but I have gleaned, I
suppose, some of the story from the materials which are
before the Court and I will be referring to those in
due course.
Just before I start at all, Judge, I do want to pay
tribute to the submissions that have been made by
Mr. Healy and Mr. Kenny. They were, if I may say so,
submissions made with great clarity; they were
appealing submissions; and they were attractive
submissions. I also want to say that particularly the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
48
Applicants in the Merriman case have a particular
appeal. They are local landowners and homeowners
immediately to adjacent to the airport. But I do have
to suggest that the operation of the Planning Code may,
from time to time, have very unwelcome consequences for
people. One can imagine, for example, people who are
living beside the route of a new motorway, people
living beside the route of the Luas line if within
earshot of a motorway or a Luas line, very unwelcome
developments for them but those who use the motorway
and those who use the Luas line, or indeed those who
useless the airport these are very, very welcome
facilities from their perspective. And what might be a
nuisance to one person can be a vital facility to
another or indeed a vital facility to the State. Going
back to the times of the construction of fever
hospitals, you know, there can be public utility behind
a particular development. I will be drawing attention
to the fact that in this case, this isn't a development
that is being constructed for private gain, it is a
development that is being constructed in accordance
with the whole series of local plans and regional plans
and county development plans that have been in place
for a long period of time. And it does, I think, in
the context of the constitutional rights which are
asserted, that is of significance in our respectful
submission because, as the Supreme Court has
acknowledged, and Mr. Justice Fennelly in particular in
the Dellway case, planning decisions are of general
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
49
effect and they do not always engage -- the fact that
somebody is a property might be affected does not mean
that their property rights are engaged by a planning
decision. I do think it's important and we will
address this in more detail later, I do think it's
important to bear in mind the very significant
distinction the Supreme Court makes in Dellway between
decisions of general application such as planning
decisions and decisions such as that in the Dellway
case itself, which were particular to Mr. McKillen and
his companies.
Now, I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself in relation
to that. I will want to address, in very broad
outline, the constitutional issues. I should say
Mr. Toland will be following me, with the Court's
permission, and he will deal specifically with the
constitutional issues and also with the issues in
relation to the Convention on Human Rights to the
extent that they are being pursued. I will just
outline, in very broad terms, what our case is. But I
am getting ahead of myself because there is one issue
about which I am, I have to say, quite exercised and
it's the issue that was ventilated at the beginning of
Mr. Kenny's submissions yesterday; the submission
there's been a lot lack of candour on the part of the
State. Mr. Kenny, and I'm very grateful to him was
very careful to suggest it wasn't a lack of candour on
the part of counsel and I'm extremely grateful for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
50
that, but the suggestion that thee's been a lack of
candour on the State's part is something that I must
address at the outset. It's a grave allegation to be
made against the State. And with due respect to
Mr. Kenny, for whom I have much admiration, having
regard to the clarity of his submissions, with due
respect to Mr. Kenny I suggest it is an allegation that
is without foundation.
Can I just, I suppose, say at the outset that the first
time this issue was raised was not in any affidavit or
pleading in the case, it was raised in the submissions
that were delivered on behalf of the Applicants in the
Friends proceedings. It wasn't pleaded. It's nowhere
on affidavit and for that reason it hasn't been
addressed on affidavit by the State Respondents. But I
do say, as I said a few moments ago, it's an unfounded
allegation, it's an inappropriate allegation and there
are a number of reasons for suggesting that. The first
is that the words of the Minister are taken out of
context. All you have before you are three or four
lines from a much longer speech. When seen in context,
it's more likely, I would suggest, although I'm not
asking the Court to make any finding in relation to
this, but it is more likely that they relate to the new
provisions of the 2014 EIA Directive. I'll come to
that. The more fundamental point we make is that it is
impermissible to refer two statements made by the
Minister in seeking to construe, or even understand the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:36
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
51
rationale or purpose of a particular piece of
legislation and fourthly there are sound policy reasons
why a court should not consider statements made by a
minister or any member of the House, in the course of
litigation.
The first case I want to refer to is one that was
referred to briefly by Mr. Kenny yesterday in relation
to this issue was the Crilly -v- Farrington decision
and while that was a decision that was solely concerned
with the interpretation of statutes, they do suggest to
the Court that the underlying rationale for the
decision is equally applicable whatever purpose you
want to use, including trying to suggest this is the
reason why this statute was introduced. If I might ask
the Court to look, it's in Book in am 3 and it's in tab
49 of Book number 3. There are just a few pages in the
judgment of the Supreme Court in that case that I think
are relevant.
We also want to refer to, in a moment, to a decision of
this Court that Mr. Simons provided with me, the case
of Hoey but I'll come to that in a moment. We have
copies of these additional authorities. It is a
decision, I should say, I will be suggesting that
something should be done about it but the Hoey case for
some reason hasn't gone into circulation given it is an
approved judgment. It doesn't have an IEHC reference,
or anything of that kind, but Mr. Simons had a copy of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:37
12:37
12:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
52
it.
MR. SIMONS: I have to credit Mr. Kennedy.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I don't remember it.
MR. KENNEDY: I lost it, Judge.
MR. McDONALD: I'm very grateful to both of them. If I
could ask you to look briefly at Crilly -v- Farrington,
it's at tab 9 of Book number 3. It's page 295. It is
under the heading "Role of the courts" and Mr. Kenny,I
think, has correctly observed that this is strictly
obiter but it's not a passing obiter dictum, it is
clearly a considered, well reasoned and, in my
respectful submission, a compelling obiter dictum, one
that I think any High Court Judge would be prepared to
follow and one which, in any event, has been repeated
in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, as this
Court observed in Hoey. Let's just look at what
Mr. Justice Murray said at page 295 under that heading.
He said:
"As has often been said by this court, the courts are
one of the organs of government, the judicial organ of
government, referred to in Article 6 of the
Constitution. Included in their role is the task of
applying Acts of the Oireachtas in justiciable disputes
between citizens or between a citizen and the State and
for that purpose to interpret them. It is frequently
said that in interpreting Acts of the Oireachtas the
court seeks to ascertain the 'intent' of the
legislature or as Blackstone put it at p. 59 of his
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
53
Commentaries 'the will of the legislature'. The phrase
'intent of the legislature' is, on a casual view,
ambiguous because it does not expressly convey whether
it is the subjective intent or the objective intent of
the legislature which is to be ascertained.
Manifestly, however, what the courts in this country
have always sought to ascertain is the objective intent
or will of the legislature. This is evident for
example from the rule of construction according to
which when the meaning of the statute is clear and
definite and open to one interpretation only in the
context of the statute as a whole, that is the
meaning to be attributed to it. There has never been
any question of examining the statute further in the
light of external aids so as to ascertain whether
parliament had an intent which it failed to adequately
express, at variance with that to be clearly found in
the statute."
He then refers to what Lord Nicholls said in the R -v-
Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Spath and
where Lord Nicholls said:
"Statutory interpretation is an exercise which requires
the court to identify the meaning borne by the words in
question in the particular context. The task of the
court is often said to be to ascertain the intention
of parliament expressed in the language under
consideration. This is correct and may be helpful, so
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:40
12:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
54
long as it is remembered that the 'intention of
Parliament' is an objective concept, not subjective."
I do place something emphasis on that.
"The phrase is a shorthand reference to the intention
which the court reasonably imputes to Parliament in
respect of the language used. It is not the subjective
intention of the minister or other persons who promoted
the legislation."
Of course that's manifestly so. The Minister is only
the person who introduces the piece of legislation. It
then becomes discussed and debated in the House and
it's the House which ultimately votes on and approves
the legislation and of course then it goes to the Sean
add and so on to the President. Sorry I'm
interrupting.
"Nor is it the subjective intention of the draftsman,
or of individual members or even of a majority of
individual members of either House. These individuals
will often have widely varying intentions. Their
understanding of the legislation and the words used may
be impressively complete or woefully inadequate. Thus
when the courts say that such and such a meaning
'cannot be what Parliament intended', they are saying
only that the words under consideration cannot
reasonably be taken as used by Parliament with that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
55
meaning. As Lord Reid said: 'We often say that we are
looking for the intention of Parliament, but that is
not quite accurate. We are seeking the meaning
of the words which Parliament used'."
That goes back to the objective principle. That's
taken up by Mr. Justice Murray into the next paragraph.
He says:
"The principle of objective intent at the root of the
role of the courts in interpreting statutes is, as I
have indicated, the same in this country. The intent
of the Oireachtas is imputed to it on the basis of the
text of an Act adopted and promulgated as law in
accordance with the Constitution. Any proposal that
the courts should go behind the constitutionally
expressed will of the Oireachtas so as to rely on the
statement of one member of one house, whatever his or
her status, must be approached with circumspection
and constitutional prudence."
He then goes on to deal with general considerations and
I don't think I need to take the Court through all of
that. If you go to the last paragraph on the opposite
page, page 297, he deals with the particular position
of a minister or promoter of a bill and he says :
"A minister or promoter of a bill may feel constrained
when intervening in the cut and thrust of parliamentary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
56
debate to choose her or his words carefully for fear of
giving rise to any misunderstanding as to her or his
intent on a subsequent parsing of those words in a
court of law."
This is on the assumption that it might be possible to
look at the words used when the Court comes to look at
the statute.
"On the other hand it has been suggested that a clear
and deliberate statement on the part of the minister or
other promoter of the bill as to the purpose for which
it is been introduced could be a helpful aid to
interpretation. Apart from other considerations which
I will refer to, there is the foreseeable risk that
the promoter of the bill would feel constrained to make
statements calculated specifically for interpretative
purposes, something which has occurred in the United
States. Even if a minister did not feel so
constrained, the fact remains that ministers or other
promoters of bills do routinely inform the House in
question of the general purposes of the bill and the
reasons for its introduction. Statements, calculated
or otherwise, promoting a bill passing through a
politically contentious process would not necessarily
constitute a neutral aid to construction. If the
courts were to go behind an Act and look at the
proceedings in the Houses of the Oireachtas and
statements made by the promoter of a bill for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:43
12:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
57
purposes of interpreting the Act adopted, it would
place an onus on other members of the Oireachtas to
examine his or her spoken words for its implications as
to the ultimate effect of a bill when it becomes law.
They would have to do so from a perspective which they
have never had to do and which does not currently
arise."
Then he goes on to talk about the legislative organ of
State is the Oireachtas and it is subject to the
Constitution. It has exclusive responsibility for the
conduct of its proceedings and so on. I don't think
it's necessary to open the rest of that page. But if
you look at page 299, the second paragraph on page 299,
Mr. Justice Murray says:
"The disadvantages concerning complexity and
uncertainty, to which reliance generally on ministerial
statements could give rise would not, to my mind, be
greatly ameliorated by limiting such reliance only to
cases where there is ambiguity in the statute or the
need to avoid a patent absurdity and the ministerial
statement is clear and unequivocal. First of
all, I would recall that there are a wide range of
canons of construction and presumptions available which
are more sophisticated and neutral aids to the
resolution of such interpretative problems. Also
available are methods of interpretation such as the
purposive or teleological approach to statutory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:44
12:44
12:45
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
58
construction."
That's really all I wanted to draw attention to in the
judgment of Mr. Justice Murray. But I do say the
observations to which he makes there, to which I've
drawn attention, apply equally whether one is looking
at the interpretation of a statute or whether one is
looking for the rationale or purpose behind a
particular statutory provision. We'll see from the
Court's own judgment in Hoey that the Supreme Court has
expressly said that in a later case. But if you look
then, just briefly at what Ms. Justice McGuinness said
at page 302 of the report, the second last paragraph on
page 302 she draws attention to the collective nature
of the process of legislation through the Oireachtas.
She says:
"That process is of legislation by the Oireachtas is
essentially collective. It is the Oireachtas as a
whole which legislates. It would in my view be a
misleading oversimplification of this process to rely,
in interpreting a statute, on ministerial statements
alone. Particularly in the case of more complex
statutes, which pass through a lengthy committee stage,
contributions come from all sides of both Houses of the
Oireachtas. The statute as finally enacted may well
have been extensively amended and may differ crucially
from the bill as introduced by the Minister's initial
introductory statement at the second stage. For the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
59
courts to rely on ministerial statements in
interpreting statutes would not, therefore, reflect the
will of the Oireachtas as a whole. Yet to search the
entire parliamentary debates for indications as to the
proper interpretation of statutes would be both
complex, time consuming and extremely difficult in
practice. Such a procedure would be open to all the
criticisms voiced by both Murray and Fennelly JJ. in
their judgments."
Of course, again, going back to Mr. Kenny's point that
this was an obiter dictum on the part of Mr. Justice
Murray, you have there, I suppose, an expression of the
collective will of the Supreme Court, Ms. Justice
McGuinness, Mr. Justice Fennelly all to the same effect
and all indicating support for the proposition that
Mr. Justice Murray identifies and support for the
rationale as to why one doesn't have regard to
ministerial statements or indeed any statements made in
the Oireachtas.
If I could then take the Court to the Court's own
judgment in Hoey, which is in a little booklet and I'm
sorry to be handing you yet another booklet but there
is an additional booklet. I think there was one copy
for each of the legal teams. I don't have any more
copies than that at this stage.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I don't mind when it is such a
sterling piece of jurisprudence!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
60
MR. McDONALD: Well it's at tab 8 of that book. As you
will see it is Hoey -v- The Chief Appeals Officer. The
Court, if I may is a so, very usefully summarises all
of the case law very succinctly and identifies the
relevant principles and I say they are directly
relevant in the present case. It starts at page 19 of
the judgment, paragraph 32 and it says:
"When it comes to the interpretation of the ostensibly
'free-wheeling' discretion afforded the CAO under the
Act of 1996, as referred to in para. 25, the court was
referred by counsel for Ms. Hoey in this regard (and
later by counsel for the respondents in relation to the
constitutionality arguments raised) to a particular
statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare
before Seanad Éireann on 25th March 2007, when what
became s.34 of the Social Welfare Act 1997 was being
debated. (Section 34 inserted a new s. 253A into the
Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993 that is
materially identical to s. 307 of the Act of 2005). The
court has entirely disregarded the substance of the
comments made by the Minister and, with respect, all
submissions made by the parties as regards those
comments. That the court is better to disregard the
Minister's comments and the related submissions of the
parties is a course of action that the court considers
to be all but required of it by the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Crilly -v- T & J Farrington Ltd.
[2001] 3 I.R. 251., Controller of Patents -v- Ireland
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:48
12:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
61
[2001] 4 I.R. 229, and the more recent decision of the
High Court in O'Sullivan -v- Irish Prison Service
[2010] 4 I.R. 562."
Then at paragraph 33:
"In Controller of Patents, a case in which, inter alia,
discovery was sought of various documentation
concerning the pre-enactment progress of certain
legislation, Keane C.J. affirmed the Supreme Court's
decision in the then recent (and unanimously decided)
case of Crilly -v- T & J Farrington Ltd. '...that it
will not even entertain the citation of passages from
debates in the Oireachtas with a view to ascertaining
what the intention of the Government or the executive
was...'"
That obviously applies in the present case where this
short extract from a speech by the Minister is being
suggested to represent the intention of the Government
or the legislature in introducing the 2016 Act.
Then the Court continues:
"The issue of whether the courts ought properly to have
regard to Oireachtas debates was re-visited
subsequently by McKechnie J. in O'Sullivan, a case
concerned with the constitutionality of a particular
provision of the European Arrest Warrant 2003,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:49
12:50
12:50
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
62
McKechnie J. stating as follows, at 584:
'In relation to a consideration of Dáil debates in
general, for the purposes of ascertaining the
objectives of the legislation or interpreting
provisions thereof it has long been the case that such
is impermissible. Such consideration would inevitably
blur the lines between the role of the legislature in
enacting laws, and the role of the judiciary in
interpreting them...'"
If I might just pause there. You'll see that in that
passage Mr. Justice McKechnie identifies not just
interpreting a statutory provision but also
ascertaining the objectives of the legislation. That's
precisely the purpose which Mr. Kenny urges on the
Court that one can have regard to that statement of
that minister, or rather that extract from a statement
made by the Minister to Dáil Éireann for the purposes
of ascertaining the objective of the legislation.
Then going on at paragraph 34:
"McKechnie J. then considered, inter alia, Crilly and
Controller of Patents, before stating, again at 584:
'The above situation seems clear; so also is the fact
that the courts can have regard to the legislative
history of any enactment for these purposes.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
63
When it comes to 'legislative history', the court
understands McKechnie J. merely to be making the
uncontroversial assertion that if, for example, s. 10
of a particular statute is replaced by a new s. 10, the
court can have a look at both versions of the provision
in a bid to understand the intended effect of the new
s. 10, a point touched upon by Murray C.J. in Crilly,
at 291 et seq. where he distinguishes between
'parliamentary history' and 'legislative history'."
Of course that's the well-established principle under
which you can look at predecessor provisions as an aid
to the construction of a new provision. Mr. Justice
McKechnie then continues:
"In any event as noted above, nothing of relevance
could in fact be found the Dáil debates regarding the
subject amendment. However even if relevant commentary
on the reasons for the amendment could be found in the
debates, I would be extremely reluctant to utilise any
such comments in considering the constitutionality of a
section. Either the section is constitutional or not.
The debates ultimately have no effect upon this by
variety of their indicating the intention of the
Oireachtas and so legislating."
You say then at paragraph 36:
"There is perhaps a certain liberality of sentiment in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
64
the above-quoted observations of McKechnie J. that does
not seem to all but shut out the admission of
parliamentary material in the maimer that seems
contemplated by the Supreme Court in Crilly and
Controller of Patents though even those cases, strong
and clear as they are in their thrust, do not
unequivocally establish that parliamentary materials
are never ever to be consulted by the courts."
Then you go on to say:
"Other jurisdictions have, as it happens, taken a more
liberal approach as regards the introduction of the
substance of parliamentary debates before their courts.
However, it seems to the court, that there are at least
six reasons why the more (though not absolutely)
restrictive tradition presently pertaining in the Irish
courts is perhaps to be preferred. First, in giving
effect to the intention of the Oireachtas which enacts
statute as a whole body, statute is the uniquely
authoritative statement of what that body intends.
Second, the rule of law requires that citizens should
be able to determine the law by reference to the laws
as enacted by the Oireachtas and as interpreted by the
courts (and by the courts only), not by reference to
what a member of the executive and/or legislative
branches, however esteemed or well-intentioned,
construes the meaning of that legislation whether in
draft form or later. Third, parliamentary privilege
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
65
and the natural comity to be shown between the great
organs of state requires that parliamentary debates
should not be subject to judicial parsing or scrutiny.
Fourth, if statute is plain and unambiguous, it is
unnecessary and may engender uncertainty to have regard
to the parliamentary debates that preceded its
enactment; the conventional canons of construction
suffice as an aid to interpretation and themselves
ensure a greater certainty as to the likely meaning of
statute that is as yet uninterpreted by the courts.
Fifth, if statute is unclear and/or ambiguous, it would
be in truth a usurpation by unelected judges of the
role of elected lawmakers for a court to correct
omissions, remedy defects or fill gaps left by the
legislature; the courts must construe legislation as it
has been enacted, not as it might have been enacted.
Sixth, practical concerns also present such as (i)
whose contributions to parliamentary debates are to be
preferred (e.g. a Minister who sponsors legislation,
other ministers, Government supporters, members known
to have a special interest in particular legislation),
and (ii) the increase in confusion for and costs to
members of the public if statutory interpretation were
to become a matter of legal advisors reading the runes
of parliamentary debates instead of having regard
merely to statute and relevant case law in order to
determine statutory meaning."
So I would respectfully suggest that the utility of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:54
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
66
that judgment is that the Court has very helpfully
summarised the preceding case law, the principle to be
applied and the rationale for not looking at
parliamentary debates and what was said in
parliamentary debates. And I, with great respect to
the Court, propose to adopt what the Court there said
as part of my argument in this case.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I certainly seem to have eaten my
Shreddies that day, don't I!
MR. McDONALD: Absolutely. There are two authorities
that Mr. Kenny referred to that I must deal with. The
first was handed up loose yesterday, it's the decision
of the late Mr. Justice Carney in Gorman -v- The
Minister For environment and Local Government. If you
can't find it at the moment -- I don't propose to do
anything other than draw the Court's attention to the
date on which the judgment was delivered, 23rd March
2001, which is four months before the Supreme Court
judgment in Crilly -v- Farrington. So, in my
respectful submission, Gorman is not an appropriate, or
relevant authority in the circumstances.
Then I also need to draw attention to the Corbally
judgment, the judgment of Mr. Justice Hardiman which
undoubtedly postdates the decision in Crilly -v-
Farrington, but with due respect to Mr. Kenny I do
think that Mr. Kenny has actually misconstrued what
happened in that case and the approach which
Mr. Justice Hardiman took. Because although
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:56
12:56
12:56
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
67
Mr. Justice Hardiman described and even quoted from
what the Minister said, what Mr. Justice Hardiman
ultimately did was to say I'm not having regard to that
material and that's the crucial thing.
I just need to find where it is. I thought I had a
note of it. It's in volume 2, tab 25. I want to ask
the Court to look at page 326 of the internal
pagination or page 550 of the book's pagination. That
was a case where the Court was concerned to know what
test to be applied or how they should apply a test in
relation to the approach to be taken by the Medical
Council in relation to professional regulatory matters.
The passage that Mr. Kenny opened yesterday was at page
326, after Mr. Justice Hardiman had referred to certain
things that had been said by the Minister. But if you
look at paragraph 38, Mr. Justice Hardiman says:
"For the purposes of this case I do not believe there
is any significant difference between the word
'serious' and its cognate words on the one hand and the
word 'significant' and its cognate words on the other.
It will be observed that the citation by the Minister
of the judgment in O'Laoire -v- The Medical Council
(Unreported, High Court, Keane J., 27th January, 1995)
is of a passage quoted earlier in this judgment in the
analysis of the Irish case law."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:58
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
68
Can I just pause there and identify the date of that
judgment, it's 27th January 1995, O'Laoire -v- The
Medical Council and that's not a decision of the
Mr. Justice David Keane obviously, but of Mr. Justice
Ronan Keane, as he then was. That's relevant, I think,
when one comes to look at what Mr. Kenny said yesterday
about the next paragraph. You will recall that
Mr. Kenny suggested that the second indent of the next
paragraph, paragraph 40 was actually a quotation from
the judgment of Mr. Justice Keane but in fact it's not
in my respectful submission, it's actually Mr. Justice
Hardiman's own words. You'll see that when you look at
what he says in paragraph 40:
"When the foregoing passages from the record of Dáil
Éireann were opened, counsel on behalf of the Medical
Council stated that his client was not in agreement
with what had been said by the Minister as to the
advice tendered by the Medical Council to her."
Then these are the words undoubtedly, in my respectful
submission, of Mr. Justice Hardiman, as we'll see:
"I do not find it necessary to have regard to the
foregoing discussion as an aid to the interpretation of
the Act of 2007."
The first thing to observe is, Mr. Justice Keane in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:58
12:59
12:59
12:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
69
1995 could not have been referring to the Act of 2007.
The next sentence says:
"Therefore I do not find it necessary to consider the
two decisions of this court: The People (Director
of Public Prosecutions) -v- Michael McDonagh [1996] 1
I.R. 565 and Crilly --v T & J Farrington Ltd. [2001] 3
I.R. 251..."
Both of which also postdate the decision of Mr. Justice
Keane in the O'Laoire case in 1995 which considered the
admissibility of the legislative history as an aid to
construction or to resolve any tensions between them.
In fact Mr. Justice Hardiman is applying the classical
approach in Crilly -v- Farrington and is not relying on
the material that was brought to the Court's attention
during the course of that hearing.
There are just one or two other things I need to say
about this aspect of the case before I get on to the
meat of the case but I see it's just coming up to
1:00 o'clock and this might be an appropriate time to
pause.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: All right. Shall we come back at
2:00 o'clock then? Thank you very much.
THE HEARING ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
70
THE HEARING CONTINUED AFTER LUNCH AS FOLLOWS:
MR. McDONALD: Just to finish off the point that I was
dealing with before lunch, and I stress this is for
illustration purposes only, I'm not asking the Court to
make any finding in relation to this because I think to
ask the Court to make a fining would be to go against
the submission that I made, but I would ask the Court
to look at the booklet that we handed in just before
lunch, the smaller booklet. We should really have, in
retrospect, used a different colour to distinguish it
from all the other books before the Court, but it is a
black book also. At Tab 9 of that is a full copy of
the Dáil debate, for the debate in question on 13th
July 2017, it is a Thursday, and if you turn to page 92
of the internal pagination, it is the third page of the
photocopy, under the heading "5 o'clock" on that page
you will see the paragraph that is quoted in
Mr. Kenny's written submissions and it says:
"Specifically, section 28 of the 2016 Act provides:
Under section 28(1), a permanent change to section 42
of the 2000 Act, providing that extensions of duration
would no longer apply where environmental impact
assessment, EIA, or appropriate assessment, AA, was
required in respect of the original planning
permission."
And then the next sentence is what so much reliance is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:13
14:14
14:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
71
placed on:
"That is to bring the planning code fully into line
with EU law requirements."
If I just pause there. That's obviously a very
succinct statement. It doesn't identify in any detail
what the EU law requirements are. It doesn't set out
the advice the Minister may have had in relation to why
he was making that statement. It is an extremely
succinct statement and one that, even taken on its own
terms, I would suggest, is one that would be treated
with caution even if it was permissible to have regard
to parliamentary debates. But it is in the next
paragraph, if you read on -- this paragraph is not
quoted in the Friends of the Irish Environment
submission -- but you will see in the next paragraph
there is a reference to "new EU law requirements". The
Minister continues:
"Under section 28(2), a temporary change is being made
to section 42 of the 2000 Act, providing that a second
extension of duration of planning permission could be
approved for a development of 20 or more homes in
certain circumstances and where development had
substantially commenced within the original permission
period. It was always intended to commence these
provisions separately, as the first was drafted in
response to EU requirements, and as is the norm with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
72
such new legislative requirements, there needs to be a
transitional period for practical arrangements to be
made to meet them."
And it is next sentence to which I wish to draw
attention:
"Developers need time to consider and comply with the
new EU law requirements, and, as the case may be, apply
for an extension of duration or a new planning
permission. That is the reason I am not commencing this
provision immediately but expect to do so by the end of
this year."
Now, there are other references to "new EU law
requirements" elsewhere in the debate, I don't propose
to take the Court through those, I simply draw
attention to this by way of illustration: How does
anyone know which Directive the Minister was referring
to when one sees language of that kind? Is he
referring to the 2011 Directive, which is the one that
is relevant for present purposes, or the new Directive,
the 2014 Directive? Which I will be coming to later in
my submissions because, curiously enough, it does
introduce a new provision that allows Member States, it
is not mandatory but it allows Member States to put a
duration on an Environmental Impact Assessment, a
limited duration on it. Express provision to that
effect. But I will be coming back to that at a later
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:16
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:17
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
73
stage.
I simply draw attention to that, that it is unclear
which, at minimum it is unclear, I would say it is more
likely that he was referring to the new Directive but
I'm not asking, as I say, the Court to place any
reliance on it, I'm simply doing this by way of
illustration as to why it would be unreliable in any
event to seek to rely upon a particular sentence in a
particular speech by a Minister on a particular
occasion.
Just to round off the point, there is at Tab No. 10 of
the same book an extract from the Dáil debates in
relation to the 2016 Act, when it was actually being
promoted, and you will see at page 9 the Minister
simply puts forward the amendment to Section 42; there
is no explanation whatsoever in relation to it. And
again I think that just illustrates the point that I
have been trying to make; that one shouldn't try to
place so much reliance, as these Applicants do, the
Friends of the Irish Environment, on one sentence and
then to extrapolate from that a principle, and then to
go further than just extrapolating that principle but
to actually suggest that the State lacks candour. And
for all of those reasons I would respectfully suggest
to the Court that the observation I made before lunch,
that that submission or allegation is -- it is an
allegation really -- is not just inappropriate but is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:19
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
74
without foundation in the circumstances. And that's
really all I wanted to say about that issue. It is one
that I felt I had to deal with at the outset because it
was of such gravity in terms of the State's position,
in particular its position with the Court.
But while I'm just dealing with things which I think
are taken out of context can I just deal with something
else as well. It is the extract from the argument of
the State in Commission -v- Ireland, which is referred
to at paragraph 39 of the written submissions of the
Applicants in the Friends case. Mr. Kenny drew
attention to this late yesterday afternoon. It is on
page 17. Sorry, it starts on page 16 and goes over to
page 17. It is paragraphs 39 and 40 of Mr. Kenny's
submissions. He underlines a passage, the European
Court of Justice, its summary of the State's argument
and he says that -- at least he refers, or Mr. Kenny
refers to the argument the State made in that case:
"... that the use of the word "proceed"...
In the '85 Directive.
"....is significant, that term not being confined to
the commencement of works but also applying to the
continuation of a development project."
And the observation is then made in paragraph 40:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
75
"In other words, the State does not believe that the
EIA Directive is confined to a decision at the
commencement of works and also apply to continuations
of development projects."
Now, if I could just say Commission -v- Ireland was the
case about retention permissions, where the State had a
system at that time that allowed someone to apply for a
retention permission even after they had commenced
significant works on a project, and the EIA could be
done at the time the retention permission was sought.
And that was struck down by the European Court as being
contrary to the scheme of the Directive and contrary to
European law.
But the crucial thing, from my perspective, is that the
argument that was made by the State in that case was
not accepted by the Court of Justice. The very fact
that the court found against the State demonstrates
very clearly that the argument was not accepted by the
Court of Justice. And that, of course, distinguishes
the matter entirely. I'd be in a completely different
position if I had made an argument that had been
accepted by a Court and the Court had made a finding on
that basis. Impliedly or implicitly the Court rejected
that argument by Ireland and, in those circumstances,
the fact that an argument may have been made -- indeed
I think it was by Mr. Simons in that case -- the fact
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:21
14:21
14:21
14:21
14:22
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
76
that an argument may have been made by whoever it might
have been on behalf of the State is neither here nor
there. That's really all I wanted to say, I don't
intend to spend any time on it at all. But it is a,
for want of a better word, it is a slightly cheap shot
that was made in paragraph 40 of the submissions.
Again just a very minor point, but to get it out of the
way before I go any further and look at the relief
which is sought against the State in both sets of
proceedings, to the extent that it is sought against
the State, it just might be convenient while we have
been looking at the interpretations of statutes, and
the Court has already seen in the Court's own judgment
in the in Hoey case that of course one can adopt the
teleological approach and one can look at the
legislative history of the statute, but there is an
opposite side of that coin which says that you can't
look at a new provision of statute in order to
interpret a pre-existing provision. It is the opposite
of the teleological approach. I just want to draw
attention to the relevant authorities for that
proposition. I'm afraid they are in two different --
no, actually they are not, they are in the same book.
They are in book 3 of the books of authorities before
the Court and I will deal with them very briefly.
The first is at Tab 54 of book 3 and it is Cronin
(Inspector of Taxes) -v- Cork and County Property Ltd.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
77
and this goes to Mr. Healy's argument -- because
Mr. Healy, unlike Mr. Kenny, wasn't really relying on
what the Minister said, he was saying well you can look
at the new provision and then you can see what the old
provision really meant or intended. I just want to
draw the Court's attention, this was a provision of the
Taxes Acts, I think it was to do with Capital Gains
Tax. I may be wrong about that. But certainly it was
a provision of the Taxes Acts. There is just one small
passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Griffin in the
Supreme Court at the bottom of page 571. Oh sorry, it
is at the next page. I'm terribly sorry, it is on the
next page, it is page 572 and this is directly in point
with reference to Mr. Healy's submission to the Court a
few days ago.
"With regard to the submission of Council for the
company that the amendment of the section 18 by Section
29 of the Finance Act, 1981, was an implied acceptance
of by Oireachtas of the construction of section 18 for
which they contended...."
Which is precisely what Mr. Healy is arguing.
"...the court cannot in my view consider a statute in
the light of amendments that may thereafter have been
made it to. An amendment to a statute can, at best,
only be neutral - it may have been made for any one of
a variety of reasons."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:24
14:24
14:24
14:24
14:24
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
78
And of course that's consistent with Crilly -v-
Farrington.
"It is however for the courts to say what the true
construction of what a statute is, and that
construction cannot be influenced by what the
Oireachtas may subsequently have believed it to be."
And again that's consistent with the view this Court
took in Hoey, it is just the other side of the coin. I
think it is worth just looking at the headnote in that
case because the headnote, the reporter in this case
took that comment or observation of Mr. Justice Griffin
to be sufficiently important to list it as a "per
curiam". And you will see that at the top of 560. It
is in the same terms as the sentence I have just read
but it "per curiam" and I think that does tell its own
story.
There is also in the same book the decision of the
Supreme Court in Clinton which is at Tab 41 of the
book, where in one sentence Ms. Justice Denham, as she
then was, makes the same point, albeit she doesn't go
into any detail at all about it. But if you turn to
Tab 41 you will see at page 283 of the report the
judgment of Ms. Justice Denham. It is paragraph 24 but
it is last three lines of paragraph 24. Having quoted
the new provision of the 2006 Act that was in issue in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:26
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
79
that case, she says, very pithily, in an observation
that I adopt for the purposes of these proceedings:
"However, the section does not apply to this case".
Likewise, the section on which Mr. Healy relies does
not apply in this case .
"Nor would I construe s. 50 of the Planning and
Development Act 2000 by reference to this new section."
Again, very short and very pithy, but entirely
consistent with the earlier decision of the Supreme
Court in Cronin -v- Cork and County Properties.
I just thought it was a convenient moment to deal with
that issue, while we were looking at the issue raised
by Mr. Kenny in the Dáil debates.
Can I now then turn to the relief which is sought
against the State. Just before I do that, I suppose
from a housekeeping perspective there are two things
which I need to just ask the Court to bear in mind
because I don't think it has been mentioned to the
Court previously. But there is a slight difference
between the way in which the Merriman proceedings and
the way in which the Friends proceedings come before
the Court because in the Merriman proceedings the Court
did not give leave to bring judicial review; what the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:27
14:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
80
Court gave leave to do was to bring an application on
notice to the Respondents and the Notice Parties to
seek judicial review. So technically the test to be
applied then in that case, this being a telescoped
hearing -- and we have all agreed that this would be a
telescoped hearing -- technically the test to be
applied is are there substantial grounds? And if so,
is judicial review to be granted in respect of any of
those grounds? It is a double test in the case of
Merriman.
That doesn't apply in relation to the Friends case.
They have been given leave to bring judicial review
proceedings and the Court is, therefore, only concerned
with whether or not judicial review should be granted.
You don't have to consider the preliminary or threshold
question as to whether there are substantial grounds.
But, for reasons which I will deal with a little later
this afternoon, that does have consequences in relation
to the case which is made by Friends in these
proceedings. But I will return to that later this
afternoon.
Can I ask the Court now to look at the Statement of
Grounds, the Amended Statement of Grounds in Merriman
just to identify the relief that is claimed against the
State Respondent. And correctly the State has been
named as a Respondent in those proceedings. It is at
Tab No. 6 of book 1 of the Merriman pleadings. I'm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
81
going to deal with these in slightly reverse order.
But if I deal with the constitutional issue first. You
will see if you turn to page 138 of the book paragraph
13 of the Statement of Grounds is the relief that is
sought:
"Section 42(1)(a) is invalid having regard to the
provisions of the Constitution because it fails to
provide any mechanism to allow persons in the position
of the Applicants to vindicate their constitutional
property rights under Article 40.3, 45 and 43 of the
Constitution."
Now, that provision I think -- or at least that relief,
I think, has to be looked at in conjunction with some
of the relief which is sought against the other
Respondents. And can I ask the Court to turn to page
136 of the book and to the various declarations that
are sought at paragraphs 3 to 6. At paragraphs 3 and 4
the Applicants are saying that Section 42 essentially
should be interpreted or given effect to in a
particular way which vindicates their constitutional
rights. Essentially what they are saying in those
paragraphs is -- I'm not sure there is a huge amount of
difference between paragraphs 3 and 4 -- but
essentially what they are saying is that because they
have these property rights they were entitled to make
submissions in relation to the Section 42 application
made by the Dublin Airport Authority.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:31
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
82
Now, I suppose if you then look at paragraph 5 of the
declarations that are sought, paragraph 5 seeks a
declaration that:
"Fingal errored in law and acted contrary to fair
procedures and to natural constitutional justice in
failing and/or refusing to accept the Applicants'
submissions."
So that is again an issue, a Dellway issue, that they
should have been given an opportunity, not by reference
to their property rights but simply by reference to
fair procedures and natural constitutional justice,
they should have been given an opportunity to make
submissions. And then paragraph 6 is really an amalgam
of what is sought at paragraphs 3 and 4 because in
paragraph 6 they say, both by reference to their
constitutional rights and by reference to the natural
-- the requirement of fair procedures, I should say --
Fingal ought to have considered the submissions which
they made or sought to make.
In relation to the relief which is sought against the
State at paragraph 13, I drew attention to those
paragraphs because you may not get to the relief at
paragraph 13 against the State if, for example, as we
will be submitting, and Mr. Toland will be submitting
this in due course, if you come to the conclusion that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
83
the property rights or the right to fair procedures are
not in fact engaged, on the facts of this case, under
Section 42. If you come to the conclusion that they
are engaged then the issue arises, under Dellway,
whether, notwithstanding that there is no express
statutory right to make submissions, that should be
implied, in any event, as a matter of constitutional
justice and fair procedures. But then if the Court
come to that conclusion you don't come to consider the
provisions of -- or at least the reliefs sought at
paragraph 13 of the Statement of Grounds.
It is only if you come to the conclusion that these
rights were engaged -- Section 42 can't be interpreted
in that way -- that one comes to paragraph 13 and the
relief which is sought.
Now, as I said a few moments ago, I will want to come
back and look further at the relief in relation to the
other heads of relief that are sought, but I do want
to, I suppose, make a few observations, as I said, Mr.
Toland will be dealing with this in detail but just at
headline level I do want to make a few observations,
particularly in relation to the reliance that is placed
by the Applicants in the Merriman proceedings on
Dellway. And we say Dellway, as I sought to suggest
this morning, is quite a different case. It is a case
where Mr. McKillen and his companies never had an
opportunity to make any submissions. In contrast in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:33
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
84
the present case, the matters of concern to these
Applicants, as I will hope to demonstrate to the Court
when one looks at all of the material which is before
the Court, in contrast in the present case these
Applicants had an opportunity to make submissions in
relation to the matters of concern to them, such as the
voluntary purchase scheme, such as the impact of noise
generated by the second runway, and, also, the flood
risk. That's something that's specifically addressed
and I want to come back to that because that's
something that's also relied upon. And in addition to
that we say insofar as their claim based on property
rights is concerned, and their concern that this
decision adversely effects the value of their property
rights, we will be relying on the observations of
Mr. Justice Fennelly in the Dellway case and on certain
other authorities in support of the proposition that
the mere -- sorry, I shouldn't use the word "mere"
because it is easy for me to say mere -- but the fact
that property values might be devalued does not give
rise to a right to make submissions to the audi alteram
partem principle per se.
And that is, I think, very clear. I won't ask the
Court to look at it now because it will be addressed by
Mr. Toland in due course, it is very clear from the
judgment of Mr. Justice Fennelly in Dellway the
difference between planning decisions, on the one hand,
and decisions which directly effect me, as in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:35
14:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
85
Mr. McKillen's case, on the other. Planning decisions
are regarded as being of general application.
Mr. Justice Fennelly makes the point that, for example,
zoning decisions can have very serious consequences for
values of property. Sometimes they can increase the
value of their property, but sometimes they can have
the opposite effect. And certainly in terms of
residential amenity, zoning can have very serious
consequences if, for example, the lands adjoining your
home are suddenly designated for port related activity,
marine industry or something of that kind, depending on
where you are situated. And I do draw attention, in
particular, to the sentence of Mr. Justice Fennelly's
judgment in Dellway where he said at paragraph 454, and
I won't ask the Court to open it because it is so
difficult to get all these authorities out, he said:
"I do not think that mere adverse effects on property
values flowing from a public law decision can on its
own trigger the right."
And I did draw attention this morning to the difference
between planning decisions and other kinds of
decisions. But even within the planning context we
would submit that there are distinctions to be made.
Because there are, of course, planning decisions which
are made in favour of a developer, purely in
the interests of that developer. Sorry, from the
developers perspective, it is a decision which will
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
86
endure to that developers financial gain.
That's not the kind of decision that was made in this
case. This was a decision which was clearly
underscored by public considerations, considerations of
general public interest. And I think that's very
clear, it is desperately clear from a document, the
actual planning decision itself, which is in the same
book as the Statement of Grounds and it is at tab
number -- sorry, it is tab 3 and then behind tab 3
there is a tab 2 and a tab -- yes, a tab 2 behind tab
3. And you will see that's the decision of An Bord
Pleanála. I just want to draw attention to the opening
words of the decision because, in my submission, it
goes to the very issue that Mr. Justice Fennelly
identifies in the Dellway case and underscores the
distinction between the Dellway case and the present
case. You will see at the opening words: "Matter
considered" -- this is at page 26 of the book's
pagination:
"In making its decision the Board had regard to those
matters which by virtue of the Planning and Development
Acts and Regulations made there under it was required
to have regard. Such matters included any submissions
and observations..."
And I will be coming back to those. But look at the
reasons and considerations, and these are the first
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
87
reasons and considerations that are relied on.
"Having regard to national policy, as set out in the
National Development Plan, the National Spatial
Strategy, and Transport 21, which provide for expansion
of infrastructural capacity and enhancement of the
level of service at Dublin Airport because of its
international gateway status and which provide for
investment priority for an upgraded public transport
system and an improved road network to serve Dublin
Airport, and also having regard to the following: The
Regional Planning Guidelines; the Dublin Transportation
Office Strategy; and also Fingal County Development
Plan and previous County Development Plans where it has
been an objective since 1972 to provide an East-West
runway in at this location."
And that's, in my respectful submission, is an
important element of the kind of decision that we are
dealing with here and it has to borne in mind, in my
respectful submission, when one comes to consider the
very attractive arguments made by Mr. Healy, that his
clients deserved to be consulted, and it also has to be
borne in mind when one looks at the distinction
Mr. Justice Fennelly makes between decisions of general
application and decisions which are more directed at a
particular person. Then it refers to the Dublin
Airport Local Area Plan. Then look at what they say at
the top of the next page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
88
"It is considered that the proposed development is
necessary to meet the foreseeable need for aviation
travel at Dublin Airport and to provide for the safe
expansion of air traffic of the airport. It is further
considered that subject to the mitigation measures
proposed and the conditions set out below the proposed
development won't be acceptable..."
And so on.
"....in terms of traffic safety and convenience, would
not present an acceptable risk of water or air
pollution, would not be prejudicial to the public
health due to the noise impacts or otherwise, and would
be in accordance with the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area."
But I do draw attention to that finding by An Bord
Pleanála that the development is necessary to meet the
foreseeable need for aviation travel at Dublin Airport,
clearly consistent with observations of Mr. Justice
Fennelly as to the status that some particular
decisions have, being of general application and, also,
clearly, here being, certainly according to the Board's
view, in the public interest, and being consistent with
a long body of policy considerations both at national,
regional and local level, as identified in the
preceding page.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
89
While this decision is open before you, Judge, I wonder
could I just refer, it is not directly in point to the
submission that I'm making at the moment but it is
something that I think it is no harm to read while the
decision is open before us, and it is relevant to other
submissions that I need to make in the course of
afternoon. You will see that he goes on, or at least
the Board go on to identify that they don't accept the
Inspector's recommendation to refuse permission.
That's something that Mr. Healy drew attention to
previously.
"The Board considered that sufficient information had
been submitted in the Environmental Impact Statement
and further information submitted both to the planning
authority and the Board and at the oral hearing to
enable it to make an assessment of the significant
impacts of the proposed development on the environment
and its acceptability in terms of proper planning and
sustainable development. The Board considered that in
overall terms the inconsistencies of deficiencies in
information referred to by the Inspector were not so
significant as to warrant a refusal of permission and
could be addressed by way of condition. In particular,
the Board was satisfied on the basis of the information
submitted and conditions attached and having regard to
the fact that there are no planning restrictions in the
current operation of the airport runways that: 1."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:41
14:41
14:41
14:41
14:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
90
And you will see here there are three considerations
identified which clearly go to the concerns which the
Applicants have ventilated in the present proceedings.
"1. There would be no significant deterioration in
noise conditions at night-time in the vicinity of the
airport due to the proposed option 7b operating mode
for the runways, none use of new runway and of
cross-runway at night, and the restriction on nighttime
aircraft movements by way of condition;
2. In relation to daytime, there would be some
improvements relative to current or future noise
impacts with the existing runway system to be offset
against disimprovements in other areas respects and the
net effects would not be significant in terms of public
health and safety such as to warrant a refusal of
permission;
3. In relation to schools affected (including
pre-school facilities) the mitigation measures
proposed, reenforced by conditions and monitoring,
would ensure that a suitable noise environment can be
maintained within classrooms and school buildings
generally."
And then it says:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
91
"In coming to the above decision, the Board noted that
in addition to planning controls Dublin Airport would
in the future be subject to the new noise control
regime introduced under the EU Environmental Noise
Directive, 2002, and the Environmental Noise
Regulations 2006."
And we know, of course, that even those provisions have
now been updated with a new noise regulation that will
have general effect throughout the European Union in
relation to airports of the size of Dublin Airport.
But if I just draw attention to one or two of the
conditions because I think they are also relevant to
submissions that I propose to make later this
afternoon. Firstly, if you turn to page 29, and it is
page 5 of the internal pagination, this is Condition 6,
which deals with the position of voluntary noise
insulation for school. Condition 7 deals with the
scheme for voluntary noise insulation of dwellings
which are within a range, the 63 decibel LAeq 16-hour
range, and that has to be done within 12 months of the
planned operation of the runway for use. Then you have
Condition 8:
"The runway permitted shall not be brought into use
until noise insulation approved under Conditions No. 6
and No. 7 above has been installed in all cases where a
voluntary offer has been accepted within the time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
92
limits of the scheme."
Again showing the care which An Bord Pleanála was
taking in relation to the concerns about noise. And we
will see how the Board inspector dealt with those
concerns and the very full examination that was carried
out as part of the EIA in this case in relation to all
the concerns about noise.
And then just, I suppose, to ensure that there is no
misunderstanding I do need to draw attention to the
provisions of Condition 9 because it isn't quite to the
effect as I understood Mr. Healy to suggest and that's
why I just think it is important to actually look at
its terms. It says:
"Prior to commencement of development, a scheme for the
voluntary purchase of dwellings shall be submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The
scheme shall include all dwellings predicted to fall
within the contour of 69 decibels within 12 months of
the planned opening of the runway for use. But prior
to the commencement of operation of the runway an offer
of purchase in accordance with the agreed scheme shall
have been made to all dwellings coming within the scope
of the scheme and such offer shall remain open..."
And this is the bit that I just want to draw attention
to:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
93
"....for a period of 12 months from the commencement of
use of the runway."
It is not that there is some very restrictive period of
12 months in advance. But the residents have the
option under this particular provision to actually
remain in their homes for a period of 12 months, see
how they fair and if they prefer to participate in the
scheme or live adjacent to the airport they have that
choice. So it is not a restrictive 12 months, it is
actually a very facilitative -- sorry, I am not
pronouncing that correctly but I think the Court
understand where I'm coming from -- provision that
allows them to see how they fair before they make a
decision of the kind in issue.
There are just one or two other conditions that I want
to draw attention to very briefly. With reference to
the flood risk, and I will be coming back to this, if
you turn to page 9 there are two specific provisions in
relation to that. They don't use the word "flood risk"
but as we will see from the reason given, this is to do
with flooding. Paragraph 20 says:
"Surface water from the proposed development shall be
drained in accordance with the proposals outlined in
the planning application and the environmental impact
statement. Full details of the design, construction,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
94
operation and monitoring of the surface water
attenuation treatment and disposal system shall be
agreed in writing with Planning Authority in
consultation with the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board
prior to commencement of the development."
And the reason given is:
"In the interests of public health, the prevention of
flooding and limiting the risk of pollution of
receiving water."
And then it provides for a monitoring regime for the
monitoring of surface water discharged to streams and
that being agreed with the Local Authority. So, again,
the Board was quite careful to deal and to properly
condition the position in relation to surface water
drainage in order to prevent flooding. And I will be
coming back to that.
If you turn then to the next page, page 34, Condition
23 deals with, for example, the position of birds and
fauna, including badgers and bats. And there are
further provisions in relation to badgers and bats.
But condition 23 says:
"Commitments in relation to archaeology, ecology and
landscape in the EIS shall be carried out in full..."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
95
That's an enforceable commitment. An enforceable
condition I should say, one that is enforceable under
section 160. "Archaeological site investigation" is
not immediately relevant.
"(b) Measures to be taken to mitigate impacts on fauna,
including fauna protected by loss (such as badgers and
bats).
(c) Measures to be taken to mitigate impacts on birds.
(d) the provision of a compensatory 8 hectare woodland,
together with the provision of 3 hectares of amenity
lands on lands zoned for such use."
Now, I need to just pause there, I suppose, because we
know from more recent authority from the European
Court, in the context of the Habitats Directive, that
you can't under the Habitats Directive have
compensatory measures used as mitigation. But this
isn't what this is dealing with at all. It is not at
though there is any loss of protected habitat in this
case; any of the relevant SACs or special protection
areas are located some distance from the airport. This
is simply dealing with the fact that because the
construction of the runway will lead to the loss of
hedgerows this is being put in place -- this is
ordinary hedgerows, not protected hedgerows -- this
measure is being put in place.
And then there is the provision of funding for a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:48
14:48
14:48
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
96
hedgerow survey and the provision of funding for the
restoration of the historic formal gardens in the Ward
River Valley Regional Park. You will see that was a
concern of some of the objectors to the scheme.
Again, Condition 24 also deals with the requirement of
the developer to comply in full with the proposal
submitted for ecological compensation habitats. That
refers back to what we just saw in Condition 23.
Condition 25 says that:
"A pre-construction..."
This is dealing with badgers.
"A pre-construction survey of badgers on the site shall
be submitted to the Planning Authority and the
National Parks and Wildlife Service prior to
commencement of development. The timing of all
necessary measures in relation to badgers since the
removal of sets will be agreed in writing with the
NPWS."
Then Condition 26 deals with bats.
"The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of
the name of the bat specialist prior to commencement of
development. The bat specialist shall be present when
any buildings are being fully/partially demolished or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
97
when trees are being removed. To ensure that all
necessary measures are taken in relation to bats in the
event of bats being found located in buildings or
trees, the NPWS and the Heritage Officer shall be
immediately notified."
So that requirement to notify the NPWS, which is the
relevant body, as the Court will be aware, to project
any protected species, provides a very significant
measure of protection to ensure that steps are not
taken which will endanger or expose a protected species
such as bats to loss; the NPWS can step in and deal
with the position at that stage.
I'm sorry to have spent a little bit of time on that
just now but it is relevant to certain of the other
submissions that I propose make. I need now, I
suppose, to go back to Tab 6 of the same book, the
Statement of Grounds, to identify the other relief
which is sought against the State Respondents. The
next relief, that I want to look at very briefly, is at
paragraph 14, which is not something which is featured
in the oral argument before the Court. Paragraph 14 of
the relief that is sought, that's at page 138. You
will see there is a declaration sought against the
State Respondents there that:
"Section 42 as amended is incompatible with the State's
obligations under the European Convention on Human
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
98
Rights and the protocol thereto."
And, again, Mr. Toland will be dealing with this, but
just in headline terms. We say that the decisions of
the European Court -- there is one in fact dealing with
an airport, an airport at Deauville -- the decisions of
the European Court of Human Rights involve a balancing
of interests. The right of a particular local resident
has to be balanced against the importance and
legitimate aim of the construction there. Again, it
was an extension of the runway at Deauville Airport.
The Applicants were locals, they contended that the
extension of the runway breached their Article 8 rights
and that their views had not been sufficiently taken
into account. Very similar to the case which is made
by the Applicants here. They said the market value of
their property would decline and they would have to
bear additional installation costs. But the Court of
Human Rights had regard to the legitimate aim, the
regions economic well-being, for which the development
of the airport was important. And we say there is an
obvious parallel here and in the affidavit of
Mr. O'Duffy, sworn on behalf of the State Respondents,
he has drawn attention to the strategic importance of
the need for a second runway to ensure maximum
connectivity for citizens of the State with the rest of
the world, and he emphasises that this is particularly
important now in the context of BREXIT.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
99
So that's, I suppose, just in headline terms what we
propose to say in relation to that relief which is
sought.
If you then can turn to the European law issues. When
I say European law I mean the EU law issues. The
relief which is sought relates to two Directives, as
the Court has seen, the EIA Directive and the Habitats
Directive. The relief sought in relation to the EIA
Directive, dealing with that first, is at paragraphs 8
and 16. You will see at paragraph 8 on page 137 of the
claim for relief a declaration is sought that:
"...the Second-Named Respondent (the State) has failed
to correctly transpose the requirements of the EIA
Directive."
And you will see at paragraph 15 there is a
declaration -- sorry, it is paragraph 16. I'm terribly
sorry. At paragraph 16 there is a declaration that
Section 42 is incompatible with the EIA Directive. I
will be dealing in more detail later this afternoon
with our response to that. But again just by way of
headline response, the fundamental point that we make
in response to this allegation, or this relief is that
the duration of a planning permission is not regulated
at EU level. There is a distinction made in the Treaty
between environmental considerations, on the one hand,
and town and country planning consideration, on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
100
other, and the European Union has not to date sought to
regulate the duration of a planning consent. And that
is, we say, of particular significance.
In the little booklet that we handed in this morning we
have included Articles 191 and 192. I'm not sure what
tab they are at in the Court's book. Tab 2. Article
191 deals with the environment and the Union policy on
the environment; preserving, protecting and improving
the quality of the environment, and so on. But then if
you look at article 192 there is a very significant
distinction made between how the European Union
proposes to regulate, or rather legislate for the
environment, on the one hand, and town and country
planning on the other. You see at Article 192,
paragraph 1:
"1. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in
accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and
after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, shall decide what action
is to be taken by the Union in order to achieve the
objectives referred to in Article 191."
Which is the one that deals with the environment. But
then look at what is said in the next paragraph,
paragraph 2:
"By way of derogation from the decision-making
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:55
14:55
14:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
101
procedure provided for in paragraph 1 and without
prejudice to Article 114, the Council...."
Not the Parliament and the Council, but the Council.
"....acting unanimously in accordance with a special
legislative procedure and after consulting the European
Parliament..."
That's all it has to do. The parliament itself has no
legislative role.
"....the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:
(a) provisions primarily of a fiscal nature;
(b) measures affecting:
- town and country planning..."
So it has the same status as tax provisions. Which, of
course, are something that are very much in the news at
the moment and the pressure that's being put on the
State to agree to a different arrangement in relation
the taxation. But town and country planning is given
the very same status.
And we also say, of course, that when you come to
examine the EIA Directive and the relevant case-law of
the European Court -- and I will be dealing with this a
little bit later on -- we say that the case-law of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
102
European Court, contrary to everything that you have
heard so far, shows very clearly that an extension of
planning permission does not of itself amount to a
development consent. There are two circumstances where
it can do so. One is, as in Wells, where there is a
change in the conditions. And the Court will recall
that in Wells at the second stage of the two stage
process that the UK operated at that time, at the
second stage 22 new conditions were imposed. Section
42 is utterly different to that; the relevant planning
authority has no ability, no power, no right to impose
new conditions at all, except in relation to the
completion of the development, security for completion
of the development, that's all it has.
The second area, and this is, I think, clear from the
Pro-Baine case, I think when one looks at the language
that is used and when one looks at the position in the
present case we respectfully suggest that what
Mr. Kenny has said about it is actually wrong. But the
second case, where an extension of permission might
give rise to a consequence that it would be treated as
a development consent, is where the extension
permission would permit additional works to be
undertaken which were not within the framework of the
original condition. Obviously, that would be a new
project, a different project to what had been agreed
previously. And we will be making submissions when one
looks at Pro-Baine that that's clearly what the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
103
European Court had in mind.
So we say that absent a change of conditions, which
can't arise under section 42, absent a change in the
project, which doesn't arise under Section 42, can't
arise under Section 42, there is no development consent
in any decision under Section 42; that a decision under
Section 42 cannot be equated with development consent.
And I will be dealing with that in more detail. We
will also be referring to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dunne -v- The Minister for the Environment,
which is referred to in the Dublin Airport Authority's
submissions, where again I think the Supreme Court made
it very clear that the kind of decision that was made,
it wasn't under the 2000 Act but the kind of decision
that's made under Section 42 should not be regarded as
a development consent. So I will be coming back later
just to deal with the detail of that, but just to give
that in headline terms.
The next relief which is sought against the State is in
relation to the Habitats Directive and that is at page
138 of the book, also at Tab 6. There is a declaration
sought there that:
"Section 42 as amended is incompatible with the
Habitats Directive."
And if you turn back to the preceding page there is an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
104
allegation -- or a relief sought, I should say, at
paragraph 9, there is a declaration that the State has
failed to directly transpose the requirements of the
Habitats Directive. We say, dealing with the legal
points that are made there, we say that if we are right
that the Section 42 decision is not a development
consent then the Habitats Directive is not engaged at
the Section 42 stage. That is, I suppose, the legal
point that we make and I will be dealing with that in
more detail later.
But there are, I suppose, two significant issues that
arise in relation to the relief that is claimed in
relation to the Habitats Directive and that is,
firstly, you don't actually have any evidence before
you at all to show that the relevant SAC's or the SPA's
will be impacted by the development. You have had an
assertion made in the course of submissions that that's
so; you have an assertion made in the Statement of
Grounds in both cases that an Appropriate Assessment is
required, but the basic evidence that the Court
requires in any judicial review proceedings, basic
evidence to substantiate that point is not before the
Court.
If the argument is or if the case being made is that in
some way the SAC's or the SPA's are at risk of being
impacted it would be a very simple straightforward
matter for an expert to come forward and provide a view
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
105
in relation to that. The Friends of the Irish
Environment, one would have thought, must have experts
available to them, given the nature of the
organisation, given their objects and so on. And we
would respectfully ask the Court to bear in mind when
it comes to looking at the relief which is sought in
relation to the Habitats Directive that there is a
very, very important and, I think, fairly fundamental
failure of proof here, failure of evidence. That is
something that I will want to develop in a little bit
more detail.
But in addition to that, insofar as the Habitats
Directive is concerned, there is also the issue of
collateral attack. Something that this Court has
considered in some detail in the Harrington case. Just
in relation to that, there is, I think, the suggestion
made by both of my Friends, and I will come to the
Friends of the Irish Environment case in a moment, but
when one comes to the Merriman case there is a
suggestion made: Well, we are not actually in any way
impugning the validity of the 2007 permission, all we
are doing is looking at the section 42 decision. But,
with respect, I don't believe that is correct. And if
one looks again at Tab 6 of the book and the Statement
of Grounds that is put forward by the Merriman
Applicants you will see, for example, and this is just
by way of example, page 155, paragraph 23 under the
very first paragraph under the heading "Habitats
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
106
Directive" it says:
"The development, the subject of Planning Permission
Register reference...."
And it gives the Register reference. That's the An
Bord Pleanála reference .
"....is subject to the requirements of the Habitats
Directive and requires that both the Stage 1
Appropriate Assessment screening and/or Stage 2
Appropriate Assessment be carried out and the
requirements of the Directive in this regard were not
complied with."
And there are also similar paragraphs in the Friends
proceedings. And I will be coming to those in a
moment. And we will be suggesting to the Court that,
clearly, in order to make the case which they are
making the Applicants in both sets of proceedings are
in fact calling into question the validity of the
decision made in 2007 by An Bord Pleanála, which is now
immune from attack having regard to the time limits set
out in the 2000 Act, time limits which neither of the
Applicants have sought to extend. Although there is a
power to extend those time limits in the Act. Subject,
of course, to satisfying the necessary statutory test.
And one can only assume that neither Applicant is in a
position to satisfy that test.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
107
But can I just ask the Court to look at the Court's own
decision in the Harrington case, which is at Tab 29 of
book 2, because I think in one paragraph in that
judgment the Court, again very succinctly, if I may say
so, identifies the breath of what is involved in the
collateral attack. I'm just trying to find my book 2,
my apologies, Judge.
That, as the Court will probably recall, was a
challenge to a decision of the EPA under the Water
Services Act 2007.
If you turn to page 294 of the report, there's a
heading: "Collateral attack on the 2007 IPPC licence",
it's not necessary for me to open anything other than
to observe the Court quotes later on in that paragraph
--
MR. HEALY: Could I just ask my Friend what page?
MR. McDONALD: Page 294. The Court quotes from
Section 107 of the Water Services Act 2007 which is, I
understand and believe, in virtually identical terms to
Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Then the Court says in paragraph at paragraph 26:
"The clear purpose and effect of s. 87(10) is to give
certainty to those who are affected by decisions of the
EPA. Thus it provides that such decisions must be
challenged within a very short period of time with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:07
15:07
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
108
obvious intention that, thereafter, persons affected by
such decisions ought to be free to rely upon such
decisions, safe in the knowledge that they are beyond
challenge. This policy objective is of particular
importance where considerable sums are to be expended
in reliance on decisions or acts of the EPA, as Shell
has done here. Section 87(10) precludes not just
direct challenges to the validity of decisions of the
EPA but also..."
And I underline these words.
"...the making of any challenge or argument that would
have the effect of impugning the validity of the
decision of the EPA or involving a collateral attack
upon it."
In my respectful submission the argument that is made
in these proceedings has that effect of impugning the
validity of the decision of An Bord Pleanála in this
case and does amount to a collateral attack upon it.
You go on to say:
"That this is so is clear from the wording of s. 87(10)
and also from decisions such as those of the High Court
in Goonery v. Meath County Council (Unreported, High
Court, Kelly J., 15th July, 1999) and Mahon -v- An Bord
Pleanála [2010] IEHC 495, the latter of which was made
in the context of the Planning and Development Act
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
109
2000, under which a similar procedural exclusivity to
that which obtains under s. 87(10) in the environmental
law context subsists, so that the challenging or
questioning of acts or decisions of a planning
authority/An Bord Pleanála is done by way of timely
judicial review proceedings and not in other types of
proceedings. In the present case any collateral attack
on the 2007 IPPC licence is now clearly out of time,
having regard to the outside limit set in this regard
by s. 87(10)."
We will be submitting to the Court that that decision
of this Court in Harrington -v- The EPA is consistent
what has been described by the Supreme Court in the
TD case as a fundamental principle of EU law, the
principle of legal certainty. I will be coming back to
that principle at a little later point in my
submissions.
Can I turn then to the relief which is claimed in the
Friends proceedings. I need to just get the relevant
folder. Apologies. It's at tab 1 of the first tab in
that book. I just want to draw the Court's attention
in the first instance to the title of the proceedings.
The Court may think that I'm adopting a very formal, a
very technical approach in relation to this but I do
want to draw the Court's attention to the special, I
suppose, position of judicial review proceedings and
how different they are in the way the courts approach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
110
them to plenary proceedings or proceedings between
private parties. The courts make a very, very distinct
difference between the two and the power of the Court
to amend or the power of the Court to extend time is
very heavily circumscribed in relation to judicial
review proceedings, unlike in the case of plenary
proceedings or other kinds of proceedings. But I draw
attention, in the first instance, to the title of the
proceedings, the only Respondent which is named is
Fingal County Council. The State is simply named as a
Notice Party to the proceedings. And the relief which
is sought is sought solely against Fingal.
Now, I fully appreciate the Court may think that I'm
being very formal and very technical but I think it
does raise a significant issue of principle in the
context of judicial review proceedings.
The relief sought is an order of certiorari of the
Respondent's decision at paragraph 1.
Paragraph 2:
"...the Respondent was not entitled to grant the
permission in the absence of an assessment...
3. A declaration that the Respondent acted in breach
of its obligation under the 2015 Act.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
111
4. A declaration that the Respondent acted in breach
of the rights of the Applicant and its members under
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union.
5. A declaration that the Respondent acted in breach
of the Applicant's rights under the Aarhus Convention.
6. A declaration that the Respondent acted in breach
of the constitutional and natural rights of the
Applicant...
7. A declaration that the decision of the Respondent
was unreasonable, irrational, erred in law and fact, or
was ultra vires...
8. An order providing for the costs of the
application..."
There is, in fact, no relief sought of the kind that
you saw in the Merriman proceedings where the Applicant
very carefully and properly sought declarations in
relation to the failure to transpose and in relation to
alleged invalidity of Section 42, having regard to the
provisions of the Directives and having regard to the
provisions of the Constitution.
There is, for completeness I should draw attention to
it, there is at paragraph 12 on page 6, under the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
112
heading "ground 3", there is a paragraph that says:
"Insofar as the Respondent and/or the Notice Parties
argue that the terms of Section 42 and in particular
the mandatory requirement to grant permission where
four requirements are satisfied same constitutes a
transposition error as between the Directive and the
Planning and Development Act 2000."
I, of course, am going to deal with that argument but I
do draw attention in the first instance to the fact
that no relief is sought that there's been a failure on
the part of the State to transpose. I'll be opening a
decision of the Supreme Court that is relevant in this
context in a moment.
If you then look at page 10, paragraph 26:
"Insofar as the Respondent and/or the Notice Parties
argue that the terms of Section 42 and in particular
the mandatory requirement to grant permission shall,
where four requirements are satisfied precludes or
offers a defence ... same would constitute a
transposition error as between the Habitats Directive
and the Planning and Development Act 2000."
Again, no relief was sought seeking a declaration that
there's been a failure to transpose.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
113
If you look at the opposite page, paragraph 27 you'll
see in the -- I suppose I should open paragraph 27 in
full. It says:
"This raises the final ground of the Applicant's case.
Independently of the constitutional argument raised
above in respect of climate be change, Section 42 of
the Planning and Development 2000 is repugnant to the
Constitution. In excluding interested third parties
entirely, in failing to provide for any opportunities
for participation by objectors or interested
individuals, in failing to provide for fair procedures,
in elevating the interests of developers to the
absolute exclusion of those opposed to a particular
development, in failing to give a local authority any
discretion in deciding whether to grant extension
permission or not to a developer once minimal
conditions are satisfied Section 42 is repugnant to the
constitutional guarantees of fair procedure, equality,
non-discrimination and the protections bestowed by
Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution...."
So there is that allegation made there that there is no
corresponding relief sought in relation to that as
against the State. That does, I have to submit to the
Court, it does carry with it a consequence and there
are just two authorities that I want to draw attention
to in this context. The first is the decision of the
Supreme Court in AP -v- DPP which is in book 2 at tab
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
114
36.
Just to draw attention first to the headnote. I don't
think I need to take the Court through the headnote.
In that case the Applicant was seeking an order of
prohibition restraining a criminal trial from
proceeding. He said that it was an abuse of process,
as you will see in the second paragraph of the
headnote.
It was an abuse of process that he was being subjected
to a fourth trial in relation to the same charges where
the trial had not proceeded on three separate occasions
previously because a witness had not turned up for the
trial.
But in the course of the Supreme Court appeal the
Applicant also sought to rely on delay and the Supreme
Court refused to allow the Applicant to rely on delay
because it wasn't part of the case in respect of which
he'd obtained leave to seek judicial review.
What the decision does, I suppose, is to emphasise the
importance of the order giving leave to bring judicial
review proceedings and how an applicant is very
circumscribed and limited to the case which he has made
in the Statement of Grounds. Just a few observations
of the Supreme Court in relation to that. The first is
at page 731 from the judgment of Chief Justice hurry.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
115
The last paragraph on that page, Chief Justice hurry
says:
"Because there has been a not insignificant number of
appeals in which there was a lack of clarity and even
confusion as to the precise issues that were before the
High Court, I propose to make a number of
observations in that regard.
Judicial review constitutes a significant proportion of
the cases that come before the High Court and before
this court on appeal. A party seeking relief by way of
judicial review is required to apply to the High
Court for leave to bring those proceedings and can only
be granted such leave on specified grounds when certain
criteria, required by law, are met. In most cases the
applicant must demonstrate that he or she has an
arguable case in respect of any particular ground for
relief and there are also statutory provisions setting
a somewhat higher threshold for certain specified
classes of cases.
In the interests of the good administration of
justice..."
Very similar, I think, to the principle of legal
certainty.
"...it is essential that a party applying for relief by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
116
way of judicial review sets out clearly and precisely
each and every ground upon which such relief is
sought."
And then he says and I rely on this:
"The same applies to the various reliefs which are
sought."
For completeness I should draw the Court's attention to
what he says on the bottom paragraph of that page. He
says:
"The court of trial of course may, in the particular
circumstances of the case, permit these matters to be
argued, especially if the respondents consent, but in
those circumstances the applicant should seek an order
permitting any extended or new ground to be argued."
In that case he was addressing the grounds but as you
will see from paragraph 5 he says the same applies to
the various reliefs which are sought.
"This would avoid ambiguity if not confusion in an
appeal as to the grounds that were before the High
Court. The respondents, if they object to any matter
being argued at such a hearing because it goes beyond
the scope of the grounds on which leave was granted,
should raise the matter and make their objection clear.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:17
15:18
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
117
Although it did not arise in this particular case, it
is also unsatisfactory for objections of this nature to
be raised by the respondents at the appeal stage when
no objection had been expressly raised at the trial or
there is controversy as to whether this was the case."
I draw attention to that for completeness but I do draw
attention also to the underlying principle which is
repeated in each of the judgments of the other Judges
of the Supreme Court. If you turn to page 74, for
example, Ms. Justice Denham makes a similar observation
she says at paragraph 7, page 734:
"When an applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial
review he does so on specific grounds stated in the
statement required. On the ex parte application for
leave the High Court Judge may grant leave on all, or
some, of the grounds sought or may refuse to grant
leave. The order of the High Court determines the
parameters of the grounds upon which the application
proceeds. The process requires the applicant to set
out precisely the grounds upon which the application is
to be advanced. On any such application the High Court
has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the statement
of grounds, if it thinks fit. Once an application for
leave to appeal has been granted the basis for the
review by the court is established."
Again, I draw attention to those observations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:18
15:19
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
118
If you then turn to page 739 you'll see the observation
of Mr. Justice Hardiman at paragraph 43. He says:
"In too many judicial review cases, it will be found
that little attention has been paid to the absolute
necessity..."
Again I draw attention to that.
"...for a precise defining of the grounds on which
relief is sought until the case is actually before the
court. In my view, this case furnishes an extreme
example of this unfortunate tendency. The delay in the
case and the consequent anxiety to the defendant are an
obvious feature but they are not relied upon at all in
the grounds and are only developed in the solicitor's
replying affidavit. There is no attempt to define the
precise level of anxiety and the effect, if any, on
other family members, as was done in D.S. -v- Judges of
the Cork Circuit Court [2008] IESC 37, [2008] 4 I.R.
379."
Finally, there's the observation of Mr. Justice
Fennelly at pages 744 to 745. At paragraphs 65 and 65
Mr. Justice Fennelly says:
"The first matter to be determined is the scope of the
appeal. The statement of grounds, as quoted above, is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
119
based only on the allegation of abuse of the process
and infringement of the applicant's right to a fair
trial arising from the fact that the applicant is to be
put on trial for a fourth time. The grounding
affidavit recounts the history of the applicant's
charging and the three previous trials. It proceeds to
state that the applicant 'has secured three jury
discharges on the basis of the infirmities in the
prosecution evidence adduced by the prosecution' and
adds that the applicant 'was in no way culpable for the
said discharges'. The solicitor says that the
applicant 'has suffered severe distress and anxiety in
having to undergo three criminal trials' and that it
would be unfair if there were to be a fourth trial.
The solicitor then claims that there is some risk of
'adjustment of evidence' if the matter is be tried for
a fourth time.
The application for judicial review is thus very
narrowly based. It claims in essence that it is
inherently unfair to put the applicant on trial on
a fourth occasion. It is notable that neither the
original grounding affidavit nor the statement of
grounds makes any mention of delay or of the letter
demanding money of November, 2002. I am satisfied that
the applicant should not be allowed to argue either of
these matters on the present appeal. No leave was
granted to rely upon them. Delay is, in many cases, a
legitimate element of background. For example, where
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:21
15:21
15:22
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
120
there is prosecutorial delay, it is well established
that the fact of pre-existing long delay in making a
complaint may be a relevant factor. However, there is
no complaint of prosecutorial delay in the present
case. Insofar as long delay may, in itself, be a
ground for restraining a prosecution, it will be
necessary to establish that the delay itself has led to
the existence of a real and serious risk to the
fairness of the trial."
Even though the delay allegation in that case was
obvious, the Supreme Court wouldn't allow it to be
argued because no leave had been granted in relation to
it.
While it may seem harsh that, in my respectful
submission, is the relevant principle having regard to
the Supreme Court decision in that case. You can see
that principle, though AP -v- DPP is not expressly
relied upon or referred to, you can see that principle
being applied by Ms. Justice Costello in a case called
Alen-Buckley, which is at tab 18 of Book 1 and I just
need to get that out. Tab 18 Book 1. It is a judgment
of Ms. Justice Costello delivered 12th May this year.
That was on application to have the State Respondents
in that case discharged from the proceedings. I
haven't brought any such application, therefore I will
deal with all aspects of this case. But I am entitled,
obviously, to rely on the fact that the relief which is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:22
15:22
15:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
121
claimed in these proceedings is now claimed in terms
against me and I say, having regard to the Supreme
Court decision, and the, I suppose the strictures laid
down by the members of the Supreme Court in this case,
that that is an approach which should be taken by this
Court.
If you look at - I'm not going to spend time on this
but if you look at pages 3 and 4 of the judgment,
Ms. Justice Costello sets out the relief that was
claimed in these proceedings. It is, again, all
claimed against the Respondent in that case, An Bord
Pleanála; it wasn't claimed against the State
Respondents. She then sets out, on pages 6 and 7, she
sets out the grounds that were relied on. Unlike the
present case, there were grounds that raised the issue
but the issue wasn't claimed against the State in the
relief that was sought. You'll see on the top of page
7, for example, paragraph (xxvii):
"The determination of planning application 14/600109 An
Bord Pleanála Reference PL93.2440006 if made in a
manner consistent with the Planning & Development Act
and Planning & Development Regulations 2001 (as
amended) made thereunder, renders the statutory scheme
inconsistent with and incompatible to Council Directive
2011/92/EU and the Second Named Respondent failed to
appropriately transpose the requirements of the
Directive."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:24
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
122
You'll see, then, if you look at the -- I don't think I
need to take the Court through the various submissions
that were made, if you go all the way to page 17,
paragraph 41 she says:
"It is noteworthy that the applicants advanced no
explanation as to why they did not seek any relief
expressly against the state defendants."
I say I am in the same position here.
"It was open to them, had they so wished, to have
sought declaratory relief to the effect that the
Directive had not been properly transposed into Irish
law, if that was the case which they wished to advance.
Of course, such a case would have to be properly
pleaded in accordance with the requirements of O. 84,
r. 20 (3). In addition, it would have to be pleaded
when the leave application was moved and to have been
within the time limited for bringing judicial review
proceedings. No explanation was provided to the court
as to why the applicants did not seek to identify any
provisions of either the Directive or Irish statute law
or regulations upon which they wish to advance their
case that Irish law had failed properly to transpose
the Directive."
Then if you go down to the end of that page, paragraph
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
123
44:
"In my opinion, the proceedings in fact seek no relief
whatsoever against the State defendants,
notwithstanding the attempt of the applicants to argue
to the contrary. Therefore, the continued maintenance
of these proceedings against these respondents is
vexatious and amounts to an abuse of process."
She strikes out a claim against. As I say, I haven't
brought such an application in the present case but I
am, of course, entitled to draw attention to that in
the course of my defence, my plenary defence, so to
speak, it's not plenary but my full defence to the
claim in the present proceedings. But I do suggest
that in the case of the Friends proceedings there is no
relief sought against me and those two authorities
provide ample authority for the proposition that in
those circumstances the relief, the grounds which I
should say are set out in the Statement of Grounds can
not be relied upon as against me to seek the relief
which is sought, for example, in the Merriman
proceedings. That relief simply isn't sought in these
proceedings.
So that's really all I wanted to say in opening - and
I'm sorry I've taken this long in opening - about the
various reliefs which are sought against the State.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
124
I now want to, I suppose, before I address the legal
issues which arise in relation to the European law and
the other issues other than the Constitution and the
European Convention, I do want to look at some of the
underlying facts. As I said at the outset I wasn't a
party to either process but there is a lot of material
before the Court which identifies the extent of the
exercise that was carried out before An Bord Pleanála
in 2007. The reason why I'm drawing attention to this
is twofold. One is to distinguish the facts of this
case from McKillen, Dellway, the other is that I think
it's clear when one looks at this material that the
complaints that are made in relation to the EIA and so
on, now, were all fully ventilated and dealt with by An
Bord Pleanála and by the Merriman Applicants
themselves. The Friends of the Irish Environment did
not participate in the proceedings, even though other,
I suppose, experts in relation to environmental impact
assessment and in relation to the Habitats Directive
did participate, among them being An Taisce, Mr. Ian
Lumley appeared on behalf of An Taisce and
Mr. Sweetman, the Applicant or the Plaintiff in the
proceedings which led the European Court in several
decisions called Sweetman to vary its findings both in
relation to the EIA Directive and in relation to the
Habitats Directive, he also participated in relation to
one of the objectors. So you had -- there was also
counsel, very distinguished counsel, Peter Bland
appeared for St. Margaret's in those proceedings, again
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
125
someone with expertise in this area. You had, I think,
Nap Keeling for one of the other objectors, again a
barrister, now a solicitor I understand, with expertise
in this area. And you had, unusually, a triumvirate of
inspectors hearing the oral hearing, including a
leading light in relation to noise, Mr. Thornely, I
have forgotten his, name it's a double-barrelled name
in any event. It was, if I may say so, a very, very
full consideration of all of the issues. I think it is
important, I will try not to spend too long on it but I
think it is important, just to identify, even in
headline terms, the extent of the participation that
was involved and the extent of the ventilation of the
issues and, also, the extent to which it may not have
been called a flood risk assessment under the 2009
Flood Risk Guidelines, but an exercise of precisely the
same kind was carried out in the course of proceedings
before An Bord Pleanála, and reached precisely the same
conclusion as the RPS report that was presented to
Fingal in the Section 442 application by reference to
the 2009 Guidelines. The facts and the conclusions are
identical. There's nothing new in the RPS report that
wasn't addressed in the very full consideration that
was given by An Bord Pleanála. If I may say so, I
think it shows the procedures of An Bord Pleanála in
very good light. It demonstrates the extensive public
participation which is inherent in the process in
Ireland, particularly the process before An Bord
Pleanála. You'll find that in book --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
126
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: What is the point Mr. Healy
raises about they were shut out from making submissions
whatsoever, or would have been shut out had they made
submissions as to the extension at the end?
MR. McDONALD: Well he says they were shut out from
making that, but there's no evidence they were shut out
from making that at all. They could, of course, have
said, because they did want clarity as we'll see, they
wanted clarity in relation to the length of the
planning permission. They wanted to clarify that it
was ten years because the Fingal permission didn't
actually state the duration but it granted the
permission based on the application and the application
had looked for a ten-year permission. Fingal didn't
thing it was necessary to say it should be ten years
but the residents wanted to clarify for ten years, but
of course they could have made the submission look,
this might be stated to be for ten years but this is
capable of being extended under Section 42 and we were
really concerned about that. There's absolutely no
evidence to suggest that that couldn't have been
addressed in the course of the EIA. Mr. Healy makes --
it goes back to the point I made earlier in relation to
the Habitats Directive, that's simply a hypothetical
that's put before the Court but there's no evidence at
all to suggest that that was a concern of the
residents, or that the residents were prevented from
raising any issue in relation to it. I do think it is
significant, I suppose, in the first instance before I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
127
look at Book 2 of the Pleadings in the Merriman case,
it is significant, I think, to draw attention to two
paragraphs of the affidavit sworn on behalf of Fingal,
which is in Book 1 of the papers before the Court.
It's at tab number 11, I think, if I have.
MR. HEALY: Of Book?
MR. McDONALD: It's in Book 1 of the Merriman
proceedings. Sorry, it's tab 12. Mr. Byrne's
affidavit. It's just really paragraphs 15 and 16 of
Mr. Byrne's affidavit. It appears at page 6 of the
internal pagination. Mr. Healy said we accept all of
this and he didn't actually read it all out in those
circumstances. But actually we will be submitting
that, whether it's accepted or not it's desperately
important that the Court should see the extent of the
EIA that was carried out at the time and the
opportunity that existed for public participation and
for dealing with the issues of concern to these
Applicants. Mr. Byrne says at paragraph 15 in the
second sentence:
"The Applicants did, however, invoke the permissions
provided for the participation in the appeal process
before An Bord Pleanála which led to its decision to
grant the said planning permission with 31 conditions
on 29th August 2007."
He goes on then to quote from the Applicant's
affidavit. I don't think that's relevant but in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:33
15:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
128
next sentence he says:
"Also, the Applicants comprise the St. Margaret's
Concerned Residents Group."
He says:
"St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group was one of
the parties that lodged an appeal to An Bord Pleanála
prior to its decision on 29th August 2008. This group
made submissions on a range of matters including, but
not limited to, the impact of the development on the
community, the DAA's proposed voluntary residential
buy-out scheme, noise, traffic, health, cultural
heritage, visual impacts, the construction process and
fauna. It made an appeal submission, a submission
following the EIS public notice dated 25th May 2006 and
participated in and made submissions at the oral
hearing which took 12 days and was held on 26th and
27th September and from 29th September to 12th
October."
Our court hearing days may be long, I think in this
court in particular the hearing days may be very long,
but I think the hearing days in these oral hearings are
particularly long. I think they certainly would match
the 9:00 o'clock days that this Court sometimes has.
But if you go to paragraph 16:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
129
"The Inspector's report of the said oral hearing
records that Ms. Helena Merriman, Ms. Sheila Morris,
Mr. Noel Reilly, Mr. Jim Scully and Ms. Helen Gilligan
all attended the oral hearing. I say and believe that
these names refer to five of the Applicants herein.
The Inspector's report also records that Mr. Reilly,
Mr. Scully, Ms. Gillespie, Ms. Colgan, Ms. Morris and
MS. Merriman made submissions on behalf of
St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group on the impact
of the proposal on their lives and properties and that
further submissions by P & M Deighan, S Hand and
J Scully were presented on their behalf. I say and
believe these names also refer to a number of the
Applicants herein being Noel Reilly ..."
He lists them. I don't think I need to go through
that.
"I say and believe that Deirdre Colgan is identified as
a member of the St. Margaret's Concerned Residents
Group and the submissions subject to these proceedings
is not one of the Applicants.
Subsequent to the oral hearing, the group also made a
submission in the revised public notices under the
Section 42 response."
He then exhibits An Bord Pleanála's Inspector's report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
130
I just want to look very quickly through that report.
I'm not proposing to read out large parts of it but
just to identify, I suppose, the extent of the
participation.
It's a very lengthy document taking up the whole of
that tab, I haven't counted the number of pages but
it's more than 200 pages, I think. This, I think, is
only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what was
actually before An Bord Pleanála, because you'll see
when you go through this document that he refers to
tapes, he refers to disks, he refers to underlying
documents which are not before the Court. But clearly
the kind of material that was dealt with in the course
of this EIA was very extensive. But I'm going to pass
over the report itself for the moment, it's at the
beginning of the book. I'll come back to that. If you
look -- sorry, just to identify the name of the expert.
It's at page 419, Rupert Thornely-Taylor. He is
somebody who has given evidence in several cases here
in relation to noise.
If you turn then to page 450. I should start at page
449 there is the heading: "Appeal submissions". It
identifies at page 450 each of the third party appeals.
You'll see that St. Margaret's is number 7. You'll see
that Mr. Trevor Sargent, who was then a TD, I think,
was also one of the appellants. An Taisce was an
appellant at item 13. And another community
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
131
association, Portmarnock Community Association was also
an appellant.
He then goes through - and this is very much in
headline terms - the issues that were identified. If
you go page 452 you'll see he summarises St. Margaret's
Concerned Residents Group's position and you'll see
that it was accompanied by supporting documentation.
You don't have that before you but obviously they had
their opportunity to put in supporting documentation at
that time. You'll see the concerns that they
identified.
"The proposal will result in the end of St. Margaret's
and the erosion of the strong community. The
mitigation measures proposed, which are not discussed
or finalised with the group, will serve to destroy
rather than provide an acceptable solution."
Of course that's one of the complaints or one of the
things that is mentioned by Ms. Merriman in her
affidavit that they weren't consulted in relation to
the Voluntary Purchase Scheme. They didn't have an
opportunity to participate in it. I suppose, just
while I think of it, it is of some significance, I
think, that the Applicants, firstly didn't seek to
contest the legality of An Bord Pleanála's decision at
the time, even though Condition 9 doesn't provide for
any right of the Applicants to participate, or indeed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
132
any of the other affected residents, because I think it
would be wrong just to focus on the St. Margaret's
residents. There were other residents that were
potentially affected. There was no challenge to the
An Bord Pleanála decision at the time and nor was there
any challenge to the scheme. Obviously this was a
scheme that was entered into by two public bodies;
Fingal and An Bord Pleanála and would be amenable to
judicial review and yet there was no challenge in
relation to it.
If you then go back to the page, you'll just the bullet
points here:
"In terms of the buy-out scheme, the community has no
intention or desire to sell their properties and are
therefore being forced into an untenable position."
Exactly the case which is, it's almost word for, it's
not word-for-word but it's the same sentiment as
Mr. Healy had in opening the case or voiced, I should
say, in opening the case.
"Currently the community enjoys a rural setting with
all the amenities of urban life and an active
community. The proposed installation scheme is
piecemeal and will not provide a satisfactory solution.
The Dublin Airport Authority will not operate on any
curfew."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
133
The Court will recall that in fact the planning
permission ultimately granted deals with that concern
and makes sure there won't be nighttime movements.
Then it talks about lighting; it talks about road
improvements; it talks about changes to road
realignments; the construction process will have a
negative. The community should be advised and
consulted.
"The assessment of mitigation measures for noise every
two years is not acceptable..." and so on. There is
references to historical buildings, hedgerows, fauna
and wild life to be protected. There's a reference to
halting sites.
"Engine testing
The exactly location of the engine testing area should
be provided."
I didn't open this condition but one of the conditions
of the planning permission is that the engine testing
area would be moved.
"The location of the proposed viewing area should be
identified.
Due consideration should be given to boundary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
134
treatment.
Construction hours should not be allowed beyond the
time stipulated in Condition 3.
Clarification is required about the equipment
enclosure.
Clarification is required about services."
Then there's a reference and this is the flood risk:
"Clarification is required as to whether the water
supply and drainage rain would affect the surrounding
lands and residents."
Then the duration of the permission for ten years needs
to be clarified. That's the point I referred to
earlier.
You then have reference to all the other, again in
summary bullet point fashion you have reference to all
the other concerns of other appellants. But just
briefly if you look at page 458 you'll see there's a
very detailed summary of the concerns made, voiced by
An Taisce, including concerns about the EIS that had
been delivered. Again, of course, An Taisce, somebody
peculiarly qualified to offer views in relation to the
reliability and extent of an EIS in relation to issues
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
135
in relation to the Habitats Directive. These are
matters that ordinary bread and butter issues, I think
that's the wrong expression but relatively common
issues of concern to bodies such as An Taisce.
You then have Portmarnock Community Association at page
459. I don't think we need to spend time on that.
If you turn to page 468 you'll see the Applicants'
response to the third party grounds of appeal. I don't
think I need to take you through the detail of that,
other than to note that there was obviously a very
significant amount of detail provided, because this is
only a summary but if you turn to page 472, one of the
things that was dealt with is water is the heading, but
what they're really dealing with, they're dealing with
run-off water and surface water, drainage and so on.
That's going to the issue of flood risk. The Court
will be aware, of course, that under the EIA Directive
the EIA Directive would require consideration of
impacts but, in addition, there's a specific
requirement that EIA should address accidents, risks of
that kind. So flood risk something that where you have
an EIA you really have to address it. That's what
happened in this case, as we'll see.
If you then move on you'll see at page 476 they deal
with ecology and they deal with birds and so on. Just
in relation to that. There was a suggestion made by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
136
Mr. Kenny yesterday that the Bird Surveys that were
utilised for the purpose of this EIA dated back to
2002. Now, I could be completely wrong about this but
I couldn't find, I went looking for that reference in
the papers before the Court and I could find nothing
about it. Obviously, having regard to all we've seen
in the AP -v- DPP case and the other case, the position
of Ms. Justice Costello, that's something about which
the Court should have evidence if that's being relied
on and there's a singular, certainly as far as I can
see a singular lack of evidence in relation to that.
You'll see, then, that in addition to that at page 479
there were people who were weren't appellants but they
were observers, including two local councillors. I
don't think I need to take you through that. If you
turn to page 482 there are, just to identify it at page
481, they identify that "what follows in the next
section are submissions received following the EIS
public notice published on 25th May 2006."
You'll see at the bottom of the next page, page 482,
again this is just a summary, you'll see St. Margaret's
again participated at this stage and raised further
issues. The Inspector says, at the top of the page,
he's not repeating the points they made previously
because he has already summarised those before, but
he's identifying additional points that they make.
You'll see the second bullet point under the heading is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
137
that there is no reference as to how the buy-out
procedure would be operated. So this was something
that they were ventilating and voicing at the time the
planning permission was under consideration.
Then it talks about installation. If turn to the next
page there is reference to:
"Detailed proposals are required as to how contaminated
water is to be stored to prevent contamination of
watercourses.
Overall plans for the airport and surrounding
infrastructure should be lodged simultaneously."
More reference to traffic chaos and details of the
effects of emissions from radio navigation is another
issue that was raised.
If you then turn to page 486 you'll see there's the
Applicants' response to the Section 132 notice. I
don't need to spend time on that. You'll just see
again it is another stage. You then have the responses
to the Section 132 notice and the revised public
notices starting at page 488. You'll see, if you turn
to page 491 that the responses were received from a
number of bodies, including the Portmarnock Community
Association, on the top of the next page,
St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group at page 492.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
138
And you'll see that the Portmarnock Community
Association go through a very long list of things,
including very significant detail about noise at page
493. Raising very similar issues, I think, to the
issues that were raised by St. Margaret's. If you then
go forward you'll come to page 498 and you'll see that
that noise in particular was dealt with accompanied by
a report from an engineer, Searson & Associates by
St. Margaret's at this point. I don't think I need to
take you through the detail of that but just to
identify that not only did the residents association
make submissions but they retained, very properly and
prudently, they retained an engineer to assist them in
making their submissions in relation to what was
undoubtedly a technical issue, the issue of noise.
There's then, at page 500, I don't think I need to
spend time on that, but the Inspector identifies the
national policy documents. You've seen some reference
to those in the planning permission. Page 508, the
Inspector deals with the regional policy documents.
Again, I don't think we need to spend time on that
because we've seen the reference to them in the
decision of the Board.
Then if you turn to page 529 you'll see the summary of
the oral hearing proceedings.
If you it turn to page -- well it's the next page, it's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
139
not actually paginated in the book I just see. But
you'll see the list of attendees and you'll see that
Ms. Theresa Kavanagh, not only did she represent
herself but Mr. Sweetman represented her, an expert in
the EIA and the Habitats Directive issues.
You'll see, if you go down the page, the St. Margaret's
Concerned Residents Group, all the different
participants who took part, including Peter Bland who's
wrongly described as a solicitor. I suppose he was in
civies on that day but he was obviously a member of the
Library and a very well respected and knowledgeable
person in relation to this area. Similarly, on the
next page there's a reference to Mr. Matthew Harley who
represented himself and also in Nap Keeling represented
him. You have Mr. Trevor Sargent who represented
himself and you have An Taisce represented by Ian
Lumley. And then you have a whole series of people,
including various experts on behalf of Portmarnock
Community Council. You'll see there is a reference to
Mr. Kelly Robert of R. Kelly & Associates Consultants,
a reference to Dr. Anthony Staines,
Professor Stansfield, Acoustic Associates Ireland
Limited and so on. Then there are the Planning
Authority well -- that's not -- which identifies who
was there. I don't think those are immediately
relevant in terms of the ability of people like
St. Margaret's to participate in the process.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
140
Then if you look at page 531 you'll see the identity of
the Inspectors. It is actually a lady, Ms. Pauline
Fitzpatrick who was the presiding Inspector. There is
then Mr. Gerry Barnes and Mr. Rupert Thornely-Taylor
who is the noise expert that I identified earlier.
The Inspector then goes through the various issues that
were addressed during the course of the oral hearing.
I don't think it is necessary to take the Court through
the detail of that, other than to note it. You will
note that at various pages there's reference to disk 1
and so on. That's obviously a recording of the
hearing.
If you then turn to page, or the best way to find it is
to turn to page 541. At the bottom of the right-hand
side you'll see under the heading: "Surface water
drainage" a number of pages all dealing with that issue
which is obviously the flood issue. You'll see, for
example, at the bottom of page 24 of the internal
pagination, Mr. McElligott making a submission in
relation to how the water would be adequately
accommodated and there would be no increase in flood
risk downstream and no deterioration in water quality.
That goes on for, I think, three pages. Again that's
only a summary. The Inspectors refer to the disk.
If it you then turn to page 542 you have a summary of
the issues that were debated in relation to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
141
archaeology, cultural heritage and visual impact.
You'll see at page 28 of the internal pagination they
address the existing habitat. They address the bat
activity. They address bird strike at the top of page
543. They address habitat mountain at the top of page
543. On the next page there's obviously quite a lot of
questions and answers in relation to the issue of
whether bats are present on site and so on and there
were experts there to address that issue.
You then have at page 544, dealing with public health
and safety and air quality. I don't think we need to
spend time on that. But if you turn to page 548 you
have the section that starts on the opposite page
dealing with noise and by my very unreliable
calculation that goes on for 12 pages. So clearly the
whole issue of noise was ventilated at very significant
length.
I don't think you need to look at the detail of that,
at page 554 you have other issues including legal
issues and there are submissions made by Mr. Lumley in
relation to the adequacy of the EIS.
You'll see at page 52 of the internal pagination,
Mr. Sweetman raising issues. You'll see that among the
issues that he raises is bats and he specifically
references in the fourth last line of the paragraph
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
142
beginning "Mr. Sweetman", he specifically references
the Habitats Directive. Then he goes on in the next
paragraph to raise issues about the adequacy of the EIS
and so on.
Then you have, if you go to page 557 you'll see two
pages dealing with closing submissions. Again have you
Mr. Bland then making a closing submission on behalf
the St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group. Again I
don't think I need to take you to the detail of that.
It's obviously a very short summary. The Inspectors
clearly have disk 2 available to them with the actual
full text of what was said.
You then have, if you turn to the next two pages, page
557 and 558 and the page opposite page 558 you have an
identification of the various things that happened on
each day of the oral hearing. You'll see that
St. Margaret's were heard on a number of days. They
were heard on Wednesday, 27th September; they were
heard again on 4th October; they were heard again quite
significantly, for quite a significant period of
Friday, 6th October; they were heard again on 9th
October when Mr. Searson gave evidence; Ms. Sheila
Morris also gave evidence; and there was whole series
of other residents who gave evidence without their
names being identified, although Mr. Deighan's name and
Mr. Scully's name were identified. And then you also
obviously had other noise experts who gave evidence on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
143
that day.
So you had, I think, when you look at that - and I have
only taken you through on a very headline basis, I
think it just identifies the sheer extent of the EIA
that took place in this case, the opportunity that was
given for public participation, not just once but at
every layer of the process that took place before An
Bord Pleanála, and every opportunity with given to the
residents to make their case and no indication being
given at that they're shut out from making a case.
Now I did say that I wanted to address flood risk and I
think if you look - and I'll try to deal with this as
quickly as I can. I'm sure I will get it done before
4:00 o'clock. If you go back to the Inspector's
report, which is at the beginning of that tab, page 390
of the book, it's under the heading "Site Drainage".
You'll see, if you go down to the second sentence in
that paragraph:
"Concern was expressed as to the potential of whether
the proposal to exacerbate what is considered to be an
already intolerable situation arising from the impact
of development of the airports on lands downstream in
terms of drainage and flooding. Concern was also
expressed as to the potential impact on Baldoyle Bay
which is an SAC and on Kinsealy Lake."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
144
Again, looking at impacts. You'll see on the next
paragraph:
"I note that the issue of site drainage constituted a
material consideration of the further information
request to the Applicant. Of particular concern was
the sensitivity of the Ward River catchment as it is
salmonid a watercourse..." and so on.
You'll see then in the next paragraph:
"The proposed surface water drainage system is to
record the principles of sustainable urban drainage
systems..."
And they're still in operation today.
"...and it is to involve a sealed pipe drainage system
to intercept all surface water runoff from the
impervious areas to be served by one outfall to Forest
Little Stream sub-catchment so that no paved area
runoff enters the Ward River catchment. Runoff from
grassed areas will continue to drain to existing
catchments, therefore the Ward River will only receive
drainage from grassed areas within the western area of
the development. Attenuation tanks will also be
provided to control discharges for grassed areas."
It then goes on to deal with other steps that were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
145
being taken to offset potential flooding issues. I'm
not sure I really need to take you through all of the
detail of that.
If you look at the conclusion which the Inspector
reaches, in my submission it's exactly the conclusion
which is reached in 2017 by RPS, even though RPS were
approaching this by reference to the framework that's
now in place under the 2009 Flood Risk Guidelines
issued by the Minister.
If you look at the bottom of page 391 of the book or
page 91 of the internal pagination, the conclusion of
the Inspector:
"In conclusion, while I note the concerns raised
relating to current surface water drainage regime at
other parts of the airport and on other airport lands,
including car parking areas, these are not before the
Board for adjudication."
That's the existing regime.
He says:
"Certainly..."
Again, this is entirely consistent with the EIA
requirement that you look at cumulative effects.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
146
"Certainly, the cumulative effect is of relevance and
on the balance of evidence I am satisfied that the
Applicant has supplied sufficient detail at this
juncture to support its view that the proposed works
will not exacerbate the situation as currently
prevailing. In this regard I see no reason to object
to the Applicants' claim that as the proposed runway
will replace a certain extent of paved areas that
currently discharge unattenuated into the Forest Little
Stream, the proposal is likely to reduce any existing
flood risk."
Then he goes on to deal with contamination and I don't
think contamination is really the issue that is raised
by the Merriman Applicants in these proceedings. But
if you compare that conclusion and the things that he
considered, such as the sealed pipe drainage system to
intercept all surface water and the attenuation tanks
that will be provided, when you compare that when the
flood risk assessment that's done in 2017 by RPS, in my
respectful submission the facts relied on and the
conclusion reached are precisely the same. There's
nothing new here because whether you're doing an EIA to
identify potential impacts of a development, or you're
carrying out a flood risk assessment under the 2009
Guidelines, you're looking at the same thing: What is
the risk of flooding here? Is it being managed
appropriately? And is there a risk of an increase in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
147
flooding as a consequence of this development? That's
exactly the process that this Inspector undertook back
in 2007 and it's the same process which RPS undertook
in 2017.
Can I just ask the Court, very briefly, to look at the
RPS document that's exhibited by the Merriman
Applicants in Book 1 of their pleadings? It's tab 3
behind tab 3. I'm sorry about the pagination but
that's the way it's done. It starts at page 70. It is
headed:
"Flood risk assessment for North Runway."
Just, I suppose, to put this in context - I'll be
desperately quick about this. The 2009 Guidelines on
flood risk assessment, they apply to any development in
an area that potentially has potential flood risk. So
they apply whether you're building a house that has
nothing to do with the EIA or whether you're building
an EIA development. But, as I said to you earlier, EIA
is really when you're looking at impacts, particularly
risks and Annex IV specifically identifies the risk of
accidents and accidents would include flooding because
they're clearly not intentional. You're actually
carrying out the same process. What the 2009
Guidelines do is simply to set out a framework by which
the flood risk assessment is to be carried out and in
particular if you look at page 109 of the Book you'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
148
see that it sets out a justification test that applies.
I don't think I need to take you through the detail of
that but if you look at page 1110 there are different
criteria in the justification test. The first is the
zoning of the lands and these lands have been zoned for
development. Zoning was already dealt with, as you've
seen, from the An Bord Pleanála decision itself. The
next issue that's dealt with at paragraph 732:
"The flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the
development proposed will not increase flood risk
elsewhere and, if practicable, will the overall reduce
flood risk."
That's precisely the exercise that the Inspector
undertook as we've just seen. The next criteria down
is:
"The development proposal includes measures to minimise
flood risk to people, property, the economy and the
environment so far as reasonably upon."
Again, you have seen the measures that were posed back
in 2007 and are still the same measures. The
culverting or piping of the stream, the building of the
attenuation tank and so on. So the process that is
undertaken under the 2009 Guidelines is not, in
substance, in my submission, any different at all to
the process that was undertaken by the Inspector in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
149
this case.
Just to draw finally at page 112 to the final paragraph
of the report under the heading "Summary and
Conclusions", the very bottom of that page, it says:
"Following completion of the justification test in
accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk
Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities, it was
shown through the report..."
That's their own report.
"...that all elements can be satisfied and there is no
flood risk to the operational functionality of the
North Runway or to properties and land downstream from
the airport from airport discharges."
That's precisely the same conclusion the Inspector
reaches in his report and, therefore, there is no
difference, in substance, between what was done in 2007
and what was done in 2017.
I see it's just 4:00 o'clock, Judge.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Very good. Just in terms of next
week we have Tuesday and Wednesday. Should we put in
longer days to get it done?
MR. McDONALD: I think it might be, subject to my
Friends, it might be wise to do that, if the Court is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:03
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
150
prepared to do that?
MR. SIMONS: Yes.
MR. McDONALD: I mean I'm very conscious this Court
seems to sit unusually long hours and I'm sorry that
the Court is finding itself in that position but if the
Court is prepared to do it I think it would be
immensely.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Sure, well I'll just abandon my
kids to their mother! You name the time on Tuesday and
we'll start at that time.
MR. McDONALD: Would 10:00 o'clock be okay?
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Sure, no problem.
MR. BRADLEY: Judge, could I just indicate, I'm obliged
to Mr. McDonald, I have a slight difficulty on Tuesday
morning but I anticipate that I'll probably be starting
around about lunchtime on Tuesday in any event, just as
a matter of courtesy.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you very much. See you
then.
THE HEARING WAS THEN ADJOURNED TO TUESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER
2017 AT 10:00 A.M.
'
'...that [1] -
61:12
'85 [1] - 74:23
'adjustment [1] -
119:16
'cannot [1] -
54:27
'free [1] - 60:10
'free-wheeling'
[1] - 60:10
'has [2] - 119:7,
119:12
'In [1] - 62:3
'intent [1] - 53:2
'intent' [1] -
52:28
'intention [1] -
54:1
'it [2] - 13:24,
39:4
'legislative [2] -
63:1, 63:9
'one [1] - 38:28
'parliamentary
[1] - 63:9
'serious' [1] -
67:22
'significant' [1] -
67:23
'the [5] - 34:2,
34:16, 34:23,
53:1, 62:26
'to [1] - 38:17
'was [1] - 119:10
'We [1] - 55:1
1
1 [19] - 3:12,
16:20, 17:1, 69:7,
80:29, 89:29,
90:6, 100:16,
100:18, 101:1,
106:10, 109:22,
110:20, 120:22,
120:23, 127:4,
127:7, 140:11,
147:8
10 [5] - 63:3,
63:4, 63:7, 73:13,
112:17
107 [1] - 107:21
109 [1] - 147:29
10:00 [2] -
150:11, 150:22
11 [1] - 127:5
1110 [1] - 148:3
112 [1] - 149:3
114 [1] - 101:2
12 [12] - 1:3,
16:20, 91:22,
92:21, 93:2, 93:6,
93:8, 93:11,
111:29, 127:8,
128:19, 141:17
122 [1] - 44:28
124 [1] - 45:10
127 [1] - 45:10
128 [1] - 45:11
12th [2] -
120:24, 128:20
13 [6] - 81:4,
82:25, 82:27,
83:11, 83:15,
130:29
132 [2] - 137:21,
137:24
134 [1] - 3:13
136 [1] - 81:18
137 [1] - 99:11
138 [3] - 81:3,
97:24, 103:23
13th [1] - 70:14
13TH [2] - 1:25,
3:2
14 [3] - 42:4,
97:22, 97:23
14/600109 [1] -
121:21
15 [5] - 16:5,
18:3, 99:18,
127:9, 127:19
155 [1] - 105:28
15th [1] - 108:27
16 [6] - 74:14,
99:11, 99:19,
99:20, 127:9,
128:28
16-hour [1] -
91:21
160 [1] - 95:3
17 [3] - 74:14,
74:15, 122:4
171A(1) [1] -
10:15
177 [1] - 23:14
177U [1] - 9:6
177V [1] - 9:7
177V(1 [1] - 9:19
17TH [1] -
150:21
18 [4] - 77:18,
77:20, 120:22,
120:23
19 [1] - 60:6
191 [3] - 100:6,
100:8, 100:23
192 [3] - 100:6,
100:11, 100:15
193 [1] - 23:14
1972 [1] - 87:15
1981 [1] - 77:19
1993 [1] - 60:19
1995 [4] - 67:27,
68:3, 69:1, 69:12
1996 [2] - 60:11,
69:7
1997 [1] - 60:17
1999 [4] - 45:21,
45:25, 46:11,
108:27
1:00 [1] - 69:24
2
2 [18] - 6:27,
31:29, 43:7,
44:10, 46:4, 67:7,
86:11, 90:13,
100:7, 100:27,
106:11, 107:4,
107:7, 110:22,
113:29, 127:1,
142:12
20 [6] - 24:6,
31:2, 40:12,
71:24, 93:24,
122:19
200 [1] - 130:8
2000 [12] -
17:15, 18:10,
70:23, 71:22,
79:10, 103:15,
106:24, 107:23,
109:1, 112:8,
112:25, 113:8
2001 [5] - 60:29,
61:1, 66:18, 69:8,
121:24
2002 [3] - 91:5,
119:25, 136:3
2003 [1] - 61:29
2004 [1] - 12:16
2005) [1] - 60:20
2005-2011 [1] -
45:29
2006 [4] - 78:29,
91:6, 128:17,
136:20
2007 [25] - 3:16,
5:1, 6:1, 6:6,
6:12, 6:17, 15:19,
15:22, 16:14,
20:12, 47:19,
60:16, 68:27,
69:1, 105:22,
106:22, 107:12,
107:15, 107:21,
109:8, 124:9,
127:26, 147:3,
148:24, 149:21
2008 [3] -
118:21, 128:10
2009 [8] - 45:19,
125:15, 125:21,
145:9, 146:26,
147:16, 147:26,
148:27
2010 [2] - 61:3,
108:28
2011 [3] - 16:22,
18:11, 72:21
2011/92/EU [1] -
121:27
2014 [2] - 50:26,
72:23
2015 [3] - 5:8,
23:26, 110:28
2016 [3] - 61:21,
70:21, 73:15
2017 [12] - 1:25,
3:2, 15:6, 20:13,
31:11, 47:19,
70:15, 145:7,
146:21, 147:4,
149:22, 150:22
2017/344JR [1] -
1:5
21 [1] - 87:5
21st [1] - 45:19
22 [3] - 6:28,
7:13, 102:9
229 [1] - 61:1
23 [5] - 25:13,
94:22, 94:25,
96:9, 105:28
23rd [1] - 66:17
24 [4] - 78:27,
78:28, 96:6,
140:20
25 [4] - 9:3,
60:11, 67:7,
96:10
251 [1] - 60:29
251.. [1] - 69:9
253A [1] - 60:18
258 [1] - 18:4
25th [3] - 60:16,
128:17, 136:20
26 [4] - 86:19,
96:24, 107:24,
112:17
267 [1] - 32:2
26th [1] - 128:19
27 [3] - 6:28,
113:1, 113:2
27th [4] - 67:27,
68:3, 128:20,
142:20
28 [2] - 70:21,
141:3
28(1 [1] - 70:22
28(2 [1] - 71:21
283 [1] - 78:26
284 [1] - 43:17
29 [3] - 77:19,
91:16, 107:3
291 [1] - 63:8
293 [1] - 39:14
294 [2] - 107:14,
107:20
295 [2] - 52:7,
52:17
297 [1] - 55:25
299 [2] - 57:14
29th [3] -
127:26, 128:10,
128:20
2:00 [1] - 69:27
3
3 [26] - 9:22,
19:15, 27:26,
30:7, 51:16,
51:17, 52:7,
60:29, 69:8,
76:25, 76:28,
81:19, 81:25,
82:17, 86:10,
86:12, 90:21,
95:11, 110:27,
112:1, 121:9,
134:4, 147:8,
147:9
3) [1] - 122:19
3,110 [2] - 4:14,
16:2
302 [2] - 58:13,
58:14
307 [1] - 60:20
31 [2] - 37:13,
127:25
315 [4] - 26:29,
43:7, 43:8, 43:10
318 [2] - 29:6,
43:17
32 [3] - 9:17,
32:15, 60:7
324 [1] - 43:10
326 [2] - 67:8,
67:16
33 [3] - 9:16,
10:6, 61:5
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
1
332 [1] - 16:27
34 [5] - 10:24,
33:22, 60:18,
62:22, 94:21
35 [2] - 12:10,
12:12
36 [2] - 63:27,
114:1
37 [4] - 13:8,
19:22, 43:7,
118:21
379 [1] - 118:22
38 [2] - 44:11,
67:18
39 [3] - 31:29,
74:11, 74:15
390 [1] - 143:17
391 [1] - 145:12
4
4 [10] - 8:22,
9:27, 61:1, 61:3,
81:19, 81:25,
82:17, 111:1,
118:21, 121:9
40 [11] - 14:3,
27:9, 27:16,
27:26, 28:3, 30:7,
68:10, 68:14,
74:15, 74:29,
76:6
40.3 [3] - 22:8,
31:9, 81:11
40.3.2 [1] -
113:21
41 [4] - 27:6,
78:22, 78:26,
122:5
419 [1] - 130:19
42 [35] - 15:12,
16:26, 17:1,
17:21, 44:13,
44:19, 46:9, 47:1,
70:22, 71:22,
73:17, 81:20,
81:28, 83:3,
83:14, 97:28,
99:21, 102:10,
103:4, 103:5,
103:6, 103:7,
103:8, 103:16,
103:26, 104:6,
104:8, 105:23,
111:24, 112:4,
112:20, 113:7,
113:18, 126:19,
129:26
42(1 [1] - 16:28
42(1)(a [1] - 81:7
43 [2] - 81:11,
118:3
44 [3] - 13:12,
13:14, 123:1
442 [2] - 42:2,
125:20
449 [1] - 130:24
45 [1] - 81:11
450 [2] - 130:23,
130:25
452 [1] - 131:6
454 [1] - 85:14
458 [1] - 134:24
459 [1] - 135:7
468 [1] - 135:9
472 [1] - 135:14
476 [1] - 135:27
479 [1] - 136:13
481 [1] - 136:18
482 [2] - 136:17,
136:22
486 [1] - 137:20
488 [1] - 137:25
49 [1] - 51:17
491 [1] - 137:26
492 [1] - 137:29
493 [1] - 138:4
495 [1] - 108:28
498 [1] - 138:6
4:00 [2] -
143:16, 149:24
4th [1] - 142:21
5
5 [6] - 70:17,
82:2, 82:3, 91:17,
111:6, 116:21
50 [2] - 79:9,
107:23
500 [1] - 138:17
508 [1] - 138:20
50A [1] - 42:9
52 [1] - 141:26
529 [1] - 138:26
531 [1] - 140:1
54 [1] - 76:28
541 [1] - 140:16
542 [1] - 140:28
543 [2] - 141:6,
141:7
544 [1] - 141:12
548 [1] - 141:14
550 [1] - 67:9
554 [1] - 141:22
557 [2] - 142:6,
142:16
558 [2] - 142:16
560 [1] - 78:16
562 [1] - 61:3
565 [1] - 69:8
571 [1] - 77:11
572 [1] - 77:13
584 [2] - 62:1,
62:25
59 [1] - 52:29
6
6 [17] - 7:18,
7:25, 8:3, 52:22,
80:29, 81:19,
82:16, 82:18,
91:17, 91:27,
97:18, 103:23,
105:25, 111:9,
111:29, 121:14,
127:10
6(2 [1] - 8:6
6(3 [7] - 7:28,
8:14, 9:5, 10:25,
11:15, 12:19,
13:15
6(4 [2] - 11:8,
11:11
61 [1] - 12:16
623 [1] - 32:25
63 [1] - 91:21
65 [3] - 19:15,
118:25
69 [1] - 92:21
6th [1] - 142:23
7
7 [8] - 1:25,
91:19, 91:28,
111:13, 117:12,
121:14, 121:19,
130:26
70 [1] - 147:10
731 [1] - 114:29
732 [1] - 148:8
734 [1] - 117:12
739 [1] - 118:2
74 [1] - 117:10
741 [1] - 32:25
742 [4] - 33:10,
33:13, 35:12,
38:14
743 [1] - 33:29
744 [3] - 34:15,
38:27, 118:25
745 [1] - 118:25
746 [2] - 34:20,
39:3
747 [2] - 34:21,
39:3
75 [1] - 16:3
79 [2] - 37:2,
37:3
7b [1] - 90:8
8
8 [8] - 17:20,
60:1, 91:24,
95:10, 98:13,
99:10, 99:11,
111:17
82 [1] - 38:25
84 [1] - 122:18
87 [1] - 24:3
87(10 [4] -
107:26, 108:7,
108:24, 109:2
87(10) [1] -
109:10
89 [1] - 16:27
9
9 [8] - 6:29, 52:7,
70:13, 73:16,
92:12, 93:21,
104:2, 131:28
91 [2] - 39:14,
145:13
92 [1] - 70:15
9:00 [1] - 128:27
9th [1] - 142:23
A
A.G [1] - 32:23
A.M [1] - 150:22
AA [1] - 70:25
Aarhus [1] -
111:7
abandon [1] -
150:8
ability [3] -
42:12, 102:11,
139:27
able [5] - 15:26,
31:3, 31:4, 31:6,
64:23
abortion [1] -
36:12
above-named
[1] - 1:29
above-quoted
[1] - 64:1
absence [3] -
13:5, 14:27,
110:25
absent [2] -
103:3, 103:4
absolute [4] -
22:4, 22:5,
113:14, 118:6
absolutely [3] -
64:16, 66:10,
126:20
absurdity [1] -
57:22
abuse [4] -
114:7, 114:11,
119:1, 123:8
accelerating [2]
- 26:6, 28:23
accept [7] -
4:11, 26:14,
31:25, 35:15,
82:8, 89:9,
127:11
acceptability [2]
- 4:14, 89:20
acceptable [2] -
88:13, 131:18
acceptable.. [2]
- 88:8, 133:13
acceptance [1] -
77:19
accepted [7] -
36:14, 46:26,
75:19, 75:21,
75:25, 91:29,
127:14
accepting [1] -
21:24
access [4] -
26:21, 34:14,
39:1, 40:3
accidents [3] -
135:22, 147:24
accommodate
d [1] - 140:23
accompanied
[3] - 25:21, 131:8,
138:7
accordance [12]
- 10:3, 11:15,
30:21, 48:21,
55:15, 88:16,
92:24, 93:27,
100:19, 101:6,
122:18, 149:8
accorded [1] -
36:20
according [3] -
29:20, 53:9,
88:25
According [1] -
30:15
accordingly [1] -
35:22
Account [1] -
24:25
account [5] -
12:27, 20:2, 36:3,
39:21, 98:15
accurate [1] -
55:3
accusing [1] -
46:20
achieve [2] -
37:26, 100:22
acidification [1]
- 24:16
acknowledge
[1] - 4:10
acknowledged
[1] - 48:28
Acoustic [1] -
139:23
acquire [1] -
35:16
Act [36] - 5:8,
7:20, 9:23, 9:28,
17:15, 19:5, 19:6,
42:10, 55:14,
56:27, 57:1,
60:11, 60:17,
60:19, 60:20,
61:21, 68:27,
69:1, 70:21,
70:23, 71:22,
73:15, 77:19,
78:29, 79:10,
103:15, 106:24,
106:26, 107:12,
107:21, 107:23,
108:29, 110:28,
112:8, 112:25,
121:23
Act" [1] - 9:7
acted [5] - 82:6,
110:27, 111:1,
111:6, 111:9
acting [2] -
100:18, 101:6
Actio [1] - 37:4
ACTION [1] -
1:24
action [6] - 1:29,
35:23, 39:29,
40:20, 60:26,
100:21
actions [2] -
32:5, 40:5
active [1] -
132:25
activity [4] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
2
13:2, 17:26,
85:10, 141:5
acts [2] - 108:6,
109:4
Acts [6] - 18:10,
52:24, 52:27,
77:7, 77:9, 86:24
actual [2] - 86:8,
142:12
add [2] - 23:14,
54:17
adding [1] -
21:27
addition [6] -
84:11, 91:2,
105:13, 122:19,
135:21, 136:13
additional [7] -
4:2, 30:12, 51:24,
59:25, 98:18,
102:24, 136:28
address [15] -
4:18, 6:20, 41:12,
49:5, 49:14, 50:3,
124:1, 135:22,
135:24, 141:4,
141:5, 141:6,
141:10, 143:13
addressed [7] -
50:16, 84:9,
84:25, 89:25,
125:23, 126:22,
140:8
addressing [2] -
3:29, 116:20
adds [1] -
119:10
adduced [1] -
119:9
adequacy [3] -
7:6, 141:24,
142:3
adequate [1] -
7:8
adequately [2] -
53:16, 140:22
adjacent [3] -
45:27, 48:3,
93:10
adjoining [1] -
85:9
ADJOURNED
[2] - 69:29, 150:21
adjudication [1]
- 145:20
administration
[1] - 115:23
admiration [1] -
50:5
admissibility [1]
- 69:13
admission [1] -
64:2
adopt [5] - 17:4,
66:6, 76:15, 79:2,
101:14
adopted [5] -
5:5, 19:8, 41:15,
55:14, 57:1
adopting [2] -
46:9, 109:25
adoption [2] -
17:28, 18:15
ADRIENNE [1] -
1:7
advance [3] -
93:6, 122:16,
122:25
advanced [2] -
117:23, 122:7
adverse [2] -
4:1, 85:18
adversely [10] -
8:25, 9:26, 10:2,
10:28, 11:5,
11:18, 12:14,
13:3, 14:23,
84:14
advice [2] -
68:20, 71:9
advised [1] -
133:9
advisors [1] -
65:24
advocating [1] -
40:12
affect [17] - 8:25,
9:26, 10:2, 10:28,
11:5, 11:18,
12:14, 12:24,
13:3, 14:1, 14:8,
14:23, 17:27,
37:10, 38:23,
39:27, 134:14
affected [11] -
25:11, 33:5,
36:16, 41:21,
44:4, 49:2, 90:21,
107:27, 108:1,
132:1, 132:4
affecting [1] -
101:16
affects [2] -
24:14, 40:18
affidavit [12] -
50:11, 50:15,
50:16, 98:22,
118:18, 119:5,
119:23, 127:3,
127:9, 127:10,
127:29, 131:22
affirmed [1] -
61:10
afforded [1] -
60:10
afraid [1] - 76:23
AFTER [1] - 70:1
afternoon [6] -
74:13, 80:19,
80:22, 89:8,
91:16, 99:22
AGENT [1] -
2:15
ago [4] - 31:2,
50:17, 77:15,
83:18
agree [3] - 8:23,
21:20, 101:22
agreed [9] -
11:9, 47:12, 80:5,
92:19, 92:24,
94:3, 94:15,
96:21, 102:27
agreement [2] -
46:15, 68:18
agricultural [1] -
25:7
agrotoxins [1] -
24:18
ahead [2] -
49:13, 49:22
aid [6] - 56:13,
56:26, 63:12,
65:8, 68:26,
69:13
aids [2] - 53:15,
57:26
aim [2] - 98:10,
98:19
air [3] - 88:5,
88:13, 141:13
aircraft [2] - 4:2,
90:11
Airport [12] -
19:15, 81:29,
87:7, 87:11,
87:28, 88:4,
88:21, 91:2,
91:11, 98:11,
103:12, 132:28
AIRPORT [2] -
1:17, 2:17
airport [19] -
19:17, 19:28,
41:20, 47:8, 48:3,
48:12, 88:5,
89:29, 90:8,
93:10, 95:22,
98:6, 98:21,
137:13, 145:18,
149:17
airports [3] -
4:3, 91:11,
143:25
Albania [1] -
23:8
albeit [2] - 23:4,
78:24
Alen [1] - 120:22
Alen-Buckley
[1] - 120:22
alia [4] - 22:7,
45:26, 61:7,
62:24
allegation [11] -
50:3, 50:7, 50:18,
73:28, 73:29,
99:25, 104:1,
113:23, 119:1,
120:11
alleged [2] -
27:2, 111:24
allow [4] - 81:9,
114:19, 117:24,
120:12
allowed [3] -
75:9, 119:26,
134:3
allows [3] -
72:25, 72:26,
93:15
almost [3] -
39:27, 40:18,
132:19
alone [1] - 58:23
also.. [1] - 108:9
alteram [1] -
84:21
amalgam [1] -
82:16
ambiguity [2] -
57:21, 116:24
ambiguous [2] -
53:3, 65:11
ambit [1] - 17:18
ameliorated [1] -
57:20
amenable [1] -
132:8
amend [1] -
110:4
amended [4] -
58:27, 97:28,
103:26, 121:25
Amended [1] -
80:25
amendment [6] -
63:18, 63:19,
73:17, 77:18,
77:27, 117:24
amendments [1]
- 77:26
amenities [2] -
46:13, 132:25
amenity [2] -
85:8, 95:11
amount [4] -
81:24, 102:3,
108:21, 135:13
amounts [1] -
123:8
ample [1] -
123:18
analogy [1] -
19:21
analysis [6] -
10:12, 10:16,
14:10, 14:15,
14:18, 67:29
AND [2] - 1:19,
1:20
Andorra [1] -
23:8
Annex [3] -
15:25, 15:27,
147:23
answers [1] -
141:8
antecedent [1] -
29:29
Anthony [1] -
139:22
anticipate [1] -
150:15
anxiety [3] -
118:15, 118:19,
119:12
AP [3] - 113:29,
120:19, 136:7
Apart [1] - 56:14
apologies [3] -
37:3, 107:8,
109:22
apologise [1] -
26:16
appeal [15] -
15:2, 15:7, 48:2,
114:17, 115:12,
116:25, 117:3,
117:26, 118:29,
119:27, 127:23,
128:9, 128:16,
130:24, 135:10
appealing [1] -
47:28
Appeals [1] -
60:2
appeals [4] -
7:15, 11:12,
115:5, 130:25
appear [2] -
25:22, 46:2
APPEARANCE
S [1] - 2:2
appeared [2] -
124:21, 124:29
appellant [3] -
2:32, 130:29,
131:2
appellants [3] -
130:28, 134:23,
136:14
applicable [7] -
6:24, 6:25, 7:12,
15:4, 15:8, 15:10,
51:13
applicant [13] -
32:8, 46:5,
114:25, 115:17,
116:17, 117:14,
117:21, 119:3,
119:7, 119:10,
119:12, 119:21,
119:26
Applicant [11] -
46:9, 46:14,
106:28, 111:2,
111:21, 114:5,
114:18, 114:19,
124:22, 144:6,
146:4
applicant's [2] -
119:2, 119:5
Applicant's [3] -
111:7, 113:5,
127:28
Applicant.. [1] -
111:11
APPLICANTS
[2] - 1:12, 2:4
Applicants [29] -
46:24, 46:27,
47:15, 48:1,
50:13, 73:21,
74:12, 81:10,
81:20, 83:25,
84:2, 84:5, 90:4,
98:12, 98:16,
105:27, 106:20,
106:25, 124:15,
127:19, 127:22,
128:3, 129:5,
129:14, 129:22,
131:26, 131:29,
146:16, 147:8
applicants [3] -
122:7, 122:23,
123:5
Applicants' [6] -
21:5, 28:29, 82:8,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
3
135:9, 137:21,
146:8
application [36]
- 7:2, 15:5, 15:11,
15:12, 17:2, 19:3,
19:16, 32:3,
33:27, 34:23,
35:12, 40:25,
45:15, 46:7, 46:8,
49:8, 80:1, 81:28,
85:2, 87:26,
88:24, 93:28,
117:16, 117:20,
117:22, 117:23,
117:25, 119:19,
120:25, 120:27,
121:21, 122:20,
123:11, 125:20,
126:13
application.. [1]
- 111:18
applications [1]
- 17:14
applied [5] -
66:3, 67:11, 80:4,
80:7, 120:21
applies [6] -
15:2, 18:24,
61:18, 116:7,
116:21, 148:1
apply [20] -
16:23, 16:24,
17:16, 29:16,
35:27, 37:20,
45:6, 58:6, 67:11,
70:24, 72:9, 75:4,
75:9, 79:4, 79:7,
80:12, 115:13,
117:14, 147:17,
147:19
applying [4] -
52:24, 69:16,
74:26, 115:29
appreciate [1] -
110:14
approach [11] -
46:9, 57:29,
64:13, 66:28,
67:12, 69:17,
76:16, 76:21,
109:26, 109:29,
121:5
approached [1]
- 55:19
approaching [1]
- 145:8
Appropriate [16]
- 7:4, 9:10, 9:13,
11:24, 15:18,
15:28, 17:1,
19:10, 19:11,
19:14, 20:11,
20:12, 20:15,
104:20, 106:11,
106:12
appropriate [20]
- 7:17, 8:6, 8:18,
8:26, 9:20, 10:8,
10:25, 11:2, 11:4,
11:14, 12:12,
12:20, 12:27,
13:11, 23:2,
46:28, 47:4,
66:20, 69:24,
70:25
appropriately
[2] - 121:28,
146:29
appropriatenes
s [1] - 31:8
approval [5] -
12:22, 17:24,
18:16, 18:22,
19:4
approvals [3] -
18:18, 18:29,
19:9
approved [3] -
51:28, 71:24,
91:27
approves [1] -
54:15
archaeological
[1] - 95:3
archaeology [2]
- 94:27, 141:1
area [13] - 45:27,
46:13, 88:17,
102:16, 125:1,
125:4, 133:19,
133:24, 133:26,
139:13, 144:21,
144:25, 147:18
Area [1] - 87:28
areas [15] - 8:7,
8:10, 16:6, 16:7,
16:8, 24:27, 25:7,
90:16, 95:22,
144:20, 144:23,
144:25, 144:27,
145:19, 146:9
arguable [1] -
115:18
argue [6] - 32:9,
39:18, 112:4,
112:20, 119:26,
123:5
argued [6] -
26:25, 34:26,
116:16, 116:18,
116:27, 120:13
arguing [1] -
77:23
argument [24] -
6:7, 6:16, 19:21,
26:21, 31:19,
41:17, 42:21,
66:7, 74:9, 74:17,
74:19, 75:18,
75:21, 75:24,
75:27, 75:28,
76:1, 77:1, 97:23,
104:26, 108:13,
108:18, 112:10,
113:6
arguments [5] -
6:8, 31:17, 31:20,
60:14, 87:22
arise [12] - 5:21,
7:8, 9:1, 9:13,
32:22, 57:7,
103:4, 103:5,
103:6, 104:13,
117:1, 124:2
arises [3] - 3:13,
5:17, 83:4
arising [4] -
3:10, 4:2, 119:3,
143:24
Aristotle [2] -
30:8, 30:10
Armenia [1] -
23:8
arose [1] - 35:11
arrangement [1]
- 101:22
arrangements
[1] - 72:2
Arrest [1] -
61:29
ARTHUR [1] -
2:20
Article [29] -
7:18, 7:25, 7:28,
8:3, 9:5, 10:25,
11:8, 11:11,
11:15, 12:19,
13:15, 22:8, 27:6,
27:9, 27:10,
27:16, 27:26,
28:3, 29:24, 30:7,
31:9, 52:22,
81:11, 98:13,
100:7, 100:15,
100:23, 101:2,
113:21
article [1] -
100:11
Articles [2] -
30:4, 100:6
articles [1] -
35:17
AS [3] - 3:2, 3:6,
70:1
ascertain [6] -
33:17, 38:17,
52:28, 53:7,
53:15, 53:27
ascertained [2] -
8:24, 53:5
ascertaining [5]
- 29:17, 61:14,
62:4, 62:15,
62:20
aspect [1] -
69:22
aspects [3] -
12:22, 14:6,
120:28
assert [3] -
36:25, 36:29,
40:23
asserted [3] -
36:10, 43:15,
48:26
asserting [2] -
32:5, 43:29
assertion [3] -
63:3, 104:18,
104:19
assess [1] - 17:7
assessed [2] -
5:28, 5:29
assessing [1] -
47:3
assessment [39]
- 4:13, 6:1, 6:5,
6:12, 6:13, 7:10,
7:18, 8:18, 8:21,
9:20, 10:8, 10:11,
10:25, 11:2, 11:4,
11:15, 12:12,
12:20, 12:28,
13:12, 13:14,
13:25, 15:13,
19:28, 20:5, 47:5,
70:25, 89:18,
124:19, 125:15,
133:12, 146:21,
146:26, 147:13,
147:17, 147:28,
148:10
Assessment
[17] - 7:4, 9:10,
9:13, 11:24,
15:18, 15:29,
17:1, 19:10,
19:11, 19:14,
20:11, 20:12,
20:15, 72:27,
104:20, 106:11,
106:12
assessment..
[1] - 110:25
assigned [1] -
25:24
assist [1] -
138:13
assisted [1] -
27:29
Associates [3] -
138:8, 139:21,
139:23
Association [4] -
131:1, 135:6,
137:28, 138:2
association [3] -
35:18, 131:1,
138:11
assume [1] -
106:28
assumes [1] -
44:22
assumption [1] -
56:6
assured [1] -
30:19
AT [1] - 150:22
atmospheric [1]
- 24:9
attached [2] -
9:29, 89:27
attack [7] -
105:15, 106:23,
107:7, 107:15,
108:15, 108:21,
109:7
attempt [3] -
42:14, 118:18,
123:5
attended [1] -
129:4
attendees [1] -
139:2
attention [44] -
3:15, 4:7, 4:26,
44:27, 48:18,
58:3, 58:6, 58:14,
66:16, 66:23,
69:18, 72:6,
72:18, 73:3,
74:13, 76:22,
77:6, 82:25,
85:12, 85:22,
86:13, 88:19,
89:11, 91:13,
92:11, 92:28,
93:19, 98:24,
109:23, 109:27,
110:8, 111:28,
112:11, 113:27,
114:3, 116:10,
117:7, 117:8,
117:29, 118:6,
118:9, 123:12,
124:9, 127:2
attenuation [4] -
94:2, 144:26,
146:19, 148:26
ATTORNEY [2] -
1:19, 2:22
Attorney [2] -
26:17, 33:9
attractive [2] -
47:28, 87:22
attributed [1] -
53:13
audi [1] - 84:21
August [2] -
127:26, 128:10
authorisation
[2] - 17:25, 18:16
authorise [1] -
13:1
authoritative [1]
- 64:21
authorities [12] -
8:23, 11:23,
12:27, 13:29,
51:24, 66:10,
76:22, 76:25,
84:17, 85:16,
113:27, 123:17
Authorities [2] -
15:2, 149:9
Authority [9] -
45:18, 81:29,
92:19, 94:3,
94:15, 96:17,
96:26, 132:28,
139:25
AUTHORITY [2]
- 1:17, 2:18
authority [17] -
6:19, 11:28, 12:4,
12:6, 17:3, 17:7,
17:26, 17:28,
18:18, 19:13,
45:8, 66:21,
89:17, 95:15,
102:11, 113:15,
123:18
Authority's [1] -
103:12
authority's [1] -
11:26
authority/An [1]
- 109:5
availability [1] -
27:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
4
available [6] -
28:7, 37:27,
57:25, 57:28,
105:3, 142:12
aviation [4] -
3:27, 21:18, 88:3,
88:21
avoid [5] - 8:7,
27:29, 46:6,
57:22, 116:24
avoided [1] -
28:10
aware [3] - 22:4,
97:8, 135:19
B
background [1]
- 119:29
badgers [6] -
94:23, 94:24,
95:7, 96:14,
96:16, 96:20
Baine [4] - 5:11,
5:14, 102:17,
102:29
balance [3] -
22:2, 22:6, 146:3
balanced [1] -
98:9
balancing [1] -
98:7
Baldoyle [1] -
143:27
Barnes [1] -
140:4
barrelled [1] -
125:7
BARRETT [13] -
1:24, 21:26,
23:28, 47:7, 52:3,
59:28, 66:8,
69:26, 126:1,
149:25, 150:8,
150:12, 150:18
barrister [1] -
125:3
based [4] -
84:12, 119:1,
119:20, 126:13
basic [2] -
104:21, 104:22
basis [12] - 4:24,
14:2, 14:25, 27:7,
41:23, 41:29,
55:13, 75:26,
89:26, 117:26,
119:8, 143:4
bat [3] - 96:27,
96:28, 141:4
bats [8] - 94:23,
94:24, 96:24,
97:2, 97:3, 97:12,
141:9, 141:28
bats) [1] - 95:8
Bay [1] - 143:27
bear [4] - 49:6,
79:23, 98:18,
105:5
beautiful [1] -
25:5
became [3] -
26:23, 45:7,
60:17
become [2] -
22:9, 65:24
becomes [2] -
54:14, 57:4
beginning [6] -
25:3, 29:7, 49:24,
130:17, 142:1,
143:17
behalf [12] -
3:24, 17:25,
50:13, 68:17,
76:2, 98:23,
124:21, 127:3,
129:8, 129:12,
139:19, 142:8
behind [8] -
38:2, 48:17,
55:16, 56:27,
58:8, 86:10,
86:11, 147:9
Belarus [1] -
23:9
Belgium [1] -
23:9
belonging [1] -
25:15
below [1] - 88:7
beneficiary [1] -
46:16
beside [2] -
48:7, 48:8
best [7] - 12:25,
14:5, 14:20, 17:7,
30:20, 77:27,
140:15
bestowed [1] -
113:20
better [2] -
60:24, 76:5
between [31] -
1:6, 5:26, 7:5,
7:26, 24:21,
26:27, 27:2,
27:18, 29:12,
43:10, 49:7,
52:25, 62:8, 63:8,
65:1, 67:21,
69:14, 79:26,
81:25, 84:28,
85:23, 86:17,
87:25, 99:28,
100:12, 110:1,
110:3, 112:7,
112:24, 149:21
beyond [4] -
4:13, 108:3,
116:27, 134:3
bid [1] - 63:6
bill [9] - 55:26,
55:28, 56:12,
56:16, 56:22,
56:24, 56:29,
57:4, 58:28
bills [1] - 56:21
bioaccumulati
on [1] - 25:8
biodegradable
[1] - 24:28
Bird [1] - 136:1
bird [1] - 141:5
Birds [1] - 16:21
birds [3] - 94:22,
95:9, 135:28
bit [4] - 92:28,
97:15, 101:29,
105:10
BL [7] - 2:5, 2:8,
2:13, 2:19, 2:23,
2:24, 2:27
black [1] - 70:13
Blackstone [1] -
52:29
bland [1] - 142:8
Bland [2] -
124:28, 139:9
blur [1] - 62:8
Board [35] - 5:1,
7:4, 7:5, 7:8,
7:16, 7:22, 7:28,
9:11, 9:23, 9:29,
10:7, 10:9, 10:11,
10:19, 10:24,
11:1, 11:6, 11:10,
11:12, 14:26,
15:3, 15:7, 46:10,
86:22, 89:9,
89:14, 89:17,
89:21, 89:26,
91:1, 92:5, 94:4,
94:16, 138:24,
145:20
Board's [1] -
88:25
bodies [3] -
132:7, 135:4,
137:27
bodily [6] - 21:4,
22:18, 28:22,
28:29, 31:14,
31:26
body [5] - 32:21,
64:20, 64:21,
88:27, 97:8
boiled [1] - 7:7
bold [1] - 25:29
bona [8] - 32:27,
33:15, 33:17,
34:17, 35:21,
36:2, 38:13,
38:17
book [27] -
19:15, 31:29,
60:1, 70:13,
73:14, 76:24,
76:25, 76:28,
78:21, 78:23,
80:29, 81:3,
81:18, 86:9,
97:18, 100:7,
103:23, 105:25,
107:4, 107:7,
109:23, 113:29,
125:29, 130:17,
139:1, 143:18,
145:12
Book [15] - 6:27,
16:20, 43:7,
44:10, 51:16,
51:17, 52:7,
120:22, 120:23,
127:1, 127:4,
127:6, 127:7,
147:8, 147:29
book's [2] -
67:9, 86:19
booklet [7] -
18:4, 59:23,
59:24, 59:25,
70:9, 70:10,
100:5
books [2] -
70:12, 76:25
Bord [27] - 6:26,
45:1, 86:12,
88:19, 92:3,
106:7, 106:22,
108:20, 108:27,
109:5, 121:12,
121:22, 124:8,
124:15, 125:18,
125:24, 125:25,
125:28, 127:24,
128:9, 129:28,
130:10, 131:27,
132:5, 132:8,
143:9, 148:7
borne [3] -
53:25, 87:20,
87:24
bottom [8] -
18:4, 77:11,
116:11, 136:22,
140:16, 140:20,
145:12, 149:5
boundary [2] -
5:4, 133:29
Bows [2] -
21:18, 28:27
Bows-Larkin [2]
- 21:18, 28:27
Bradley [1] -
47:13
BRADLEY [3] -
2:13, 42:16,
150:13
branches [1] -
64:27
breach [6] -
38:13, 46:25,
110:27, 111:1,
111:6, 111:9
breached [2] -
26:26, 98:13
bread [1] - 135:2
breath [1] -
107:6
breathing [1] -
24:12
BREXIT [1] -
98:28
BRIAN [1] - 2:18
brief [1] - 41:12
briefly [11] -
3:10, 12:10,
31:19, 51:8, 52:6,
58:12, 76:26,
93:19, 97:21,
134:24, 147:6
bring [37] - 4:7,
6:28, 12:9, 16:19,
16:26, 17:20,
18:2, 19:13,
19:22, 20:29,
24:4, 25:13,
26:15, 26:18,
29:3, 31:27, 32:1,
32:15, 35:12,
35:23, 39:29,
40:19, 42:1,
42:11, 42:29,
43:4, 43:5, 43:6,
43:8, 44:8, 44:26,
71:3, 79:29, 80:1,
80:13, 114:24,
115:14
bringing [3] -
4:26, 16:22,
122:21
brings [1] -
26:13
broad [4] -
24:10, 33:10,
49:14, 49:21
broader [1] -
33:27
brought [7] -
3:15, 37:25,
42:26, 69:18,
91:26, 120:27,
123:11
Brussels [1] -
19:15
Buckley [1] -
120:22
building [3] -
147:19, 147:20,
148:25
buildings [4] -
90:25, 96:29,
97:3, 133:14
built [1] - 41:22
Bulgaria [1] -
23:9
bullet [3] -
132:12, 134:22,
136:29
burdening [1] -
37:23
business [1] -
24:19
businesses [1] -
24:29
busybodies [1] -
40:16
butter [1] - 135:2
buy [3] - 128:14,
132:15, 137:1
buy-out [3] -
128:14, 132:15,
137:1
BY [9] - 1:24,
2:6, 2:10, 2:15,
2:20, 2:25, 2:29,
3:6, 47:10
bypass [1] -
45:28
Byrne [1] -
127:19
Byrne's [2] -
127:8, 127:10
C
C-127/02 [1] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
5
12:16
C-258/11 [1] -
13:10
C.J [5] - 32:24,
35:12, 38:14,
61:10, 63:7
Cahill [2] -
32:16, 34:20
calculated [2] -
56:17, 56:23
calculation [1] -
141:17
candour [4] -
49:26, 49:28,
50:2, 73:25
cannot [9] -
13:16, 25:24,
29:10, 37:10,
44:21, 54:28,
77:25, 78:7,
103:8
canons [2] -
57:25, 65:7
CAO [1] - 60:10
capable [2] -
13:18, 126:19
capacity [3] -
4:3, 27:23, 87:6
Capital [1] - 77:7
car [3] - 21:27,
21:29, 145:19
care [1] - 92:3
careful [2] -
49:28, 94:16
carefully [2] -
56:1, 111:22
Carney [1] -
66:13
carried [15] -
9:20, 10:3, 10:9,
13:14, 17:6,
19:28, 19:29,
20:5, 92:6, 94:28,
106:12, 124:8,
125:17, 127:16,
147:28
carry [1] -
113:26
carrying [5] -
7:17, 10:10,
10:24, 146:26,
147:26
Case [2] - 12:16,
13:10
case [154] - 5:10,
5:21, 6:3, 6:4,
7:2, 7:6, 7:9,
7:26, 7:29, 9:1,
9:11, 9:14, 13:4,
15:17, 17:17,
19:15, 19:16,
19:24, 22:23,
26:17, 27:5,
28:15, 31:27,
32:12, 32:13,
32:19, 33:18,
33:24, 33:28,
34:2, 34:6, 34:25,
35:28, 37:11,
38:8, 38:18,
39:17, 39:20,
39:25, 40:17,
42:16, 44:21,
44:29, 48:1,
48:19, 48:29,
49:10, 49:21,
50:12, 51:7,
51:18, 51:22,
51:26, 58:11,
58:23, 60:4, 60:6,
61:7, 61:12,
61:18, 61:27,
62:6, 65:26, 66:2,
66:7, 66:28,
67:10, 67:20,
67:29, 69:12,
69:22, 69:23,
72:9, 74:12,
74:19, 75:8,
75:18, 75:29,
76:15, 78:13,
79:1, 79:7, 80:4,
80:9, 80:12,
80:20, 83:2,
83:27, 84:1, 84:4,
84:16, 85:1, 86:4,
86:16, 86:17,
86:18, 92:7,
95:21, 98:15,
101:27, 101:29,
102:17, 102:19,
102:21, 104:26,
105:16, 105:19,
105:20, 106:19,
107:3, 108:21,
109:7, 109:15,
110:6, 113:5,
114:5, 114:20,
114:26, 115:18,
116:15, 116:20,
117:1, 117:5,
118:12, 118:13,
118:15, 120:5,
120:11, 120:18,
120:21, 120:26,
120:28, 121:4,
121:12, 121:16,
122:16, 122:17,
122:26, 123:11,
123:16, 124:11,
127:1, 132:19,
132:21, 132:22,
135:25, 136:7,
143:6, 143:10,
143:11, 149:1
case" [1] - 79:4
case-law [2] -
101:27, 101:29
cases [15] -
22:15, 26:16,
34:29, 37:24,
39:6, 57:21, 64:5,
91:28, 104:20,
115:11, 115:16,
115:21, 118:5,
119:28, 130:20
casual [1] - 53:2
catchment [3] -
144:7, 144:21,
144:22
catchments [1] -
144:24
Catholic [1] -
25:28
caused [1] -
24:14
causes [1] -
24:11
caution [1] -
71:13
cautiously [1] -
21:23
central [1] -
44:21
certain [11] -
13:2, 30:2, 61:9,
63:29, 67:16,
71:25, 84:16,
97:16, 115:15,
115:20, 146:9
certainly [8] -
6:8, 66:8, 77:8,
85:7, 88:25,
128:26, 136:10,
146:2
certainly.. [1] -
145:26
certainty [4] -
65:9, 107:27,
109:16, 115:27
certify [1] - 1:27
certiorari [1] -
110:19
cetera [1] -
36:26
challenge [11] -
6:3, 16:25, 20:23,
35:26, 44:23,
107:11, 108:4,
108:13, 132:4,
132:6, 132:9
challenged [1] -
107:29
challenges [1] -
108:8
challenging [1] -
109:3
change [15] -
3:14, 3:26, 5:2,
21:12, 21:13,
22:27, 28:27,
45:24, 45:28,
70:22, 71:21,
102:6, 103:3,
103:4, 113:7
changes [2] -
45:29, 133:7
chaos [1] -
137:16
charges [1] -
114:12
charging [1] -
119:6
charity [5] -
30:13, 30:14,
30:18, 30:22
Charter [1] -
111:3
cheap [1] - 76:5
chemical [1] -
25:6
Chief [3] - 60:2,
114:29, 115:1
CHIEF [1] - 2:25
Child [1] - 36:9
children [2] -
29:22, 36:14
choice [1] -
93:11
choose [2] -
29:11, 56:1
CHRISTIAN [1] -
2:23
Christian [2] -
30:8, 30:11
Christianity [1] -
30:12
Church [1] -
25:28
CIARáN [1] -
2:23
Circuit [1] -
118:21
circulation [1] -
51:27
circumscribed
[2] - 110:5, 114:26
circumspectio
n [1] - 55:19
circumstances
[21] - 29:5, 35:2,
35:5, 37:11, 38:5,
38:8, 39:7, 39:10,
40:13, 45:25,
46:6, 47:1, 66:21,
71:25, 74:1,
75:27, 102:4,
116:15, 116:17,
123:19, 127:13
citation [2] -
61:13, 67:25
cited [1] - 44:12
cities [1] - 25:7
citizen [2] -
38:28, 52:25
citizens [6] -
21:5, 29:1, 31:15,
52:25, 64:22,
98:26
City [3] - 45:27,
45:29, 46:1
civies [1] -
139:11
claim [7] - 4:4,
27:9, 84:12,
99:12, 123:10,
123:15, 146:8
claimed [10] -
33:28, 80:26,
104:13, 109:20,
121:1, 121:11,
121:12, 121:13,
121:17
claims [2] -
119:15, 119:20
clarification [4] -
5:10, 134:6,
134:9, 134:13
clarified [1] -
134:18
clarify [2] -
126:10, 126:16
clarity [5] -
47:27, 50:6,
115:5, 126:8,
126:9
CLARKE [1] -
2:6
class [1] - 24:1
classes [2] -
27:21, 115:21
classical [2] -
34:3, 69:16
classrooms [1] -
90:25
clear [24] - 5:11,
5:13, 5:22, 34:29,
39:4, 40:29, 42:3,
42:20, 45:7,
53:10, 56:10,
57:23, 62:26,
64:6, 84:24,
84:26, 86:7,
102:16, 103:14,
107:26, 108:24,
116:29, 124:12
clearly [22] -
4:17, 14:9, 28:18,
30:5, 31:25, 46:5,
52:11, 53:17,
75:21, 86:4,
88:22, 88:25,
90:3, 102:2,
102:29, 106:19,
109:8, 116:1,
130:13, 141:17,
142:12, 147:25
CLG [3] - 1:12,
2:8, 28:19
client [1] - 68:18
clients [5] -
22:8, 40:10,
41:26, 42:7,
87:23
climate [11] -
3:14, 3:20, 3:26,
4:1, 5:2, 21:12,
21:13, 22:26,
25:15, 28:27,
113:7
climatic [1] -
25:20
clinical [1] - 25:1
Clinton [1] -
78:22
close [2] - 20:17,
41:20
closing [2] -
142:7, 142:8
Co [2] - 7:3, 39:4
Co-Op [1] - 39:4
cockle [1] -
12:28
Code [1] - 48:4
code [1] - 71:3
cognate [2] -
67:22, 67:23
coin [2] - 76:18,
78:11
Colgan [2] -
129:7, 129:19
COLGAN [1] -
1:7
Coll [2] - 42:18,
42:21
collateral [6] -
105:15, 107:7,
107:15, 108:15,
108:21, 109:7
collective [3] -
58:14, 58:19,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
6
59:14
COLLINS [1] -
2:5
colour [1] -
70:11
combination [4]
- 8:17, 12:23,
14:7, 17:10
coming [13] -
39:20, 69:23,
72:23, 72:29,
86:28, 91:1,
92:25, 93:14,
93:20, 94:19,
103:17, 106:17,
109:16
comity [1] - 65:1
commence [2] -
46:29, 71:27
commenced [2]
- 71:26, 75:10
commenceme
nt [9] - 47:2,
74:26, 75:4,
92:17, 92:23,
93:2, 94:5, 96:19,
96:27
commencing [1]
- 72:11
comment [1] -
78:14
Commentaries
[1] - 53:1
commentary [1]
- 63:18
comments [5] -
33:26, 60:22,
60:24, 60:25,
63:21
Commission [4]
- 13:8, 13:22,
74:10, 75:7
commitment [1]
- 95:1
Commitments
[1] - 94:27
Committee [4] -
100:20, 100:21,
101:13, 101:14
committee [1] -
58:24
common [6] -
7:25, 25:15,
27:16, 28:14,
30:17, 135:3
Communicatio
ns [1] - 32:6
communicatio
ns [1] - 36:26
Communities
[1] - 16:21
community [7] -
128:13, 130:29,
131:15, 132:15,
132:24, 132:26,
133:9
Community [5] -
131:1, 135:6,
137:27, 138:1,
139:20
companies [7] -
37:20, 37:29,
38:2, 42:4, 42:7,
49:11, 83:28
company [15] -
31:22, 31:23,
31:24, 32:4, 32:7,
32:9, 35:9, 35:29,
36:9, 36:24,
36:28, 38:6,
38:12, 77:18
compare [2] -
146:17, 146:20
comparing [1] -
11:21
compelling [1] -
52:12
compensation
[1] - 96:8
compensatory
[2] - 95:10, 95:18
competent [2] -
8:23, 12:26
complaint [2] -
120:3, 120:4
complaints [2] -
124:13, 131:20
complete [4] -
13:17, 14:12,
14:25, 54:25
completely [2] -
75:23, 136:3
completeness
[3] - 111:28,
116:10, 117:7
completion [3] -
102:13, 149:7
complex [3] -
25:16, 58:23,
59:6
complexity [1] -
57:17
complied [1] -
106:14
comply [2] -
72:8, 96:7
comprise [1] -
128:3
concede [1] -
16:24
concept [1] -
54:2
conception [2] -
27:20, 28:9
concern [21] -
19:18, 32:19,
32:28, 33:15,
33:17, 35:22,
36:3, 38:1, 38:14,
38:17, 84:1, 84:6,
84:13, 96:4,
126:26, 127:18,
133:3, 135:4,
143:22, 143:26,
144:6
Concerned [8] -
128:4, 128:8,
129:9, 129:20,
131:7, 137:29,
139:8, 142:9
concerned [14] -
8:26, 12:21,
12:29, 19:16,
27:10, 32:3,
32:12, 51:10,
61:28, 67:10,
80:14, 84:13,
105:14, 126:20
concerned.. [1] -
13:20
concerning [2] -
57:17, 61:9
concerns [15] -
4:12, 4:18, 13:14,
37:21, 46:2,
65:17, 90:3, 92:4,
92:6, 92:8,
131:11, 134:23,
134:25, 134:26,
145:16
conclude [1] -
41:13
concludes [1] -
41:10
conclusion [14]
- 5:12, 43:12,
82:29, 83:3, 83:9,
83:13, 125:19,
145:5, 145:6,
145:13, 145:16,
146:17, 146:23,
149:19
conclusions
[10] - 8:21, 13:18,
14:13, 14:15,
14:17, 14:19,
14:26, 39:13,
39:20, 125:21
Conclusions [1]
- 149:5
condition [9] -
28:8, 89:25,
90:11, 91:19,
94:17, 94:25,
95:2, 102:26,
133:22
Condition [11] -
46:4, 91:17,
91:24, 92:12,
94:21, 96:6, 96:9,
96:10, 96:24,
131:28, 134:4
conditioned [1]
- 30:24
Conditions [1] -
91:27
conditions [15] -
9:29, 25:17, 88:7,
89:27, 90:7,
90:23, 91:14,
93:18, 102:6,
102:9, 102:12,
103:3, 113:18,
127:25, 133:22
conduct [5] -
5:21, 6:12, 9:12,
10:12, 57:12
conducted [3] -
6:1, 7:4, 11:14
confess [1] -
41:4
confined [2] -
74:25, 75:3
confusion [3] -
65:22, 115:6,
116:24
congruent [1] -
44:19
conjugal [1] -
26:22
conjunction [1]
- 81:15
CONLETH [1] -
2:13
connected [2] -
8:14, 17:4
connectivity [1]
- 98:26
conscious [2] -
22:13, 150:3
consensus [12]
- 22:21, 23:20,
23:21, 23:23,
25:18, 26:5, 26:9,
26:11, 31:3, 31:5,
31:6
consent [29] -
6:18, 6:21, 9:20,
9:24, 9:28, 10:3,
10:20, 11:7,
11:13, 11:22,
11:26, 11:28,
11:29, 12:4, 12:6,
13:28, 16:15,
17:2, 17:23, 18:9,
20:1, 100:2,
102:4, 102:23,
103:6, 103:8,
103:17, 104:7,
116:16
Consent [1] -
17:21
consents [1] -
19:5
consequence
[4] - 43:19,
102:22, 113:26,
147:1
consequences
[7] - 40:25, 44:13,
46:12, 48:5,
80:19, 85:4, 85:9
consequent [1] -
118:15
conservation [8]
- 8:7, 8:20, 10:29,
12:24, 13:1, 14:9,
17:8, 45:27
consider [23] -
4:6, 4:12, 4:23,
12:7, 13:7, 15:17,
15:20, 19:7,
20:14, 27:1,
31:13, 32:9,
33:19, 36:23,
38:19, 46:28,
51:3, 69:5, 72:8,
77:25, 80:16,
83:9, 87:21
considerable [1]
- 108:5
consideration
[11] - 53:29,
54:28, 62:3, 62:7,
99:29, 125:9,
125:23, 133:29,
135:20, 137:4,
144:5
considerations
[15] - 29:16,
32:22, 37:19,
39:16, 40:9, 46:5,
55:22, 56:14,
86:5, 86:29, 87:1,
88:27, 90:2,
99:28
considered [21]
- 12:8, 12:15,
18:15, 26:10,
27:5, 32:22,
33:27, 37:5,
39:21, 52:11,
62:24, 69:12,
82:21, 86:19,
88:2, 88:6, 89:14,
89:21, 105:16,
143:23, 146:18
considering [3]
- 20:10, 46:23,
63:21
considers [2] -
29:4, 60:26
consistent [10] -
21:3, 31:14, 78:2,
78:10, 79:13,
88:22, 88:26,
109:13, 121:23,
145:28
consists [1] -
30:13
Consolidation
[1] - 60:19
constant [1] -
25:21
constitute [3] -
35:20, 56:26,
112:23
constituted [1] -
144:4
constitutes [2] -
112:6, 115:10
Constitution
[22] - 27:6, 27:9,
28:7, 29:18,
29:27, 30:3,
30:16, 30:25,
31:10, 34:8,
38:13, 38:29,
40:4, 44:19,
52:23, 55:15,
57:11, 81:8,
81:12, 111:26,
113:9, 124:3
Constitution' [1]
- 34:11
Constitution...
[1] - 113:21
constitutional
[32] - 21:2, 22:5,
22:6, 29:11,
32:10, 33:20,
34:19, 35:25,
38:19, 39:25,
40:17, 41:11,
43:9, 43:12,
43:14, 43:19,
44:2, 48:25,
49:15, 49:18,
55:20, 63:22,
81:2, 81:10,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
7
81:22, 82:7,
82:14, 82:19,
83:7, 111:10,
113:6, 113:19
constitutionalit
y [3] - 60:14,
61:28, 63:21
constitutionall
y [2] - 32:29,
55:16
constrained [3]
- 55:28, 56:16,
56:20
constructed [2]
- 48:20, 48:21
construction
[22] - 3:20, 21:9,
25:1, 28:24,
48:16, 53:9,
56:26, 57:25,
58:1, 63:13, 65:7,
69:14, 77:20,
78:6, 78:7, 93:29,
95:24, 96:16,
98:10, 128:15,
133:8, 134:3
construction..
[1] - 96:12
construe [3] -
50:29, 65:15,
79:9
construed [2] -
7:29, 11:16
construes [1] -
64:28
Consultants [1]
- 139:21
consultation [1]
- 94:4
consulted [4] -
64:8, 87:23,
131:22, 133:10
consulting [2] -
100:20, 101:7
consuming [1] -
59:6
contain [2] -
13:17, 14:12
contained [2] -
6:25, 33:11
contaminated
[1] - 137:9
contamination
[3] - 137:10,
146:14, 146:15
contemplated
[1] - 64:4
contended [3] -
3:29, 22:25,
98:12
contended... [1]
- 77:21
content [2] -
12:6, 30:4
contention [1] -
35:15
contentious [1]
- 56:25
contest [1] -
131:27
context [18] -
3:13, 14:17, 35:6,
48:25, 50:21,
50:22, 53:12,
53:26, 74:8,
85:24, 95:16,
98:28, 108:29,
109:3, 110:17,
112:15, 113:28,
147:15
continuation [1]
- 74:27
continuations
[1] - 75:4
continue [1] -
144:23
continued [2] -
45:24, 123:6
CONTINUED [1]
- 70:1
continues [3] -
61:23, 63:14,
71:19
contour [1] -
92:21
contraceptives
[3] - 26:22, 26:26,
27:14
contrary [7] -
12:2, 18:8, 75:14,
82:6, 102:1,
123:6
contrast [3] -
10:24, 83:29,
84:4
contrasting [1] -
11:22
contribute [1] -
24:16
contributions
[2] - 58:25, 65:18
control [2] -
91:3, 144:27
Controller [4] -
60:29, 61:7,
62:25, 64:5
controls [1] -
91:2
controversy [1]
- 117:5
convenience [1]
- 88:12
convenient [2] -
76:12, 79:16
Convention [4] -
49:19, 97:29,
111:7, 124:4
convention [1] -
23:2
conventional [1]
- 65:7
conversation [1]
- 16:7
convey [1] -
53:3
Coogan [3] -
32:23, 35:25,
38:11
cooking [1] -
24:13
copies [2] -
51:24, 59:27
copy [5] - 23:27,
26:18, 51:29,
59:25, 70:13
COPYRIGHT [1]
- 2:30
Corbally [1] -
66:23
Cork [3] - 76:29,
79:14, 118:21
corner [1] - 18:4
corporate [1] -
32:21
correct [5] -
15:26, 42:23,
53:29, 65:13,
105:24
correction [1] -
16:10
correctly [4] -
52:9, 80:27,
93:13, 99:15
correctness [2]
- 4:27, 44:22
correspondenc
e [1] - 45:9
corresponding
[1] - 113:24
cost [1] - 37:28
Costello [4] -
120:21, 120:24,
121:10, 136:8
costs [5] - 38:4,
40:26, 65:22,
98:18, 111:17
COUNCIL [2] -
1:15, 2:13
Council [14] -
42:18, 67:13,
67:26, 68:4,
68:18, 68:20,
77:17, 100:18,
101:4, 108:26,
110:10, 121:26,
139:20
Council... [1] -
101:2
councillors [1] -
136:15
counsel [6] -
49:29, 60:12,
60:13, 68:17,
124:28
Counselling [1]
- 32:24
counted [1] -
130:7
countries [1] -
23:7
country [7] -
29:26, 53:6,
55:12, 99:29,
100:14, 101:17,
101:23
COUNTY [2] -
1:15, 2:13
County [7] -
42:18, 76:29,
79:14, 87:13,
87:14, 108:26,
110:10
county [1] -
48:23
couples [1] -
28:15
course [42] -
6:2, 10:21, 15:1,
15:8, 37:1, 42:23,
47:17, 47:22,
51:4, 54:12,
54:16, 59:11,
60:26, 63:11,
69:19, 75:22,
76:15, 78:2,
82:29, 84:26,
85:26, 89:7, 91:8,
101:20, 101:26,
104:18, 106:27,
112:10, 114:17,
116:14, 122:17,
123:12, 123:13,
125:17, 126:7,
126:17, 126:22,
130:14, 131:20,
134:27, 135:19,
140:8
Court [216] -
3:12, 6:15, 6:20,
6:28, 7:2, 8:1,
11:16, 11:21,
12:9, 12:15, 14:3,
15:16, 15:20,
15:21, 16:13,
16:16, 16:19,
16:22, 16:26,
17:20, 18:2, 19:1,
19:7, 19:13,
19:17, 19:22,
20:9, 20:10,
20:13, 20:17,
20:21, 20:23,
20:29, 21:2,
21:21, 21:25,
22:13, 22:15,
23:25, 24:4, 24:5,
25:13, 26:13,
26:15, 26:19,
27:1, 28:26, 29:3,
29:7, 31:23,
31:27, 32:1,
32:15, 35:1,
36:16, 36:20,
37:5, 37:23, 38:5,
38:11, 39:7, 40:3,
40:23, 41:12,
41:24, 42:1, 42:5,
42:9, 43:4, 43:5,
43:6, 43:8, 44:8,
44:28, 46:22,
46:27, 47:6,
47:21, 48:27,
49:7, 50:24,
51:12, 51:16,
51:18, 51:22,
52:13, 52:15,
52:16, 55:23,
56:7, 58:10,
59:14, 59:22,
60:3, 60:28, 61:2,
61:23, 62:17,
64:4, 66:1, 66:6,
66:18, 67:8,
67:10, 67:27,
70:5, 70:7, 70:8,
70:12, 72:17,
73:6, 73:27, 74:5,
74:17, 75:13,
75:19, 75:22,
75:25, 75:26,
76:14, 76:26,
77:11, 77:14,
78:10, 78:22,
79:14, 79:23,
79:25, 79:28,
80:1, 80:14,
80:24, 81:17,
83:8, 84:2, 84:4,
84:25, 85:15,
93:13, 95:16,
97:8, 97:23, 98:5,
98:7, 98:18, 99:8,
101:28, 102:1,
102:6, 103:1,
103:11, 103:13,
104:21, 104:24,
105:5, 105:15,
106:18, 107:2,
107:5, 107:10,
107:17, 107:20,
107:24, 108:25,
108:27, 109:12,
109:13, 109:14,
109:25, 110:3,
110:4, 110:14,
112:14, 113:26,
113:29, 114:4,
114:17, 114:19,
114:28, 115:7,
115:11, 115:14,
116:26, 117:10,
117:17, 117:19,
117:23, 118:21,
120:12, 120:18,
121:3, 121:4,
121:6, 122:3,
124:7, 124:23,
126:25, 127:4,
127:15, 128:27,
130:13, 133:2,
135:18, 136:5,
136:9, 140:9,
147:6, 149:29,
150:3, 150:5,
150:6
COURT [2] - 1:1,
1:3
court [33] - 5:15,
13:24, 19:16,
20:2, 29:5, 31:13,
32:8, 51:3, 52:20,
52:28, 53:25,
53:27, 54:7, 56:4,
60:11, 60:21,
60:24, 60:26,
63:1, 63:5, 64:15,
65:13, 69:6,
75:20, 77:25,
115:12, 116:14,
117:27, 118:13,
122:22, 128:23,
128:24
Court's [19] -
3:15, 4:7, 4:26,
39:13, 40:4,
44:26, 49:16,
58:10, 59:22,
61:10, 66:16,
69:18, 76:14,
77:6, 100:7,
107:2, 109:23,
109:27, 116:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
8
courtesy [1] -
150:17
courts [27] -
23:3, 32:27, 33:1,
33:6, 34:14,
34:18, 37:27,
52:8, 52:20, 53:6,
54:26, 55:11,
55:16, 56:27,
59:1, 61:25,
62:27, 64:8,
64:14, 64:18,
64:25, 65:10,
65:15, 78:5,
109:29, 110:2
Courts [1] -
29:10
courts.. [1] -
39:1
cover [1] - 17:13
covered [1] -
25:5
COX [1] - 2:20
crank [1] - 39:24
crank's [1] -
40:15
create [1] -
24:23
credit [1] - 52:2
Crilly [12] - 51:9,
52:6, 60:28,
61:12, 62:24,
63:7, 64:4, 66:19,
66:25, 69:8,
69:17, 78:2
criminal [2] -
114:6, 119:13
criteria [3] -
115:16, 148:4,
148:16
criticisms [1] -
59:8
Croatia [1] -
23:9
Cronin [2] -
76:28, 79:14
cross [1] - 90:10
cross-runway
[1] - 90:10
Crotty [2] -
32:17, 37:12
crucial [2] -
67:4, 75:17
crucially [1] -
58:27
crude [1] - 6:16
culpable [1] -
119:10
cultural [2] -
128:14, 141:1
culverting [1] -
148:25
cumulative [2] -
145:29, 146:2
curfew [1] -
132:29
curiam [1] -
78:18
curiam" [1] -
78:16
curiously [1] -
72:24
current [5] - 4:3,
4:23, 89:29,
90:14, 145:17
cut [1] - 55:29
Cyprus [1] -
23:17
Czech [1] - 23:9
D
D.S [1] - 118:20
DAA [1] - 46:28
DAA's [1] -
128:13
DAC [2] - 1:22,
2:27
daily [1] - 24:8
DAMIEN [1] -
2:27
dangerous [1] -
24:26
date [6] - 18:17,
18:29, 19:4,
66:17, 68:2,
100:1
dated [2] -
128:17, 136:2
dates [1] - 19:9
David [1] - 68:5
Dawkins [1] -
25:28
DAY [2] - 1:25,
3:2
days [9] - 46:29,
77:15, 128:19,
128:23, 128:24,
128:25, 128:27,
142:19, 149:27
daytime [1] -
90:13
deal [24] - 31:19,
41:3, 41:7, 44:16,
49:17, 55:22,
66:11, 74:3, 74:8,
76:26, 79:16,
80:18, 81:1, 81:2,
94:16, 97:12,
103:18, 112:10,
120:28, 135:27,
135:28, 143:14,
144:29, 146:14
dealing [23] -
30:4, 70:4, 74:7,
83:22, 87:20,
95:19, 95:23,
96:14, 98:3, 98:5,
99:10, 99:22,
101:28, 103:9,
104:4, 104:9,
127:18, 135:16,
140:18, 141:12,
141:16, 142:7
deals [10] -
55:25, 91:18,
91:19, 94:22,
96:6, 96:24,
100:8, 100:25,
133:3, 138:21
dealt [8] - 5:3,
92:5, 124:14,
130:14, 135:15,
138:7, 148:6,
148:8
deaths [1] -
24:11
Deauville [2] -
98:6, 98:11
debate [4] -
56:1, 70:14,
72:16
debated [3] -
54:14, 60:18,
140:29
debates [17] -
59:4, 61:14,
61:26, 62:3,
63:17, 63:20,
63:23, 64:14,
65:2, 65:6, 65:18,
65:25, 66:4, 66:5,
71:14, 73:14,
79:18
decades [1] -
25:20
decibel [1] -
91:21
decibels [1] -
92:21
decide [1] -
100:21
decided [2] -
19:18, 61:11
decides [1] -
14:26
deciding [1] -
113:16
decision [86] -
5:5, 5:12, 6:2,
6:29, 10:6, 10:10,
10:18, 11:3, 11:7,
16:24, 19:22,
20:22, 26:19,
26:29, 31:29,
32:2, 32:16,
32:23, 34:23,
36:7, 36:8, 42:2,
42:17, 43:1, 43:2,
43:6, 44:5, 44:9,
44:27, 45:26,
49:4, 51:9, 51:10,
51:13, 51:21,
51:25, 61:1,
61:11, 66:12,
66:25, 68:4,
69:11, 75:3,
78:21, 79:13,
84:14, 85:19,
85:29, 86:3, 86:4,
86:8, 86:12,
86:14, 86:22,
87:19, 89:2, 89:6,
91:1, 93:16,
100:29, 103:7,
103:10, 103:14,
103:15, 104:6,
105:23, 106:22,
107:3, 107:11,
108:15, 108:20,
109:12, 110:20,
111:13, 112:14,
113:28, 114:23,
120:18, 121:3,
127:24, 128:10,
131:27, 132:5,
138:24, 148:7
decision-
making [1] -
100:29
decisions [35] -
11:10, 13:7,
14:16, 39:5,
43:21, 44:11,
44:18, 48:29,
49:8, 49:9, 52:15,
60:27, 69:6,
84:28, 84:29,
85:1, 85:4, 85:23,
85:24, 85:26,
87:25, 87:26,
88:24, 98:4, 98:6,
107:27, 107:28,
108:2, 108:3,
108:6, 108:8,
108:25, 109:4,
124:24
DECLAN [1] -
1:9
declaration [13]
- 82:4, 97:25,
99:12, 99:19,
99:20, 103:23,
104:2, 110:27,
111:1, 111:6,
111:9, 111:13,
112:27
declarations [3]
- 81:18, 82:3,
111:22
declaratory [1] -
122:14
declaring [1] -
3:29
decline [1] -
98:17
DEEGAN [1] -
1:8
defect [1] - 6:16
defects [1] -
65:14
defence [6] -
34:6, 43:15,
112:23, 123:13,
123:14
defend [1] - 33:3
defendant [1] -
118:15
Defendant.. [1] -
34:27
defendants [2] -
122:9, 123:4
defendant’s [1] -
33:7
deficiencies [1]
- 89:22
deficiency [1] -
6:21
deficient [1] -
3:28
define [1] -
118:18
defining [1] -
118:11
definite [1] -
53:11
definition [3] -
17:21, 18:2,
18:27
definitive [4] -
13:17, 14:12,
14:14, 14:25
degradation [3]
- 26:5, 26:7,
28:23
Deighan [1] -
129:11
Deighan's [1] -
142:27
DEIGHEN [1] -
1:8
Deirdre [1] -
129:19
delay [10] -
114:18, 114:19,
118:14, 119:24,
120:1, 120:2,
120:4, 120:5,
120:7, 120:11
Delay [1] -
119:28
deliberate [1] -
56:11
delivered [4] -
50:13, 66:17,
120:24, 134:27
Dellway [16] -
41:16, 41:29,
43:6, 48:29, 49:7,
49:9, 82:11, 83:4,
83:26, 84:16,
84:27, 85:14,
86:16, 86:17,
124:11
demanding [1] -
119:25
demolished [1] -
96:29
demolition [1] -
25:1
demonstrate [3]
- 84:2, 115:17,
148:10
demonstrates
[2] - 75:20, 125:26
Denham [3] -
78:23, 78:27,
117:11
DENIS [1] - 2:22
denominations
[1] - 29:14
deprive [1] -
37:16
depth [1] - 3:25
derogation [2] -
17:24, 100:29
describe [2] -
8:29, 9:9
described [4] -
26:10, 67:1,
109:14, 139:10
deserved [1] -
87:23
deserving [1] -
30:14
design [1] -
93:29
designated [2] -
8:10, 85:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
9
desire [1] -
132:16
DESMOND [1] -
1:10
desperately [3] -
86:7, 127:14,
147:16
despite [1] -
37:8
destroy [1] -
131:17
detail [22] - 9:6,
37:12, 49:5, 71:7,
78:25, 83:22,
99:22, 103:9,
103:18, 104:10,
105:11, 105:16,
135:11, 135:13,
138:3, 138:10,
140:10, 141:21,
142:10, 145:3,
146:4, 148:2
detailed [3] -
7:24, 134:25,
137:9
details [2] -
93:29, 137:16
deterioration [3]
- 8:8, 90:6,
140:24
determinable [1]
- 25:23
determination
[6] - 10:26, 11:1,
11:4, 11:17,
14:22, 121:21
determine [3] -
29:28, 64:23,
65:27
determined [5] -
9:25, 10:1, 46:6,
46:24, 118:28
determines [3] -
10:17, 11:2,
117:19
deterrent [1] -
37:27
devalued [1] -
84:20
develop [2] -
7:3, 105:10
developed [1] -
118:17
developer [5] -
7:3, 85:27, 85:28,
96:7, 113:17
developers [3] -
85:29, 86:1,
113:13
Developers [1] -
72:8
Development
[19] - 7:20, 9:7,
17:15, 18:10,
19:6, 42:10,
45:29, 79:10,
86:23, 87:4,
87:13, 87:14,
107:23, 108:29,
112:8, 112:25,
113:8, 121:23,
121:24
development
[56] - 9:21, 9:24,
9:25, 10:1, 10:27,
11:5, 11:8, 11:18,
11:29, 12:4,
12:13, 14:6,
14:23, 18:9,
48:18, 48:19,
48:21, 48:23,
71:24, 71:25,
74:27, 75:5, 88:2,
88:8, 88:17,
88:20, 89:19,
89:21, 92:17,
93:26, 94:5,
96:19, 96:28,
98:20, 102:4,
102:13, 102:14,
102:23, 103:6,
103:8, 103:17,
104:6, 104:17,
106:3, 113:15,
128:12, 143:25,
144:26, 146:25,
147:1, 147:17,
147:21, 148:6,
148:11, 148:19
developments
[3] - 10:14, 11:14,
48:10
dictum [3] -
52:10, 52:12,
59:12
differ [2] - 22:20,
58:27
difference [8] -
27:23, 67:21,
79:25, 81:25,
84:28, 85:22,
110:3, 149:21
different [17] -
10:10, 24:26,
29:13, 32:21,
37:19, 41:16,
70:11, 75:23,
76:23, 83:27,
101:22, 102:10,
102:27, 109:29,
139:8, 148:3,
148:28
differing [1] -
29:12
difficult [5] -
28:13, 30:2,
40:12, 59:6,
85:16
difficulty [2] -
47:13, 150:14
Digital [5] -
31:28, 32:2, 32:3,
39:17, 41:6
dignity [2] -
21:5, 30:18
direct [2] -
10:13, 108:8
directed [1] -
87:26
directive [2] -
19:27, 20:4
Directive [66] -
5:24, 5:26, 5:29,
6:5, 7:19, 7:25,
7:29, 8:3, 8:12,
11:9, 11:11, 12:2,
12:19, 13:15,
13:28, 15:26,
19:20, 19:21,
19:25, 20:25,
20:27, 46:1,
50:26, 72:19,
72:21, 72:22,
72:23, 73:5,
74:23, 75:3,
75:14, 91:5,
95:16, 95:17,
99:8, 99:9, 99:10,
99:16, 99:21,
101:27, 103:22,
103:27, 104:4,
104:7, 104:14,
105:7, 105:14,
106:1, 106:10,
106:13, 112:7,
112:24, 121:26,
121:29, 122:15,
122:24, 122:27,
124:19, 124:25,
124:26, 126:24,
135:1, 135:19,
135:20, 139:5,
142:2
Directives [4] -
44:20, 46:26,
99:7, 111:25
directly [14] -
8:14, 16:23, 17:4,
21:14, 35:3,
36:15, 39:9,
41:20, 44:4, 60:5,
77:13, 84:29,
89:3, 104:3
Director [1] -
69:6
disadvantaged
[1] - 26:8
disadvantages
[1] - 57:17
disagreed [1] -
42:19
discharge [1] -
146:10
discharged [2] -
94:14, 120:26
discharges [3] -
119:8, 144:27,
149:17
discharges' [1] -
119:11
discovery [1] -
61:8
discretion [6] -
10:19, 10:22,
11:27, 46:23,
60:10, 113:16
discriminate [1]
- 27:18
discrimination
[1] - 113:20
discussed [4] -
3:17, 45:10,
54:14, 131:16
discusses [4] -
9:15, 36:24, 43:9,
43:11
discussing [1] -
5:11
discussion [3] -
32:11, 38:22,
68:26
disimproveme
nts [1] - 90:16
disk [3] - 140:11,
140:26, 142:12
disks [1] -
130:12
dispensation [1]
- 17:24
disposal [1] -
94:2
dispute [12] -
5:26, 7:5, 7:6,
7:20, 9:10, 9:16,
11:25, 15:3,
15:24, 21:8,
21:12, 42:12
disputes [1] -
52:24
disregard [1] -
60:24
disregarded [1]
- 60:21
distance [1] -
95:22
distinct [2] -
37:15, 110:2
distinction [5] -
49:7, 86:17,
87:24, 99:27,
100:12
distinctions [1] -
85:25
distinguish [2] -
70:11, 124:10
distinguished
[1] - 124:28
distinguishes
[2] - 63:8, 75:22
distress [1] -
119:12
disturbance [2]
- 8:9, 8:11
disturbing [1] -
25:19
document [6] -
3:14, 24:3, 86:7,
130:6, 130:11,
147:7
documentation
[3] - 61:8, 131:8,
131:10
documents [3] -
130:13, 138:19,
138:21
dogmatic [1] -
26:2
done [13] - 27:7,
51:26, 75:12,
91:22, 108:7,
109:5, 118:20,
143:15, 146:21,
147:10, 149:21,
149:22, 149:27
Donegal [2] -
39:4, 42:18
Door [1] - 32:24
double [2] -
80:9, 125:7
double-
barrelled [1] -
125:7
doubling [1] -
4:2
doubt [5] - 13:4,
13:19, 14:27,
22:25, 28:27
down [9] - 7:7,
30:3, 38:25,
75:13, 121:4,
122:29, 139:7,
143:19, 148:16
downstream [3]
- 140:24, 143:25,
149:16
DPP [3] -
113:29, 120:19,
136:7
Dr [1] - 139:22
draft [1] - 64:29
drafted [1] -
71:28
draftsman [1] -
54:20
drain [1] -
144:23
drainage [12] -
94:18, 134:14,
135:17, 140:18,
143:26, 144:4,
144:12, 144:13,
144:18, 144:25,
145:17, 146:18
Drainage" [1] -
143:18
drained [1] -
93:27
draw [31] - 58:3,
66:16, 66:23,
72:5, 72:17, 73:3,
76:21, 77:6,
85:12, 85:22,
86:13, 88:19,
91:13, 92:11,
92:28, 93:19,
109:23, 109:27,
110:7, 111:28,
112:11, 113:27,
114:3, 116:10,
117:7, 117:29,
118:9, 123:12,
127:2, 149:3
drawing [2] -
48:18, 124:9
drawn [2] - 58:6,
98:24
draws [1] -
58:14
drew [3] - 74:12,
82:25, 89:11
DUBLIN [3] -
1:2, 1:17, 2:17
Dublin [11] -
81:29, 87:7,
87:10, 87:12,
87:27, 88:4,
88:21, 91:2,
91:11, 103:12,
132:28
due [12] - 30:17,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
10
37:1, 42:23,
47:22, 50:4, 50:6,
66:26, 82:29,
84:26, 88:15,
90:8, 133:29
Dunne [1] -
103:11
duration [9] -
70:23, 71:23,
72:10, 72:27,
72:28, 99:26,
100:2, 126:12,
134:17
during [2] -
69:19, 140:8
duties [1] -
29:18
duty [4] - 29:20,
30:2, 33:2, 40:4
dwellings [4] -
91:20, 92:18,
92:20, 92:25
Dáil [7] - 62:3,
62:19, 63:17,
68:16, 70:14,
73:14, 79:18
E
e.g [1] - 65:19
earshot [1] -
48:9
earth [1] - 25:2
East [2] - 39:4,
87:15
East-West [1] -
87:15
Eastern [1] -
94:4
easy [1] - 84:19
eaten [1] - 66:8
ecological [1] -
96:8
ecology [2] -
94:27, 135:28
economic [1] -
98:20
Economic [2] -
100:20, 101:13
economy [1] -
148:20
ECR [1] - 12:16
educated [1] -
24:1
education [1] -
29:22
effect [23] - 8:16,
15:19, 17:11,
20:19, 26:7, 49:1,
57:4, 59:15, 63:6,
63:23, 64:19,
72:29, 81:21,
84:29, 85:7,
91:10, 92:13,
107:26, 108:14,
108:19, 118:19,
122:14, 146:2
effective [3] -
20:4, 39:29,
40:19
effects [12] -
10:6, 10:14, 12:5,
13:19, 14:28,
19:29, 22:24,
84:14, 85:18,
90:17, 137:17,
145:29
effects" [1] -
13:5
efforts [1] -
27:29
EIA [40] - 5:12,
5:17, 5:21, 10:20,
11:23, 11:25,
11:27, 15:26,
19:20, 19:25,
20:25, 44:20,
45:9, 50:26,
70:25, 75:3,
75:11, 92:7, 99:8,
99:9, 99:15,
99:21, 101:27,
124:13, 124:25,
126:22, 127:16,
130:15, 135:19,
135:20, 135:22,
135:24, 136:2,
139:5, 143:5,
145:28, 146:24,
147:20, 147:21
eight [1] - 16:7
EIS [10] - 3:28,
5:21, 45:20,
94:28, 128:17,
134:26, 134:29,
136:19, 141:24,
142:3
either [8] - 8:16,
29:14, 47:19,
54:22, 63:22,
119:26, 122:24,
124:6
elderly [1] - 25:4
elected [1] -
65:13
electronic [1] -
25:2
element [6] -
9:15, 9:16, 40:16,
40:29, 87:19,
119:29
elements [4] -
15:16, 41:3,
42:13, 149:14
elevating [1] -
113:13
elevation [1] -
43:19
ELIZABETH [2] -
1:7, 1:9
eloquent [2] -
26:3, 41:15
elsewhere [2] -
72:16, 148:12
embark [1] - 3:9
emerging [4] -
23:1, 23:21,
23:22, 26:4
emissions [4] -
3:26, 21:10,
21:11, 137:17
emitted [1] -
22:1
emphasis [2] -
18:26, 54:4
emphasise [1] -
114:23
emphasised [1]
- 33:24
emphasises [1]
- 98:27
enable [1] -
89:18
enacted [4] -
58:26, 64:24,
65:16
enacting [1] -
62:9
enactment [3] -
61:9, 62:28, 65:7
enactments [1] -
18:23
enacts [1] -
64:19
encapsulation
[1] - 26:4
enclosure [1] -
134:7
encyclical [3] -
23:26, 25:27,
26:1
end [6] - 21:26,
44:27, 72:12,
122:29, 126:4,
131:14
endanger [2] -
27:20, 97:11
ended [1] - 15:6
endure [1] - 86:1
enforceable [3] -
95:1, 95:2
engage [3] -
21:25, 31:17,
49:1
engaged [5] -
49:3, 83:2, 83:4,
83:14, 104:7
engaging [1] -
40:22
engender [1] -
65:5
engine [3] -
133:18, 133:19,
133:23
engineer [2] -
138:8, 138:13
enhancement
[1] - 87:6
enjoy [4] -
26:22, 31:25,
41:22, 47:8
enjoyed [1] -
42:28
enjoys [2] -
42:6, 132:24
ensure [10] -
20:3, 28:4, 40:4,
46:12, 65:9,
90:24, 92:10,
97:1, 97:10,
98:25
entered [1] -
132:7
enters [1] -
144:22
entertain [1] -
61:13
entire [1] - 59:4
entirely [6] -
3:28, 60:21,
75:23, 79:12,
113:10, 145:28
entitled [11] -
5:7, 20:13, 31:23,
32:9, 36:2, 36:25,
37:4, 81:27,
110:24, 120:28,
123:12
entitlement [1] -
36:28
entry [1] - 19:25
ENVIRONMEN
T [2] - 1:12, 2:8
environment
[13] - 19:29, 21:3,
31:8, 31:14,
66:14, 89:19,
90:24, 100:8,
100:9, 100:10,
100:14, 100:25,
148:21
Environment [8]
- 28:18, 53:21,
71:16, 73:22,
103:11, 105:2,
105:19, 124:16
Environmental
[4] - 72:27, 89:15,
91:4, 91:5
environmental
[16] - 10:7, 10:11,
26:5, 26:6, 28:22,
31:11, 40:13,
41:25, 41:26,
45:23, 45:28,
70:24, 93:28,
99:28, 109:2,
124:18
envisages [1] -
9:5
EPA [6] -
107:11, 107:28,
108:6, 108:9,
108:15, 109:13
equal [1] - 20:26
equality [1] -
113:19
equally [5] -
28:21, 35:27,
41:22, 51:13,
58:6
equated [1] -
103:8
equipment [1] -
134:6
ergo [1] - 7:10
erosion [1] -
131:15
erred [1] -
111:14
error [2] - 112:7,
112:24
errored [1] -
82:6
esoteric [1] -
41:29
especially [4] -
24:10, 33:27,
37:10, 116:16
essence [2] -
17:13, 119:20
essential [4] -
25:17, 34:14,
34:16, 115:29
essentially [5] -
22:23, 58:19,
81:20, 81:23,
81:26
establish [3] -
13:24, 64:7,
120:7
established [4] -
35:10, 63:11,
117:27, 120:1
esteemed [2] -
30:10, 64:27
et [2] - 36:26,
63:8
EU [10] - 71:4,
71:8, 71:18,
71:29, 72:9,
72:15, 91:4, 99:6,
99:27, 109:15
Europe [1] -
23:7
European [39] -
9:26, 10:2, 10:28,
11:6, 11:16,
11:19, 12:5,
12:14, 14:1, 14:8,
14:24, 16:20,
17:6, 17:11,
17:27, 20:16,
20:20, 61:29,
74:16, 75:13,
75:15, 91:10,
95:15, 97:29,
98:5, 98:7, 99:5,
99:6, 100:1,
100:12, 100:18,
101:7, 101:28,
102:1, 103:1,
111:3, 124:2,
124:4, 124:23
evade [1] - 38:3
evaluation [5] -
10:13, 10:16,
14:16, 14:19,
15:13
event [7] -
52:14, 63:16,
73:9, 83:7, 97:3,
125:8, 150:16
events [1] -
25:23
evidence [18] -
15:19, 28:25,
104:15, 104:21,
104:23, 105:9,
119:9, 126:6,
126:21, 126:25,
130:20, 136:9,
136:11, 142:24,
142:25, 142:26,
142:29, 146:3
evidence' [1] -
119:16
evident [1] -
53:8
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
11
ex [2] - 53:21,
117:16
exacerbate [2] -
143:23, 146:6
exact [1] - 5:6
exactly [8] -
19:1, 20:8, 23:3,
44:23, 132:19,
133:19, 145:6,
147:2
examination [4]
- 10:12, 10:16,
14:10, 92:6
examine [4] -
38:5, 45:23, 57:3,
101:27
examining [1] -
53:14
example [20] -
15:4, 22:22,
22:26, 24:12,
43:15, 48:6, 53:9,
63:3, 82:27, 85:3,
85:9, 94:22,
105:27, 105:28,
117:11, 118:14,
119:29, 121:19,
123:22, 140:20
except [2] -
18:7, 102:12
exceptional [1] -
34:13
exclude [3] -
13:29, 15:13,
44:14
excluded [1] -
12:4
excluding [1] -
113:9
exclusion [2] -
18:7, 113:14
exclusive [1] -
57:11
exclusivity [1] -
109:1
execution [1] -
18:15
executive [2] -
61:15, 64:26
exemption [1] -
27:25
exemptions [1] -
27:24
exercise [8] -
10:21, 11:26,
18:21, 46:23,
53:24, 124:8,
125:16, 148:15
exercised [2] -
21:22, 49:23
exercises [1] -
11:22
exhibited [1] -
147:7
exhibits [1] -
129:28
exigencies [1] -
27:15
exist [2] - 29:12,
41:27
existed [1] -
127:17
existence [4] -
31:24, 40:23,
41:11, 120:8
existing [7] -
76:20, 90:15,
120:2, 141:4,
144:23, 145:22,
146:11
exists [4] - 22:2,
22:10, 33:18,
38:18
expansion [2] -
87:5, 88:5
expect [1] -
72:12
expended [1] -
108:5
experience [2] -
24:9, 30:21
expert [4] -
104:29, 130:18,
139:4, 140:5
expertise [2] -
125:1, 125:3
experts [6] -
29:13, 105:2,
124:18, 139:19,
141:10, 142:29
expiry [4] -
18:17, 18:29,
19:4, 19:9
explanation [3] -
73:18, 122:8,
122:22
explicitly [2] -
18:28, 23:7
expose [1] -
97:11
Exposure [1] -
24:9
express [4] -
4:10, 53:17,
72:28, 83:5
expressed [4] -
53:28, 55:17,
143:22, 143:27
expression [2] -
59:13, 135:3
expressly [7] -
9:19, 30:7, 53:3,
58:11, 117:4,
120:19, 122:9
extend [3] -
106:25, 106:26,
110:4
extended [2] -
116:18, 126:19
extension [19] -
4:29, 5:14, 5:18,
17:17, 18:17,
18:29, 19:3,
19:17, 28:21,
47:1, 71:23,
72:10, 98:11,
98:13, 102:2,
102:21, 102:23,
113:16, 126:4
extensions [2] -
19:8, 70:23
extensive [2] -
125:26, 130:15
extensively [1] -
58:27
extent [14] -
7:21, 29:14,
29:17, 49:20,
76:11, 124:7,
125:12, 125:13,
125:14, 127:15,
130:3, 134:29,
143:5, 146:9
external [1] -
53:15
extract [4] -
61:19, 62:18,
73:14, 74:9
extrapolate [1] -
73:23
extrapolating
[1] - 73:24
extreme [2] -
25:22, 118:13
extremely [4] -
49:29, 59:6,
63:20, 71:10
eyes [1] - 16:16
F
face [1] - 40:25
facilitative [1] -
93:12
facilities [2] -
48:13, 90:22
facility [2] -
48:14, 48:15
fact [31] - 16:23,
18:26, 19:7,
24:20, 38:2, 45:6,
46:25, 48:19,
49:1, 56:20,
62:26, 63:17,
68:11, 69:16,
75:19, 75:28,
75:29, 83:2,
84:19, 89:28,
95:23, 98:5,
106:21, 111:14,
111:20, 112:11,
119:3, 120:2,
120:29, 123:3,
133:2
factor [1] - 120:3
facts [8] - 15:23,
26:20, 32:13,
83:2, 124:5,
124:10, 125:21,
146:22
fail [1] - 4:24
failed [5] -
53:16, 99:14,
104:3, 121:27,
122:26
failing [5] - 33:2,
82:8, 113:10,
113:12, 113:15
fails [1] - 81:8
failure [6] - 6:11,
105:9, 111:23,
112:12, 112:28
fair [11] - 43:25,
82:6, 82:14,
82:20, 83:1, 83:8,
93:9, 93:15,
113:12, 113:19,
119:2
fairly [1] - 105:8
fairness [1] -
120:9
fall [4] - 16:14,
17:18, 36:19,
92:20
falls [2] - 15:22,
29:26
familiar [2] -
23:28, 26:20
family [1] -
118:20
far [11] - 4:13,
8:10, 13:14, 22:4,
27:5, 27:10, 28:5,
33:2, 102:2,
136:10, 148:21
farm [2] - 7:2,
7:3
FARRELL [1] -
1:9
Farrington [9] -
51:9, 52:6, 60:28,
61:12, 66:19,
66:26, 69:8,
69:17, 78:3
fashion [1] -
134:22
fauna [5] -
94:23, 95:6, 95:7,
128:16, 133:14
favour [5] -
18:22, 22:22,
27:24, 46:24,
85:27
fear [1] - 56:1
feature [1] -
118:16
featured [1] -
97:22
felt [1] - 74:3
Fennelly [11] -
48:28, 59:8,
59:15, 84:16,
84:27, 85:3,
86:15, 87:25,
88:23, 118:25,
118:26
Fennelly's [2] -
42:2, 85:13
FERGUS [1] -
1:8
fertilizers [1] -
24:17
fever [1] - 48:16
few [7] - 50:17,
51:17, 77:15,
83:18, 83:21,
83:23, 114:27
fide [8] - 32:27,
33:15, 33:17,
34:17, 35:22,
36:3, 38:13,
38:17
field [3] - 12:26,
14:6, 14:20
Fifth [1] - 65:11
fill [1] - 65:14
filth [1] - 25:4
final [5] - 19:13,
30:26, 44:26,
113:5, 149:3
finalised [1] -
131:17
finally [7] -
29:26, 35:9, 43:4,
44:8, 58:26,
118:24, 149:3
Finance [1] -
77:19
financial [1] -
86:1
financially [1] -
46:17
findings [7] -
13:17, 14:13,
14:15, 14:17,
14:18, 14:25,
124:24
FINGAL [2] -
1:15, 2:13
Fingal [10] -
82:6, 82:21,
87:13, 110:10,
110:12, 125:20,
126:11, 126:14,
127:3, 132:8
fining [1] - 70:7
finish [1] - 70:3
Finland [1] -
23:10
Finlay [8] - 6:26,
7:1, 7:11, 12:8,
15:10, 32:24,
35:12, 38:14
FINTAN [1] -
2:19
First [2] - 57:23,
64:18
first [27] - 6:14,
9:12, 20:20,
31:22, 47:14,
47:17, 50:10,
50:19, 51:7,
66:12, 68:29,
71:28, 76:28,
81:2, 86:29,
99:10, 105:29,
109:22, 109:24,
110:8, 112:11,
113:28, 114:3,
114:28, 118:28,
126:29, 148:4
FIRST [1] - 1:17
firstly [4] - 3:11,
91:16, 104:15,
131:26
fiscal [1] -
101:15
Fisheries [1] -
94:4
fishing [1] -
12:29
fit [1] - 117:25
Fitzpatrick [1] -
140:3
five [2] - 16:9,
129:5
Flanders [1] -
19:17
flood [22] - 84:8,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
12
93:20, 93:22,
125:15, 134:11,
135:18, 135:23,
140:19, 140:23,
143:13, 146:12,
146:21, 146:26,
147:13, 147:17,
147:18, 147:28,
148:10, 148:11,
148:13, 148:20,
149:15
Flood [3] -
125:16, 145:9,
149:8
flooding [8] -
93:24, 94:10,
94:18, 143:26,
145:1, 146:28,
147:1, 147:24
flow [1] - 29:18
flowing [1] -
85:19
fluoridation [1] -
22:24
focus [1] - 132:2
folder [1] -
109:22
follow [2] -
43:25, 52:14
followed [1] -
38:22
following [14] -
1:28, 12:9, 14:18,
14:19, 15:20,
15:23, 23:7,
39:16, 43:22,
49:16, 87:11,
128:17, 136:19,
149:7
FOLLOWS [3] -
3:2, 3:6, 70:1
follows [4] -
20:25, 32:26,
62:1, 136:18
food [1] - 21:4
FOR [7] - 2:4,
2:8, 2:13, 2:17,
2:22, 2:27, 69:29
force [2] - 19:25,
20:26
forced [1] -
132:17
foregoing [3] -
37:8, 68:16,
68:26
foreseeable [3] -
56:15, 88:3,
88:21
Forest [2] -
144:20, 146:10
forgotten [2] -
41:5, 125:7
form [1] - 64:29
formal [3] - 96:2,
109:25, 110:15
former [1] -
37:28
forms [2] - 24:8,
28:25
formulated [1] -
4:19
forward [4] -
73:17, 104:29,
105:26, 138:6
foundation [2] -
50:8, 74:1
four [5] - 14:2,
50:21, 66:18,
112:6, 112:22
Fourth [1] - 65:4
FOURTH [1] -
1:22
fourth [6] -
114:12, 119:4,
119:14, 119:17,
119:22, 141:29
fourthly [1] -
51:2
FP [1] - 2:10
framework [3] -
102:25, 145:8,
147:27
France [1] -
23:10
Frances [1] -
24:5
free [1] - 108:2
freedom [1] -
30:18
freestanding [1]
- 44:1
Frequently [1] -
25:10
frequently [1] -
52:26
fresh [5] - 19:10,
45:7, 45:9, 46:7
FRIDAY [2] -
1:25, 3:1
Friday [1] -
142:23
Friend [3] -
42:23, 44:9,
107:19
friend [1] - 25:27
Friend's [1] -
44:16
FRIENDS [2] -
1:12, 2:8
Friends [35] -
5:27, 15:26,
21:20, 23:27,
24:1, 26:18,
28:18, 28:20,
31:28, 37:1,
40:14, 41:8,
42:11, 42:12,
42:14, 42:19,
42:20, 42:26,
44:12, 44:21,
50:14, 71:16,
73:22, 74:12,
79:27, 80:12,
80:20, 105:1,
105:18, 105:19,
106:16, 109:21,
123:16, 124:16,
149:29
Friends' [1] -
41:4
frivolous [1] -
37:22
frustrate [1] -
46:10
fuels [1] - 24:13
full [10] - 9:12,
70:13, 92:6,
93:29, 96:7,
113:3, 123:14,
125:9, 125:23,
142:13
full.. [1] - 94:28
fully [5] - 4:10,
45:23, 71:3,
110:14, 124:14
fully/partially [1]
- 96:29
fumes [1] -
24:15
functionality [1]
- 149:15
fundamental [7]
- 30:5, 34:10,
38:28, 50:27,
99:24, 105:8,
109:15
Fundamental [1]
- 111:3
funding [2] -
95:29, 96:1
fungicides [1] -
24:17
furnished [1] -
45:19
furnishes [1] -
118:13
future [4] - 35:4,
39:9, 90:14, 91:3
G
gain [2] - 48:20,
86:1
Gains [1] - 77:7
Galway [3] -
45:27, 45:29,
46:1
gaps [2] - 14:14,
65:14
gardens [1] -
96:2
GARRET [1] -
2:18
gas [3] - 21:10,
21:11, 46:16
gases [2] -
21:28, 22:1
gateway [1] -
87:8
GENERAL [2] -
1:19, 2:22
general [14] -
8:27, 24:18,
28:15, 33:12,
48:29, 49:8,
55:22, 56:22,
62:4, 85:2, 86:6,
87:25, 88:24,
91:10
General [2] -
26:17, 33:9
generality [1] -
18:19
generally [3] -
27:14, 57:18,
90:26
generated [2] -
24:28, 84:8
Geoghegan [5] -
6:26, 7:1, 7:11,
12:8, 15:10
Georgia [1] -
23:10
Gerry [1] - 140:4
Gillespie [1] -
129:7
GILLIGAN [1] -
1:8
Gilligan [1] -
129:3
given [24] - 7:22,
9:21, 9:28, 24:4,
27:13, 36:11,
41:6, 45:24,
51:27, 80:13,
81:21, 82:12,
82:15, 93:23,
94:7, 101:23,
105:3, 105:4,
125:24, 130:20,
133:29, 143:7,
143:9, 143:11
gleaned [1] -
47:19
global [1] -
25:16
Goonery [1] -
108:26
Gorman [2] -
66:13, 66:20
Government [4]
- 61:15, 61:20,
65:20, 66:14
government [3]
- 33:1, 52:21,
52:22
grant [13] -
10:19, 11:29,
12:3, 39:17,
42:27, 45:7,
110:24, 112:5,
112:21, 113:16,
117:17, 117:18,
127:25
granted [14] -
3:17, 17:25, 20:3,
45:1, 46:11, 80:8,
80:15, 115:15,
116:28, 117:26,
119:28, 120:13,
126:12, 133:3
granting [2] -
11:13, 14:1
grassed [3] -
144:23, 144:25,
144:27
grateful [3] -
49:27, 49:29,
52:5
grave [2] -
40:22, 50:3
gravity [1] - 74:4
great [4] - 30:11,
47:27, 65:1, 66:5
greater [2] - 9:6,
65:9
greatly [1] -
57:20
Greece [1] -
23:10
greenhouse [4]
- 21:10, 21:11,
21:28, 22:1
GREG [1] - 1:9
Griffin [2] -
77:10, 78:14
ground [8] -
34:25, 42:21,
112:1, 113:5,
115:18, 116:2,
116:18, 120:6
grounding [2] -
119:4, 119:23
grounds [25] -
27:15, 27:26,
28:14, 33:4,
35:21, 80:7, 80:9,
80:17, 115:15,
116:20, 116:25,
116:28, 117:15,
117:18, 117:20,
117:22, 117:25,
118:11, 118:17,
118:29, 119:24,
121:15, 121:16,
123:19, 135:10
Grounds [10] -
80:25, 81:4,
83:11, 86:9,
97:19, 104:20,
105:26, 114:27,
123:20
Group [7] -
128:4, 128:8,
129:9, 129:21,
137:29, 139:8,
142:9
group [4] -
37:28, 128:10,
129:24, 131:17
Group's [1] -
131:7
guarantee [1] -
35:10
guaranteed [3] -
32:29, 34:7, 34:8
guarantees [1] -
113:19
guidance [1] -
13:11
Guidelines [9] -
87:12, 125:16,
125:21, 145:9,
146:27, 147:16,
147:27, 148:27,
149:9
guidelines [1] -
30:2
GWEN [1] - 1:31
H
habitat [3] -
95:20, 141:4,
141:6
Habitats [37] -
5:24, 5:25, 5:29,
6:5, 7:18, 7:25,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
13
7:28, 8:3, 11:9,
11:11, 12:2,
12:19, 13:15,
13:28, 16:21,
20:26, 44:20,
46:1, 95:16,
95:17, 99:8,
103:22, 103:27,
104:4, 104:7,
104:14, 105:7,
105:13, 105:29,
106:9, 112:24,
124:19, 124:26,
126:24, 135:1,
139:5, 142:2
habitats [3] -
8:8, 96:8
halting [1] -
133:16
HAND [1] - 1:9
Hand [1] -
129:11
hand [9] - 3:22,
18:4, 33:28,
56:10, 67:22,
84:28, 99:28,
100:14, 140:16
handed [3] -
66:12, 70:9,
100:5
Handed) [2] -
24:2, 26:18
handing [2] -
26:16, 59:24
Hardiman [11] -
43:9, 43:11,
66:24, 66:29,
67:1, 67:2, 67:16,
67:18, 68:23,
69:16, 118:3
Hardiman's [1] -
68:13
Harley [1] -
139:14
harm [1] - 89:5
harmful [1] -
22:24
Harrington [3] -
105:16, 107:3,
109:13
harsh [1] -
120:16
HAYDEN [1] -
2:27
hazards [1] -
24:10
headed [1] -
147:11
heading [12] -
52:8, 52:17,
70:17, 105:29,
107:15, 112:1,
130:24, 135:15,
136:29, 140:17,
143:18, 149:4
headline [8] -
83:23, 98:4, 99:1,
99:24, 103:19,
125:12, 131:5,
143:4
headnote [5] -
78:12, 78:13,
114:3, 114:4,
114:9
heads [1] -
83:20
health [11] -
24:10, 25:11,
27:8, 27:11,
27:28, 28:8,
88:15, 90:18,
94:9, 128:14,
141:12
HEALY [3] - 2:4,
107:19, 127:6
Healy [13] -
44:10, 44:14,
47:26, 77:2,
77:23, 79:6,
87:22, 89:11,
92:13, 126:1,
126:22, 127:11,
132:21
Healy's [5] - 6:9,
41:15, 44:29,
77:1, 77:14
heard [12] -
41:18, 41:23,
42:3, 42:6, 43:13,
43:20, 102:2,
142:19, 142:20,
142:21, 142:23
HEARD [1] -
1:24
HEARING [4] -
3:1, 69:29, 70:1,
150:21
hearing [20] -
3:4, 7:26, 69:19,
80:5, 80:6, 89:17,
116:27, 125:5,
128:19, 128:23,
128:24, 128:25,
129:1, 129:4,
129:24, 138:27,
140:8, 140:13,
142:18
hearings [1] -
128:25
heart [1] - 41:1
heating [1] -
24:13
heavily [1] -
110:5
heavy [1] - 18:26
hectare [1] -
95:10
hectares [1] -
95:11
hedgerow [1] -
96:1
hedgerows [4] -
95:25, 95:26,
133:14
held [3] - 32:7,
32:10, 128:19
HELEN [2] - 1:8,
2:15
Helen [1] - 129:3
HELENA [1] -
1:7
Helena [1] -
129:2
helpful [2] -
53:29, 56:13
helpfully [1] -
66:1
Hence [1] -
11:12
herbicides [1] -
24:17
herein [3] -
11:10, 129:5,
129:14
Heritage [2] -
46:1, 97:4
heritage [2] -
128:15, 141:1
herself [2] -
26:28, 139:4
hide [1] - 38:3
hierarchy [1] -
22:6
HIGH [1] - 1:1
high [2] - 24:12,
31:12
High [14] -
21:21, 40:22,
52:13, 61:2,
67:27, 108:25,
108:26, 115:7,
115:11, 115:13,
116:25, 117:17,
117:19, 117:23
higher [2] - 47:5,
115:20
highest [1] -
30:9
highly [1] -
24:28
himself [2] -
139:15, 139:17
historic [1] -
96:2
historical [1] -
133:14
history [4] -
62:28, 69:13,
76:17, 119:5
history' [3] -
63:1, 63:9
Hoey [9] - 51:23,
51:26, 52:16,
58:10, 59:23,
60:2, 60:12,
76:15, 78:11
holding [1] -
35:21
home [3] - 25:2,
40:26, 85:10
homeowners [2]
- 41:19, 48:2
homes [4] -
24:29, 41:21,
71:24, 93:8
honourable [5] -
6:15, 20:9, 20:21,
21:2, 21:24
hope [1] - 84:2
hospitals [1] -
48:17
hours [2] -
134:3, 150:4
house [2] -
55:18, 147:19
House [5] - 51:4,
54:14, 54:15,
54:22, 56:21
housekeeping
[1] - 79:22
houses [1] -
41:19
Houses [2] -
56:28, 58:25
huge [1] - 81:24
Human [4] -
49:19, 97:29,
98:7, 98:19
human [4] -
25:18, 30:9, 34:4,
35:11
hundreds [1] -
24:27
Hungary [1] -
23:10
hurry [2] -
114:29, 115:1
husband [2] -
26:23, 26:28
hypothetical [1]
- 126:24
I
I-7405 [1] -
12:16
I.R [6] - 60:29,
61:1, 61:3, 69:8,
69:9, 118:21
Ian [3] - 3:19,
124:20, 139:17
iceberg [1] -
130:9
ideal [1] - 47:17
ideas [2] - 30:22,
30:24
identical [3] -
60:20, 107:22,
125:22
identification [4]
- 7:11, 10:17,
26:14, 142:17
identified [16] -
12:25, 14:28,
15:9, 20:24, 22:7,
22:27, 31:12,
88:28, 90:3,
129:19, 131:5,
131:12, 133:27,
140:5, 142:27,
142:28
identifies [11] -
59:17, 60:4,
62:13, 86:16,
107:6, 124:7,
130:25, 138:18,
139:25, 143:5,
147:23
identify [17] -
10:13, 14:5, 44:3,
53:25, 68:2, 71:7,
80:26, 89:9,
97:19, 122:23,
125:11, 130:3,
130:18, 136:17,
136:18, 138:11,
146:25
identifying [1] -
136:28
identity [1] -
140:1
IEHC [2] - 51:28,
108:28
IESC [1] -
118:21
ii [3] - 14:12,
39:25, 65:22
iii [2] - 14:22,
39:27
illustrates [1] -
73:19
illustration [3] -
70:5, 72:18, 73:8
imagine [1] -
48:6
immediate [1] -
28:28
immediately [5]
- 48:3, 72:12,
95:4, 97:5,
139:26
immense [1] -
25:3
immensely [1] -
150:7
immune [1] -
106:23
impact [14] -
3:26, 4:1, 10:7,
10:11, 45:23,
70:24, 84:7,
93:28, 124:18,
128:12, 129:9,
141:1, 143:24,
143:27
Impact [2] -
72:27, 89:15
impacted [2] -
104:17, 104:28
impacts [11] -
10:21, 88:15,
89:19, 90:15,
95:6, 95:9,
128:15, 135:21,
144:1, 146:25,
147:22
imperilled [1] -
36:13
impermissible
[2] - 50:28, 62:7
impervious [1] -
144:20
impinge [2] -
21:14, 22:27
implemented [2]
- 7:19, 9:6
implications [8]
- 3:20, 4:6, 8:19,
8:21, 12:20,
12:28, 13:25,
57:3
implicitly [1] -
75:26
implied [2] -
77:19, 83:7
impliedly [1] -
75:26
implies [1] -
12:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
14
importance [11]
- 4:16, 31:7,
33:19, 33:25,
34:13, 35:19,
38:19, 98:9,
98:24, 108:5,
114:24
important [12] -
39:25, 49:4, 49:6,
78:15, 87:19,
92:14, 98:21,
98:28, 105:8,
125:10, 125:11,
127:15
impose [3] -
7:27, 37:28,
102:11
imposed [4] -
7:16, 7:21, 7:28,
102:9
imprescriptible
[1] - 30:1
impressively [1]
- 54:25
imprimatur [1] -
20:22
improved [1] -
87:10
improvements
[2] - 90:14, 133:7
improving [1] -
100:9
impugned [2] -
39:27, 44:5
impugning [3] -
105:22, 108:14,
108:19
imputed [2] -
44:5, 55:13
imputes [1] -
54:7
in-depth [1] -
3:25
inability [1] -
37:14
inadequate [1] -
54:25
inalienable [3] -
22:9, 29:19, 30:1
inappropriate
[2] - 50:18, 73:29
incapable [1] -
24:20
include [5] -
14:22, 37:29,
45:26, 92:20,
147:24
included [2] -
86:25, 100:6
Included [1] -
52:23
includes [5] -
17:23, 17:27,
18:20, 18:28,
148:19
includes... [1] -
18:11
including [16] -
18:16, 24:26,
51:14, 90:21,
94:23, 95:7,
125:5, 128:11,
134:26, 136:15,
137:27, 138:3,
139:9, 139:19,
141:22, 145:19
incompatible [4]
- 97:28, 99:21,
103:26, 121:26
inconsistencie
s [1] - 89:22
inconsistent [1]
- 121:26
incorporated [1]
- 34:11
increase [10] -
21:9, 21:10,
21:11, 21:13,
25:22, 65:22,
85:5, 140:23,
146:29, 148:11
indeed [9] -
4:11, 38:29,
42:28, 47:19,
48:11, 48:15,
59:19, 75:28,
131:29
indent [1] - 68:9
independently
[1] - 113:6
indicate [2] -
30:5, 150:13
indicated [1] -
55:12
indicates [1] -
25:18
indicating [2] -
59:16, 63:24
indication [1] -
143:10
indications [1] -
59:4
indirect [1] -
10:13
indirectly [2] -
35:4, 39:9
individual [7] -
30:19, 32:11,
37:5, 40:1, 40:21,
54:21, 54:22
individually [2] -
8:16, 17:9
individuals [2] -
54:22, 113:12
industrial [2] -
24:15, 25:2
Industrial [1] -
25:6
industry [1] -
85:11
inevitably [1] -
62:7
infirmities [1] -
119:8
influenced [1] -
78:7
inform [1] -
56:21
information [5] -
89:14, 89:16,
89:23, 89:26,
144:5
informs [2] -
10:17, 11:26
infrastructural
[1] - 87:6
infrastructure
[1] - 137:14
infringement [1]
- 119:2
inhered [1] -
42:3
inherent [2] -
28:12, 125:27
inherently [1] -
119:21
inherits [1] -
6:21
initial [1] - 58:28
injunction [1] -
35:16
injustice [1] -
34:26
insecticides [1]
- 24:17
inserted [1] -
60:18
insertion [1] -
46:3
insignificant [1]
- 115:4
Insofar [1] -
120:5
insofar [6] - 8:3,
32:11, 84:12,
105:13, 112:3,
112:19
inspector [2] -
4:29, 92:5
Inspector [15] -
3:17, 4:28, 76:29,
89:23, 136:25,
138:18, 138:21,
140:3, 140:7,
145:5, 145:14,
147:2, 148:15,
148:29, 149:19
Inspector's [6] -
3:15, 89:10,
129:1, 129:6,
129:28, 143:16
inspectors [1] -
125:5
Inspectors [3] -
140:2, 140:26,
142:11
installation [3] -
98:18, 132:26,
137:6
installed [1] -
91:28
instance [7] -
6:14, 6:15, 20:21,
109:24, 110:8,
112:11, 126:29
instead [2] -
15:12, 65:25
INSTRUCTED
[6] - 2:6, 2:10,
2:15, 2:20, 2:25,
2:29
insulation [3] -
91:19, 91:20,
91:27
integrity [15] -
8:25, 9:26, 10:2,
10:28, 11:6,
11:18, 12:14,
13:3, 14:24, 21:4,
22:18, 28:22,
28:29, 31:14,
31:26
intellectual [1] -
29:21
intend [1] - 76:4
intended [6] -
7:27, 30:26, 46:3,
63:6, 71:27, 77:5
intended' [1] -
54:27
intends [1] -
64:21
intent [7] - 53:4,
53:7, 53:16,
55:10, 55:12,
56:3
intention [12] -
18:8, 53:27, 54:6,
54:9, 54:20, 55:2,
61:15, 61:20,
63:24, 64:19,
108:1, 132:16
intentional [1] -
147:25
intentioned [1] -
64:27
intentions [1] -
54:23
inter [4] - 22:7,
45:26, 61:7,
62:24
interaction [1] -
27:1
intercept [2] -
144:19, 146:19
interest [25] -
32:28, 33:15,
33:17, 33:18,
34:5, 34:6, 34:17,
35:3, 35:6, 35:7,
35:22, 36:3,
36:17, 37:26,
38:14, 38:18,
39:8, 39:11, 42:8,
42:25, 44:4,
65:21, 86:6,
88:26
interested [2] -
113:9, 113:11
interests [6] -
24:19, 85:28,
94:9, 98:8,
113:13, 115:23
interfered [1] -
32:6
interference [1]
- 41:25
internal [15] -
6:29, 16:27,
17:20, 18:3,
26:29, 37:2,
43:17, 67:8,
70:16, 91:17,
127:11, 140:20,
141:3, 141:26,
145:13
international [3]
- 4:17, 5:3, 87:8
interpret [4] -
29:27, 30:21,
52:26, 76:20
interpretation
[13] - 29:13,
30:25, 51:11,
53:11, 53:24,
56:14, 57:28,
58:7, 59:5, 60:9,
65:8, 65:23,
68:26
interpretations
[1] - 76:13
interpretative
[2] - 56:17, 57:27
interpreted [4] -
36:18, 64:24,
81:21, 83:14
interpreting [8] -
52:27, 55:11,
57:1, 58:22, 59:2,
62:5, 62:10,
62:14
interrupting [1] -
54:18
intervene [1] -
36:10
intervening [1] -
55:29
intervention [4]
- 5:7, 5:15, 5:16,
5:19
interventions
[1] - 19:26
intolerable [1] -
143:24
introduce [1] -
72:25
introduced [5] -
30:12, 51:15,
56:13, 58:28,
91:4
introduces [1] -
54:13
introducing [1] -
61:21
introduction [2]
- 56:23, 64:13
introductory [1]
- 58:29
invalid [2] -
43:23, 81:7
invalidate [2] -
35:1, 39:6
invalidity [1] -
111:24
invaluable [1] -
22:9
investigation [1]
- 95:3
investment [2] -
16:4, 87:9
invite [1] - 46:27
inviting [1] -
46:21
invoke [3] -
34:17, 36:5,
127:22
invoked [1] -
32:27
involve [4] -
17:14, 35:25,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
15
98:7, 144:18
involved [2] -
107:6, 125:13
involving [1] -
108:15
IPP [1] - 21:17
IPPC [5] - 21:17,
28:26, 31:12,
107:15, 109:8
Ireland [12] -
23:16, 31:29,
32:2, 32:4, 39:17,
41:7, 60:29,
74:10, 75:7,
75:27, 125:28,
139:23
IRELAND [2] -
1:19, 2:22
Irish [13] - 28:6,
28:18, 61:2,
64:17, 67:29,
71:16, 73:22,
105:1, 105:19,
122:15, 122:24,
122:26, 124:16
IRISH [2] - 1:12,
2:8
ironically [1] -
36:10
irrational [1] -
111:14
irreversibly [1] -
25:11
irrevocably [1] -
21:14
issue [39] - 3:25,
3:29, 4:11, 4:15,
11:1, 34:2, 34:5,
49:22, 49:24,
50:11, 51:9,
61:25, 74:2,
78:29, 79:17,
81:2, 82:11, 83:4,
86:15, 93:16,
105:14, 110:16,
121:16, 121:17,
126:28, 135:18,
137:18, 138:15,
140:18, 140:19,
141:8, 141:10,
141:18, 144:4,
146:15, 148:8
issued [1] -
145:10
issues [29] -
44:20, 49:15,
49:18, 99:5, 99:6,
104:12, 115:6,
124:2, 124:3,
125:9, 125:14,
127:18, 131:5,
134:29, 135:2,
135:4, 136:25,
138:4, 138:5,
139:5, 140:7,
140:29, 141:22,
141:23, 141:27,
141:28, 142:3,
145:1
it' [1] - 39:11
item [1] - 130:29
itself [16] - 14:7,
15:21, 20:4,
36:15, 41:29,
43:14, 43:16,
49:10, 86:8,
101:10, 102:3,
120:5, 120:7,
130:16, 148:7,
150:5
iv [1] - 39:29
IV [1] - 147:23
J
JAMES [1] - 1:8
January [2] -
67:27, 68:3
jeopardy [2] -
28:1, 28:10
JERRY [1] - 2:4
jets [1] - 41:21
Jim [1] - 129:3
JIMMY [1] - 1:9
JJ [1] - 59:8
JOHN [1] - 2:8
Judge [41] - 3:8,
5:11, 5:24, 6:28,
9:17, 11:21,
16:20, 16:25,
19:2, 19:20,
20:29, 22:13,
23:1, 24:3, 28:17,
30:28, 33:22,
34:13, 36:7,
39:13, 40:10,
41:3, 41:10,
42:16, 42:24,
43:4, 43:7, 43:28,
44:8, 44:11,
44:17, 46:21,
47:12, 47:24,
52:4, 52:13, 89:2,
107:8, 117:17,
149:24, 150:13
judge [2] - 3:8,
30:3
Judges [2] -
117:9, 118:20
judges [3] -
29:26, 30:19,
65:12
judgment [30] -
6:25, 9:17, 12:17,
32:25, 37:4,
39:15, 51:18,
51:28, 58:4,
58:10, 59:23,
60:7, 66:1, 66:17,
66:19, 66:24,
67:26, 67:28,
68:3, 68:11,
76:14, 77:10,
78:27, 84:27,
85:14, 107:5,
114:29, 120:23,
121:9
judgments [2] -
59:9, 117:9
judicial [22] -
33:1, 52:21, 65:3,
79:29, 80:3, 80:8,
80:13, 80:15,
104:22, 109:6,
109:28, 110:5,
110:17, 114:21,
114:24, 115:13,
116:1, 117:14,
118:5, 119:19,
122:21, 132:9
Judicial [1] -
115:10
judiciary [1] -
62:9
July [2] - 70:15,
108:27
jumbo [1] -
41:21
juncture [2] -
15:23, 146:5
jurisdiction [11]
- 10:19, 11:3,
11:28, 12:3,
20:22, 21:21,
21:22, 23:5,
32:26, 117:24
jurisdictions [1]
- 64:12
jurisprudence
[2] - 44:22, 59:29
jurisprudential
[5] - 22:14, 23:2,
23:21, 26:11,
31:5
jury [1] - 119:7
JUSTICE [13] -
1:24, 21:26,
23:28, 47:7, 52:3,
59:28, 66:8,
69:26, 126:1,
149:25, 150:8,
150:12, 150:18
justice [62] -
6:26, 7:1, 7:11,
12:8, 15:10,
26:19, 26:29,
27:3, 29:4, 30:5,
30:8, 30:9, 30:14,
30:18, 30:22,
30:29, 32:1,
32:16, 36:23,
37:2, 42:2, 42:17,
42:27, 48:28,
52:17, 55:7,
57:15, 58:4,
58:12, 59:12,
59:14, 59:15,
59:17, 62:13,
63:13, 66:13,
68:5, 68:11,
68:29, 69:11,
69:16, 77:10,
78:14, 78:23,
82:7, 82:14, 83:8,
84:16, 84:27,
85:3, 85:13,
86:15, 87:25,
88:22, 117:11,
118:24, 118:26,
120:21, 120:24,
121:10, 136:8
Justice [22] -
8:1, 11:16, 12:15,
20:23, 39:15,
43:8, 43:11,
66:24, 66:29,
67:1, 67:2, 67:16,
67:18, 68:12,
68:23, 74:17,
75:19, 75:22,
78:27, 114:29,
115:1, 118:3
justice.. [1] -
115:24
justiciable [1] -
52:24
justification [3] -
148:1, 148:4,
149:7
justified [2] -
27:15, 27:25
justify [2] -
27:17, 28:13
K
Kavanagh [1] -
139:3
Keane [7] -
61:10, 67:27,
68:5, 68:6, 68:11,
68:29, 69:12
KEANEY [1] -
2:27
Keeling [2] -
125:2, 139:15
KEELING [1] -
2:23
Kelly [6] - 6:26,
7:5, 14:3, 108:27,
139:21
Kennedy [1] -
52:2
KENNEDY [2] -
2:18, 52:4
Kenny [18] -
47:26, 49:27,
50:5, 50:7, 51:8,
62:16, 66:11,
66:26, 66:27,
67:15, 68:7, 68:9,
74:12, 74:18,
77:2, 79:18,
102:20, 136:1
KENNY [6] - 2:8,
3:6, 3:8, 21:29,
24:1, 42:19
Kenny's [4] -
49:25, 59:11,
70:19, 74:15
Kenny,I [1] -
52:8
Keogh [1] - 39:5
kids [1] - 150:9
kilometres [2] -
16:5, 16:9
kind [12] - 51:29,
72:20, 85:11,
86:3, 87:19,
93:16, 103:14,
103:15, 111:20,
125:17, 130:14,
135:23
kinds [2] -
85:23, 110:7
KINGSTON [1] -
2:24
Kinsealy [1] -
143:28
knowledge [5] -
12:26, 14:6,
14:20, 17:8,
108:3
knowledgeable
[1] - 139:12
known [4] -
25:27, 45:20,
47:2, 65:20
Korea [1] -
23:17
Kyoto [1] - 4:6
L
lack [5] - 49:26,
49:28, 50:1,
115:5, 136:11
Lackagh [2] -
44:10, 44:27
lacks [1] - 73:25
lacunae [2] -
13:16, 14:13
lady [1] - 140:2
LAeq [1] - 91:21
laid [2] - 30:2,
121:3
Lake [1] -
143:28
lament [1] - 25:5
land [2] - 17:29,
149:16
landowners [1] -
48:2
lands [8] - 85:9,
95:12, 134:15,
143:25, 145:18,
148:5
landscape [4] -
5:15, 5:17, 5:19,
94:28
landscapes [1] -
25:5
language [4] -
53:28, 54:8,
72:20, 102:17
large [4] - 3:21,
21:6, 29:1, 130:2
Larkin [2] -
21:18, 28:27
last [9] - 4:8,
20:29, 30:28,
40:29, 55:24,
58:13, 78:28,
115:1, 141:29
late [2] - 66:13,
74:13
latter [1] -
108:28
Latvia [1] -
23:11
Laudato [1] -
23:26
LAW [1] - 2:15
law [46] - 5:25,
6:25, 7:29, 15:4,
15:8, 15:9, 27:22,
29:11, 29:16,
29:18, 29:29,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
16
30:6, 30:7, 34:9,
34:10, 39:21,
55:14, 56:4, 57:4,
60:4, 64:22,
64:23, 65:26,
66:2, 67:29, 71:4,
71:8, 71:18, 72:9,
72:15, 75:15,
82:6, 85:19, 99:5,
99:6, 101:27,
101:29, 109:3,
109:15, 111:14,
115:16, 122:16,
122:24, 122:26,
124:2
lawmakers [1] -
65:13
laws [3] - 28:5,
62:9, 64:23
layer [1] - 143:8
lead [4] - 21:9,
21:11, 25:7,
95:24
leading [1] -
125:6
leap [1] - 22:14
least [11] -
15:28, 19:11,
20:6, 20:19,
28:28, 31:9,
64:15, 74:18,
81:14, 83:10,
89:8
leave [18] -
28:27, 42:27,
79:29, 80:1,
80:13, 114:21,
114:24, 115:14,
115:15, 116:28,
117:14, 117:17,
117:19, 117:26,
119:27, 120:13,
122:20
leaves [1] -
41:11
led [3] - 120:7,
124:23, 127:24
LEE [1] - 2:29
left [1] - 65:14
legal [10] -
12:13, 35:23,
59:26, 65:24,
104:4, 104:8,
109:16, 115:26,
124:1, 141:22
legality [1] -
131:27
legislate [1] -
100:13
legislates [1] -
58:20
legislating [1] -
63:25
legislation [17] -
35:26, 45:28,
51:2, 54:10,
54:13, 54:16,
54:24, 58:15,
58:18, 61:10,
62:5, 62:15,
62:20, 64:28,
65:15, 65:19,
65:21
legislative [11] -
35:1, 39:6, 57:9,
62:27, 64:26,
69:13, 72:1,
76:17, 100:19,
101:7, 101:11
legislature [7] -
19:8, 52:29, 53:5,
53:8, 61:21, 62:8,
65:15
legislature' [2] -
53:1, 53:2
legitimate [3] -
98:10, 98:19,
119:29
length [5] - 41:6,
44:9, 44:15,
126:9, 141:19
lengthy [2] -
58:24, 130:6
less [3] - 5:10,
5:22, 41:29
letter [1] -
119:24
level [9] - 4:17,
5:4, 25:16, 25:22,
83:23, 87:7,
88:28, 99:27,
118:19
levels [2] -
24:12, 25:9
liability [1] -
37:29
liberal [1] -
64:13
liberality [1] -
63:29
Library [1] -
139:12
licence [3] -
17:23, 107:15,
109:8
life [14] - 21:4,
25:18, 26:24,
27:3, 27:20,
27:29, 28:10,
32:29, 33:26,
35:11, 36:13,
38:23, 132:25,
133:15
lifting [1] - 38:6
light [13] - 8:20,
12:25, 12:29,
14:5, 14:9, 14:19,
33:28, 34:25,
39:20, 53:15,
77:26, 125:6,
125:26
lighting [1] -
133:6
likely [8] - 8:15,
17:10, 28:10,
50:23, 50:25,
65:9, 73:5,
146:11
likewise [1] -
79:6
limb [1] - 41:5
limit [1] - 109:9
Limited [2] -
36:9, 139:24
limited [9] -
35:9, 36:9, 37:10,
37:20, 37:29,
72:28, 114:26,
122:21, 128:12
limiting [2] -
57:20, 94:10
limits [4] - 92:1,
106:23, 106:24,
106:26
line [5] - 48:8,
48:9, 48:11, 71:3,
141:29
lines [3] - 50:22,
62:8, 78:28
linked [2] -
24:18, 25:17
list [3] - 78:15,
138:2, 139:2
lists [1] - 129:16
literature [1] -
36:12
litigant [2] -
39:23, 39:24
litigants [4] -
32:11, 38:1, 38:3,
40:11
litigate [3] -
37:9, 38:12, 40:2
litigated [1] -
36:18
litigation [1] -
51:5
litigations [1] -
37:22
live [1] - 93:10
lives [1] - 129:10
living [2] - 48:7,
48:8
loaned [1] - 2:31
local [8] - 25:8,
45:8, 48:2, 48:22,
88:28, 98:8,
113:15, 136:15
Local [4] - 15:2,
66:14, 87:28,
94:15
locals [1] - 98:12
located [2] -
95:22, 97:3
location [3] -
87:16, 133:19,
133:26
locus [7] -
32:18, 33:12,
35:16, 36:17,
37:21, 39:14,
39:17
lodged [3] -
46:8, 128:9,
137:14
LOGUE [1] -
2:10
look [53] - 5:1,
25:3, 51:16, 52:6,
52:16, 56:7,
56:27, 57:14,
58:11, 63:5,
63:12, 67:8,
67:18, 68:7,
68:13, 70:9, 76:9,
76:16, 76:19,
77:3, 80:24, 82:2,
83:19, 84:25,
86:28, 87:28,
92:14, 97:21,
100:11, 100:26,
107:2, 112:17,
113:1, 121:8,
121:9, 122:2,
124:4, 126:17,
127:1, 130:1,
130:18, 134:24,
140:1, 141:21,
143:3, 143:14,
145:5, 145:12,
145:29, 147:6,
147:29, 148:3
looked [2] -
81:15, 126:14
looking [13] -
55:2, 58:6, 58:8,
66:3, 76:13,
78:12, 79:17,
105:6, 105:23,
136:4, 144:1,
146:27, 147:22
looks [7] - 84:3,
87:24, 102:17,
102:18, 102:29,
105:25, 124:12
loose [2] -
26:16, 66:12
Lord [3] - 53:20,
53:22, 55:1
losing [1] -
40:25
loss [4] - 95:7,
95:20, 95:24,
97:12
lost [2] - 22:22,
52:4
low [1] - 25:10
Ltd [6] - 28:18,
32:24, 60:28,
61:12, 69:8,
76:29
Luas [3] - 48:8,
48:9, 48:11
Lumley [7] -
3:19, 3:21, 3:24,
4:28, 124:21,
139:18, 141:23
Lumley's [1] -
4:12
LUNCH [2] -
69:29, 70:1
lunch [3] - 70:4,
70:10, 73:27
lunchtime [1] -
150:16
M
Macedonia [1] -
23:11
maelstrom [1] -
31:11
Mahon [1] -
108:27
maimer [1] -
64:3
maintain [2] -
35:5, 39:10
maintained [1] -
90:25
maintenance [1]
- 123:6
majority [1] -
54:21
Malone [3] -
1:27, 2:30, 2:32
MALONE [1] -
1:31
managed [1] -
146:28
management [2]
- 8:15, 17:5
Management [1]
- 149:9
mandatory [4] -
44:13, 72:26,
112:5, 112:21
Manifestly [1] -
53:6
manifestly [1] -
54:12
manner [2] -
2:31, 121:23
March [2] -
60:16, 66:17
MARGARET [1]
- 1:8
Margaret's [17] -
124:29, 128:3,
128:8, 129:9,
129:20, 130:26,
131:6, 131:14,
132:2, 136:23,
137:29, 138:5,
138:9, 139:7,
139:28, 142:9,
142:19
marine [1] -
85:11
marital [2] -
26:27, 27:2
market [1] -
98:16
marriage [1] -
27:14
married [5] -
27:7, 27:19,
27:22, 28:8,
28:15
MARTIN [1] -
2:27
match [1] -
128:26
material [9] -
44:3, 64:3, 67:4,
69:18, 84:3,
124:6, 124:12,
130:14, 144:5
materially [1] -
60:20
materials [2] -
47:20, 64:7
matter [16] - 3:4,
15:6, 29:11,
36:18, 37:26,
40:2, 65:24,
75:23, 83:7,
86:18, 104:29,
116:26, 116:29,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
17
118:28, 119:16,
150:17
matters [14] -
3:10, 10:14, 37:9,
41:12, 42:8,
67:13, 84:1, 84:6,
86:23, 86:25,
116:15, 119:27,
128:11, 135:2
Matthew [1] -
139:14
maximum [1] -
98:25
McDonagh [1] -
69:7
McDonald [14] -
2:22, 47:10,
47:12, 52:5, 60:1,
66:10, 70:3,
107:20, 126:5,
127:7, 149:28,
150:3, 150:11,
150:14
MCDONELL [1]
- 1:9
MCDONNELL
[2] - 1:7, 1:7
McElligott [1] -
140:21
McGee [7] -
22:15, 22:16,
22:20, 26:17,
26:20, 28:20
McGee's [1] -
27:2
McGuinness [2]
- 58:12, 59:15
McKechnie [10]
- 32:1, 36:23,
39:15, 61:27,
62:1, 62:13,
62:24, 63:2,
63:14, 64:1
McKechnie's [2]
- 32:16, 37:3
McKillen [5] -
42:4, 42:6, 49:10,
83:28, 124:11
McKillen's [1] -
85:1
mean [4] -
21:27, 49:2, 99:6,
150:3
meaning [11] -
18:10, 19:27,
53:10, 53:13,
53:25, 54:26,
55:1, 55:3, 64:28,
65:9, 65:27
means [2] -
28:9, 29:20
meant [2] -
25:16, 77:5
meantime [1] -
5:8
measure [2] -
95:27, 97:10
measures [12] -
25:10, 88:6,
90:22, 95:18,
96:20, 97:2,
101:16, 131:16,
133:12, 148:19,
148:23, 148:24
Measures [2] -
95:6, 95:9
meat [1] - 69:23
Meath [1] -
108:26
mechanical [1] -
12:28
mechanism [1] -
81:9
meddlesome [1]
- 37:22
Medical [5] -
67:12, 67:26,
68:4, 68:17,
68:20
meet [3] - 72:3,
88:3, 88:20
meets [1] -
13:25
Member [3] -
8:6, 72:25, 72:26
member [6] -
37:16, 51:4,
55:18, 64:26,
129:20, 139:11
members [13] -
21:5, 23:14,
28:20, 28:29,
36:15, 54:21,
54:22, 57:2,
65:20, 65:23,
111:2, 118:20,
121:4
memorandum
[1] - 35:18
men [1] - 38:2
mention [1] -
119:24
mentioned [3] -
21:15, 79:24,
131:21
mercy [1] -
30:15
mere [4] - 84:18,
84:19, 85:18
merely [5] -
35:17, 38:2,
45:21, 63:2,
65:26
Merriman [20] -
43:29, 48:1,
79:26, 79:28,
80:10, 80:25,
80:29, 83:25,
105:20, 105:26,
111:21, 123:22,
124:15, 127:1,
127:7, 129:2,
129:8, 131:21,
146:16, 147:7
MERRIMAN [1] -
1:7
met [1] - 115:16
method [1] -
23:4
methods [1] -
57:28
metre [2] - 4:15,
16:3
metres [1] - 16:3
Michael [1] -
69:7
MICHAEL [1] -
1:7
midst [1] - 31:11
might [22] -
9:14, 20:29,
23:25, 24:4,
28:10, 30:19,
33:5, 38:4, 48:13,
49:2, 51:15, 56:6,
62:12, 65:16,
69:24, 76:1,
76:12, 84:20,
102:21, 126:18,
149:28, 149:29
million [1] - 16:4
millions [2] -
24:11, 24:27
mind [8] - 49:6,
57:19, 59:28,
79:23, 87:20,
87:24, 103:1,
105:5
mine [1] - 44:4
minimal [1] -
113:17
minimise [1] -
148:19
minimum [1] -
73:4
Minister [22] -
32:5, 50:20,
50:29, 54:12,
60:15, 60:22,
61:19, 62:19,
65:19, 66:14,
67:2, 67:17,
67:25, 68:19,
71:9, 71:19,
72:19, 73:10,
73:16, 77:3,
103:11, 145:10
minister [7] -
51:4, 54:9, 55:26,
55:28, 56:11,
56:19, 62:18
Minister's [2] -
58:28, 60:25
ministerial [5] -
57:18, 57:22,
58:22, 59:1,
59:19
ministers [2] -
56:20, 65:20
minor [1] - 76:8
misconceived
[1] - 33:7
misconstrued
[1] - 66:27
misleading [1] -
58:21
misunderstand
ing [2] - 56:2,
92:11
mitigate [2] -
95:6, 95:9
mitigation [5] -
88:6, 90:22,
95:18, 131:16,
133:12
mobile [1] - 40:1
mode [1] - 90:8
modifications
[1] - 9:29
modifications"
[1] - 10:4
Moldova [1] -
23:11
moment [10] -
51:21, 51:23,
66:15, 79:16,
89:4, 101:21,
105:19, 106:18,
112:15, 130:16
moments [2] -
50:17, 83:18
money [1] -
119:25
monitoring [4] -
90:23, 94:1,
94:13, 94:14
Montenegro [1]
- 23:11
months [7] -
66:18, 91:22,
92:21, 93:2, 93:6,
93:8, 93:11
moral [1] - 29:21
morning [7] -
3:8, 21:27, 21:29,
83:27, 85:22,
100:5, 150:15
Morris [3] -
129:2, 129:7,
142:25
MORRIS [1] -
1:9
most [3] - 38:29,
40:17, 115:16
mother [1] -
150:9
motion [1] -
42:26
motorway [3] -
48:7, 48:9, 48:10
mountain [1] -
141:6
move [2] - 5:24,
135:27
moved [2] -
122:20, 133:24
movements [2] -
90:11, 133:4
MR [49] - 1:24,
2:4, 2:5, 2:8,
2:13, 2:13, 2:18,
2:18, 2:19, 2:22,
2:23, 2:23, 2:27,
2:27, 3:6, 3:8,
21:26, 21:29,
23:28, 24:1,
42:16, 42:19,
47:7, 47:10,
47:12, 52:3, 52:4,
52:5, 59:28, 60:1,
66:8, 66:10,
69:26, 70:3,
107:19, 107:20,
126:1, 126:5,
127:6, 127:7,
149:25, 149:28,
150:2, 150:3,
150:8, 150:11,
150:12, 150:13,
150:18
MS [3] - 2:15,
2:24, 129:8
Murray [8] -
52:17, 55:7,
57:15, 58:4, 59:8,
59:13, 59:17,
63:7
Must [1] - 14:12
must [22] - 2:31,
4:16, 5:21, 6:4,
7:22, 12:7, 12:25,
13:16, 14:5,
24:25, 30:19,
35:7, 38:5, 47:2,
50:2, 55:19,
65:15, 66:11,
105:2, 107:28,
115:17, 148:10
mysterious [1] -
24:21
N
name [7] -
96:27, 125:7,
130:18, 142:27,
142:28, 150:9
named [4] -
1:29, 80:28,
110:9, 110:10
Named [2] -
99:14, 121:27
names [3] -
129:5, 129:13,
142:27
Nap [2] - 125:2,
139:15
narrow [1] -
34:25
narrowly [1] -
119:20
National [3] -
87:4, 96:18
national [9] -
4:16, 6:19, 8:23,
12:27, 13:24,
20:2, 87:3, 88:27,
138:19
Nations [1] -
23:15
natural [11] -
8:8, 29:15, 29:16,
29:18, 30:23,
32:18, 65:1, 82:7,
82:14, 82:19,
111:10
Natural [1] -
16:21
nature [15] -
7:22, 28:12,
29:14, 29:17,
33:19, 33:24,
35:20, 36:4, 38:6,
38:19, 44:12,
58:14, 101:15,
105:3, 117:2
navigation [1] -
137:17
necessarily [1] -
56:25
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
18
necessary [18] -
8:15, 17:5, 29:28,
35:23, 37:17,
45:22, 57:13,
68:25, 69:5, 88:3,
88:20, 96:20,
97:2, 106:27,
107:16, 120:7,
126:15, 140:9
necessity.. [1] -
118:7
need [33] - 42:1,
43:14, 55:23,
57:22, 66:23,
67:6, 69:21, 72:8,
79:23, 88:3,
88:21, 89:7,
92:11, 95:14,
97:17, 98:25,
109:21, 114:4,
120:23, 122:3,
129:16, 135:7,
135:11, 136:16,
137:22, 138:9,
138:17, 138:22,
141:13, 141:21,
142:10, 145:2,
148:2
needed [1] -
26:21
needs [2] - 72:1,
134:17
negative [1] -
133:9
net [1] - 90:17
Netherlands [1]
- 23:11
network [2] -
24:21, 87:10
neutral [3] -
56:26, 57:26,
77:28
never [5] - 5:28,
53:13, 57:6, 64:8,
83:28
nevertheless [1]
- 37:8
new [31] - 26:14,
29:5, 31:13,
45:15, 48:7,
50:25, 60:18,
63:4, 63:6, 63:13,
71:18, 72:1, 72:9,
72:10, 72:15,
72:22, 72:25,
73:5, 76:19, 77:4,
78:29, 79:10,
90:9, 91:3, 91:9,
102:9, 102:12,
102:26, 116:18,
125:22, 146:24
news [1] -
101:20
next [31] - 47:13,
55:7, 68:8, 68:9,
69:3, 70:29,
71:14, 71:17,
72:5, 77:12,
77:13, 87:29,
94:21, 97:21,
100:26, 103:21,
128:1, 136:18,
136:22, 137:6,
137:28, 138:29,
139:14, 141:7,
142:2, 142:15,
144:1, 144:10,
148:8, 148:16,
149:25
Nicholls [2] -
53:20, 53:22
night [2] - 90:7,
90:10
night-time [1] -
90:7
nighttime [2] -
90:10, 133:4
nine [3] - 16:6,
46:17, 46:29
NO [1] - 1:3
Noel [2] - 129:3,
129:14
NOEL [2] - 1:8,
1:8
Noise [2] - 91:4,
91:5
noise [23] - 84:7,
88:15, 90:7,
90:14, 90:24,
91:3, 91:9, 91:18,
91:20, 91:27,
92:4, 92:8, 125:6,
128:14, 130:21,
133:12, 138:3,
138:7, 138:15,
140:5, 141:16,
141:18, 142:29
non [2] - 24:28,
113:20
non-
biodegradable [1]
- 24:28
non-
discrimination [1]
- 113:20
none [1] - 90:9
Noonan [1] -
42:27
norm [1] - 71:29
North [3] -
23:17, 147:13,
149:16
Northern [1] -
23:17
Norway [1] -
23:12
notable [1] -
119:22
note [6] - 67:7,
135:12, 140:10,
140:11, 144:4,
145:16
noted [4] -
34:13, 37:19,
63:16, 91:1
notes [2] - 1:29,
35:12
noteworthy [1] -
122:7
nothing [5] -
63:16, 125:22,
136:5, 146:24,
147:20
NOTICE [3] -
1:17, 1:20, 1:22
notice [5] - 80:2,
128:17, 136:20,
137:21, 137:24
Notice [4] - 80:2,
110:11, 112:3,
112:19
notices [2] -
129:25, 137:25
notified [2] -
96:26, 97:5
notify [1] - 97:7
noting [1] -
38:14
Notwithstandin
g [1] - 9:22
notwithstandin
g [3] - 18:19, 83:5,
123:5
November [1] -
119:25
nowhere [1] -
50:14
NPWS [4] -
96:22, 97:4, 97:7,
97:12
nuisance [1] -
48:14
number [20] -
15:16, 16:8,
20:16, 32:6,
36:23, 43:9,
43:11, 50:19,
51:17, 52:7,
86:10, 115:4,
115:7, 127:5,
129:13, 130:7,
130:26, 137:27,
140:18, 142:19
O
O'Brien [1] -
39:5
o'clock [7] -
69:24, 69:27,
70:17, 128:27,
143:16, 149:24,
150:11
O'CONNELL [2]
- 1:9, 2:6
O'CONNOR [1] -
1:10
O'Duffy [1] -
98:23
O'Laoire [3] -
67:26, 68:3,
69:12
O'NEILL [1] -
2:15
O'Sullivan [2] -
61:2, 61:27
O'SULLIVAN [1]
- 2:13
obiter [4] -
52:10, 52:12,
59:12
object [3] -
35:10, 116:26,
146:7
objection [2] -
116:29, 117:4
objections [2] -
41:4, 117:2
objective [10] -
4:18, 33:16, 53:4,
53:7, 54:2, 55:6,
55:10, 62:20,
87:15, 108:4
objectives [11] -
8:12, 8:20, 10:29,
12:25, 13:1, 14:9,
17:8, 46:10, 62:5,
62:15, 100:23
objectors [5] -
44:1, 96:4,
113:11, 124:27,
125:2
objects [1] -
105:4
obligation [8] -
5:17, 5:20, 6:13,
20:24, 20:25,
28:4, 43:25,
110:28
obligations [4] -
7:16, 7:21, 7:27,
97:29
obliged [3] -
9:11, 10:26,
150:13
observance [1] -
30:17
observation [8]
- 30:28, 73:27,
74:29, 78:14,
79:1, 117:11,
118:2, 118:24
observations [9]
- 58:5, 64:1,
83:21, 83:23,
84:15, 88:22,
114:27, 115:8,
117:29
observations..
[1] - 86:26
observe [2] -
68:29, 107:17
observed [3] -
52:9, 52:16,
67:25
observers [1] -
136:15
obtained [2] -
8:26, 114:21
obtains [1] -
109:2
obvious [4] -
98:22, 108:1,
118:16, 120:12
obviously [21] -
7:8, 16:23, 18:26,
22:1, 41:7, 44:16,
61:18, 68:5, 71:6,
102:26, 120:29,
131:9, 132:6,
135:12, 136:6,
139:11, 140:12,
140:19, 141:7,
142:11, 142:29
occasion [2] -
73:11, 119:22
occasions [1] -
114:13
occur [1] - 43:23
occurred [3] -
5:14, 45:25,
56:18
occurring [1] -
26:5
OCTOBER [3] -
1:25, 3:2, 150:21
October [4] -
128:21, 142:21,
142:23, 142:24
odd [1] - 42:28
OF [3] - 1:12,
2:8, 3:2
offer [4] - 91:29,
92:23, 92:26,
134:28
offers [1] -
112:23
Office [1] - 87:13
OFFICE [1] -
2:25
Officer [2] -
60:2, 97:4
offset [2] -
90:15, 145:1
often [4] - 52:20,
53:27, 54:23,
55:1
Oireachtas [20] -
52:24, 52:27,
55:13, 55:17,
56:28, 57:2,
57:10, 58:15,
58:18, 58:19,
58:26, 59:3,
59:20, 61:14,
61:26, 63:25,
64:19, 64:24,
77:20, 78:8
OISIN [1] - 2:5
old [1] - 77:4
omissions [1] -
65:14
ON [2] - 1:25,
3:1
Once [1] -
117:25
once [3] - 25:5,
113:17, 143:7
one [74] - 21:14,
24:22, 27:27,
29:19, 34:2,
37:20, 38:29,
43:19, 44:18,
46:25, 46:26,
48:6, 48:14,
49:22, 51:7,
52:12, 52:14,
52:21, 53:11,
55:18, 58:6, 58:7,
59:18, 59:25,
62:17, 67:22,
68:7, 69:21,
71:11, 71:12,
72:20, 72:21,
73:20, 73:22,
74:2, 76:15,
76:16, 77:9,
77:28, 78:23,
83:15, 84:3,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
19
84:28, 87:21,
87:24, 91:13,
93:18, 95:2, 98:5,
99:28, 100:14,
100:25, 102:5,
102:17, 102:18,
102:28, 105:2,
105:20, 105:25,
106:28, 107:4,
124:10, 124:12,
124:27, 125:2,
128:8, 129:22,
130:28, 131:20,
133:22, 135:14,
144:20
ongoing [3] -
22:26, 28:23,
46:12
onus [1] - 57:2
onwards [1] -
44:28
Op [1] - 39:4
Open [1] - 32:24
open [14] - 3:12,
5:25, 16:10,
16:16, 53:11,
57:13, 59:7,
85:15, 89:2, 89:6,
107:16, 113:2,
122:13, 133:22
open.. [1] -
92:26
opened [4] -
21:16, 44:9,
67:15, 68:17
opening [9] -
44:29, 86:13,
86:18, 92:22,
112:13, 123:26,
123:27, 132:21,
132:22
operate [1] -
132:28
operated [2] -
102:8, 137:2
operating [2] -
20:3, 90:8
operation [6] -
48:4, 89:29,
91:23, 92:23,
94:1, 144:16
operational [1] -
149:15
operator [3] -
45:3, 45:6, 46:19
opinion [8] -
3:27, 4:15, 8:27,
28:1, 34:20,
45:18, 45:20,
123:3
opinion.. [1] -
45:13
opportunities
[1] - 113:10
opportunity [9] -
82:12, 82:15,
83:29, 84:5,
127:17, 131:10,
131:24, 143:6,
143:9
opposed [1] -
113:14
opposite [7] -
55:24, 76:18,
76:20, 85:7,
113:1, 141:15,
142:16
option [2] - 90:8,
93:7
oral [11] - 89:17,
97:23, 125:5,
128:18, 128:25,
129:1, 129:4,
129:24, 138:27,
140:8, 142:18
order [20] -
26:22, 33:6, 38:3,
40:26, 41:27,
42:21, 44:5,
65:26, 76:19,
81:1, 94:18,
100:22, 106:19,
110:19, 111:17,
114:5, 114:24,
116:17, 117:19
orders [1] -
37:28
ordinarily [1] -
27:20
ordinary [5] -
15:1, 28:11,
95:26, 100:19,
135:2
organ [3] - 33:1,
52:21, 57:9
organisation [1]
- 105:4
organisms [1] -
25:8
organs [2] -
52:21, 65:2
original [5] -
46:4, 70:26,
71:26, 102:26,
119:23
originally [1] -
3:16
ostensibly [1] -
60:9
otherwise [6] -
4:14, 4:28, 36:2,
46:17, 56:24,
88:15
ought [3] -
61:25, 82:21,
108:2
outcome [3] -
10:15, 10:20,
37:27
outer [1] - 45:27
outfall [1] -
144:20
outlier [1] -
23:16
outline [2] -
49:15, 49:21
outlined [1] -
93:27
outset [4] - 50:3,
50:10, 74:3,
124:5
outside [1] -
109:9
overall [3] -
89:22, 137:13,
148:12
overleaf [1] -
25:13
overriding [1] -
8:29
oversight [2] -
15:22, 16:14
oversimplificat
ion [1] - 58:21
own [10] - 17:28,
58:10, 59:22,
68:13, 71:11,
76:14, 78:18,
85:20, 107:2,
149:12
owners [1] -
40:1
P
pace [4] - 21:12,
21:13, 22:26,
26:6
page [137] -
3:13, 3:18, 3:22,
4:8, 4:21, 6:29,
16:27, 17:20,
18:3, 18:5, 18:13,
24:3, 24:5, 26:29,
29:3, 29:6, 32:2,
37:2, 39:14, 43:8,
43:17, 52:7,
52:17, 55:25,
57:13, 57:14,
58:13, 58:14,
60:6, 67:8, 67:9,
67:15, 70:15,
70:16, 70:17,
73:16, 74:14,
74:15, 77:11,
77:12, 77:13,
78:26, 81:3,
81:17, 86:19,
87:29, 88:29,
91:16, 91:17,
93:21, 94:21,
97:24, 99:11,
103:22, 103:29,
105:28, 107:14,
107:19, 107:20,
111:29, 112:17,
113:1, 114:29,
115:1, 116:11,
117:10, 117:12,
118:2, 121:18,
122:4, 122:29,
127:10, 130:19,
130:23, 130:25,
131:6, 132:12,
134:24, 135:6,
135:9, 135:14,
135:27, 136:13,
136:17, 136:22,
136:25, 137:7,
137:20, 137:25,
137:26, 137:28,
137:29, 138:3,
138:6, 138:17,
138:20, 138:26,
138:29, 139:7,
139:14, 140:1,
140:15, 140:16,
140:20, 140:28,
141:3, 141:5,
141:6, 141:7,
141:12, 141:14,
141:15, 141:22,
141:26, 142:6,
142:15, 142:16,
143:17, 145:12,
145:13, 147:10,
147:29, 148:3,
149:3, 149:5
pages [13] -
24:4, 51:17,
118:25, 121:9,
121:14, 130:7,
130:8, 140:11,
140:18, 140:25,
141:17, 142:7,
142:15
paginated [1] -
139:1
pagination [11] -
67:9, 70:16,
86:20, 91:17,
127:11, 140:21,
141:3, 141:26,
145:13, 147:9
paid [1] - 118:6
Papal [1] - 23:26
papers [2] -
127:4, 136:5
para [3] - 12:16,
13:12, 60:11
paragraph [103]
- 3:22, 4:8, 6:28,
7:13, 8:22, 9:3,
9:16, 9:17, 12:10,
13:8, 14:3, 19:22,
24:6, 25:13, 29:6,
32:15, 33:8,
33:11, 33:22,
37:3, 37:13,
38:25, 39:14,
42:2, 43:6, 43:16,
44:28, 45:11,
55:7, 55:24,
57:14, 58:13,
60:7, 61:5, 62:22,
63:27, 67:18,
68:8, 68:10,
68:14, 70:18,
71:15, 71:17,
74:11, 74:29,
76:6, 78:27,
78:28, 81:3, 82:2,
82:3, 82:16,
82:18, 82:25,
82:27, 83:11,
83:15, 85:14,
93:24, 97:22,
97:23, 99:11,
99:18, 99:19,
99:20, 100:16,
100:26, 100:27,
101:1, 104:2,
105:28, 105:29,
107:4, 107:17,
107:24, 110:20,
110:22, 111:29,
112:1, 112:17,
113:1, 113:2,
114:8, 115:1,
116:11, 116:21,
117:12, 118:3,
121:19, 122:5,
122:29, 127:19,
128:28, 141:29,
142:3, 143:20,
144:2, 144:10,
148:8, 149:3
paragraphs [16]
- 12:9, 43:10,
45:10, 74:15,
81:19, 81:24,
81:25, 82:17,
82:26, 99:10,
106:16, 118:25,
127:3, 127:9
parallel [2] -
4:15, 98:22
parameters [1] -
117:20
parents [1] -
29:20
Park [1] - 96:3
parking [1] -
145:19
Parks [1] - 96:18
parliament [3] -
53:16, 53:28,
101:10
Parliament [7] -
54:7, 54:27,
54:29, 55:2, 55:4,
100:18, 101:4
Parliament' [1] -
54:2
Parliament.. [1]
- 101:8
parliamentary
[13] - 55:29, 59:4,
64:3, 64:7, 64:14,
64:29, 65:2, 65:6,
65:18, 65:25,
66:4, 66:5, 71:14
parsing [2] -
56:3, 65:3
part [15] - 10:26,
24:8, 28:25, 34:9,
37:4, 49:26,
49:29, 50:2,
56:11, 59:12,
66:7, 92:7,
112:13, 114:20,
139:9
Part [2] - 7:19,
7:24
parte [1] -
117:16
partem [1] -
84:22
participants [1]
- 139:9
participate [9] -
42:20, 42:22,
43:1, 93:9,
124:17, 124:20,
131:24, 131:29,
139:28
participated [3]
- 124:26, 128:18,
136:24
participation [7]
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
20
- 113:11, 125:12,
125:27, 127:17,
127:23, 130:4,
143:7
particular [58] -
7:17, 7:21, 9:15,
9:16, 25:24, 26:2,
26:8, 26:27,
27:10, 27:17,
27:21, 30:6,
30:29, 31:18,
33:5, 33:18,
35:18, 35:26,
36:24, 37:25,
38:18, 39:18,
48:1, 48:18,
48:28, 49:10,
51:1, 53:26,
55:25, 58:9,
60:14, 61:28,
63:4, 65:21, 73:9,
73:10, 74:5,
81:22, 85:13,
87:27, 88:23,
89:25, 93:7, 98:8,
100:3, 108:4,
112:4, 112:20,
113:14, 115:18,
116:14, 117:1,
128:24, 138:7,
144:6, 147:29
particularly [6] -
47:29, 83:24,
98:27, 125:28,
128:26, 147:22
Particularly [1] -
58:23
PARTIES [1] -
1:20
parties [8] -
7:26, 36:14,
37:24, 60:23,
60:26, 110:2,
113:9, 128:9
Parties [3] -
80:2, 112:3,
112:19
parts [3] - 25:4,
130:2, 145:18
PARTY [2] -
1:17, 1:22
Party [1] -
110:11
party [8] - 2:32,
32:27, 47:18,
115:12, 115:29,
124:6, 130:25,
135:10
pass [2] - 58:24,
130:15
passage [9] -
4:27, 28:17,
30:25, 43:28,
62:13, 67:15,
67:28, 74:16,
77:10
passages [4] -
21:16, 36:29,
61:13, 68:16
passing [2] -
52:10, 56:24
past [1] - 9:15
patent [1] -
57:22
Patents [4] -
60:29, 61:7,
62:25, 64:5
PATRICIA [1] -
1:8
Pauline [1] -
140:2
pause [7] -
11:21, 36:7,
62:12, 68:2,
69:25, 71:6,
95:14
paved [2] -
144:21, 146:9
pay [1] - 47:24
Peart [1] - 42:17
peculiarly [1] -
134:28
peels [1] - 35:26
people [8] -
30:16, 48:6, 48:7,
136:14, 139:18,
139:27, 148:20
People [2] -
24:11, 69:6
people’s [2] -
24:8, 25:11
per [3] - 78:15,
78:18, 84:22
performance [1]
- 30:1
perhaps [3] -
31:2, 63:29,
64:18
period [8] -
48:24, 71:27,
72:2, 93:2, 93:5,
93:8, 107:29,
142:22
permanent [1] -
70:22
permissible [1] -
71:13
permission [45]
- 2:32, 3:16, 12:3,
14:2, 15:6, 15:11,
17:17, 17:18,
17:23, 45:1, 45:4,
45:7, 45:16, 46:4,
46:8, 46:11,
49:17, 70:27,
71:23, 71:26,
72:11, 75:10,
75:12, 89:10,
89:24, 90:19,
99:26, 102:3,
102:21, 102:24,
105:22, 110:25,
112:5, 112:21,
113:17, 126:10,
126:11, 126:13,
126:14, 127:25,
133:3, 133:23,
134:17, 137:4,
138:20
Permission [1] -
106:3
permissions [3]
- 43:26, 75:8,
127:22
permit [7] -
17:23, 20:3,
27:18, 35:2, 39:8,
102:24, 116:15
permits [1] -
9:28
permitted [1] -
91:26
permitting [1] -
116:18
person [8] -
27:21, 35:3,
35:21, 39:8,
48:14, 54:13,
87:27, 139:13
personal [7] -
27:27, 31:24,
32:7, 32:10, 35:3,
39:8, 42:6
personally [2] -
37:10, 37:15
persons [9] -
27:19, 27:21,
27:22, 27:24,
32:18, 37:25,
54:9, 81:9, 108:1
perspective [5] -
48:13, 57:5,
75:17, 79:22,
85:29
pertaining [1] -
64:17
Peter [2] -
124:28, 139:9
PETER [1] - 1:7
phenomenon
[1] - 25:25
PHILIP [1] - 2:29
philosophers
[2] - 30:8, 30:11
philosophical
[4] - 23:23, 26:4,
26:9, 31:6
phones [1] -
40:1
photocopied [1]
- 2:31
photocopy [1] -
70:17
phrase [2] -
53:1, 54:6
physical [6] -
5:15, 5:16, 5:19,
19:26, 27:23,
29:21
pick [2] - 26:28,
45:10
Picking [1] -
33:22
piece [3] - 51:1,
54:13, 59:29
piecemeal [1] -
132:27
pile [1] - 25:3
pipe [2] -
144:18, 146:18
piping [1] -
148:25
pithily [1] - 79:1
pithy [1] - 79:12
PL93.2440006
[1] - 121:22
place [12] -
15:14, 22:6,
48:23, 54:4, 57:2,
73:6, 73:21,
95:25, 95:27,
143:6, 143:8,
145:9
placed [2] -
71:1, 83:24
places [1] - 25:9
plain [1] - 65:4
plainly [1] -
43:20
Plaintiff [6] -
34:17, 35:15,
37:9, 38:12,
39:23, 124:22
plaintiff [3] -
27:12, 28:9,
32:21
Plaintiff's [2] -
37:14, 40:3
plaintiff's [2] -
27:5, 27:28
Plaintiffs [1] -
35:9
plan [8] - 8:14,
8:24, 12:21,
12:22, 17:2, 17:9,
17:26, 20:18
Plan [5] - 45:29,
46:2, 87:4, 87:14,
87:28
planet [1] - 25:4
planned [2] -
91:23, 92:22
planning [47] -
10:10, 10:18,
11:3, 14:2, 15:5,
17:16, 17:18,
45:4, 45:7, 45:16,
46:4, 46:7, 46:11,
48:29, 49:3, 49:8,
70:26, 71:3,
71:23, 72:10,
84:28, 85:1,
85:23, 85:24,
85:26, 86:8,
88:16, 89:16,
89:20, 89:28,
91:2, 93:28,
99:26, 99:29,
100:2, 100:15,
101:23, 102:3,
102:10, 109:4,
121:21, 126:10,
127:25, 133:2,
133:23, 137:4,
138:20
Planning [26] -
7:19, 9:7, 17:15,
18:10, 19:6, 42:9,
45:18, 48:4, 79:9,
86:23, 87:12,
92:19, 94:3,
96:17, 96:26,
106:3, 107:23,
108:29, 112:8,
112:25, 113:8,
121:23, 121:24,
139:24, 149:8,
149:9
planning.. [1] -
101:17
Plans [1] - 87:14
plans [10] - 8:17,
12:24, 14:8,
17:10, 17:14,
17:29, 48:22,
48:23, 137:13
PLC [1] - 1:17
plead [1] - 31:23
pleaded [3] -
50:14, 122:18,
122:19
pleading [1] -
50:12
pleadings [3] -
3:12, 80:29,
147:8
Pleadings [1] -
127:1
Pleanála [25] -
6:27, 45:1, 86:13,
88:20, 92:3,
106:7, 106:22,
108:20, 108:28,
109:5, 121:13,
121:22, 124:8,
124:15, 125:18,
125:24, 125:25,
125:29, 127:24,
128:9, 130:10,
132:5, 132:8,
143:9, 148:7
Pleanála's [2] -
129:28, 131:27
plenary [4] -
110:1, 110:6,
123:13, 123:14
pluralist [2] -
29:7, 29:10
point [35] -
16:11, 21:1,
22:16, 26:2, 31:3,
31:4, 31:6, 37:14,
39:18, 42:5,
42:14, 42:24,
44:26, 46:22,
50:27, 59:11,
63:7, 70:3, 73:13,
73:19, 76:8,
77:13, 78:24,
85:3, 89:3, 99:24,
104:9, 104:23,
109:17, 126:1,
126:23, 134:18,
134:22, 136:29,
138:9
pointed [1] -
13:16
points [8] - 14:2,
41:8, 44:17,
46:26, 104:5,
132:13, 136:26,
136:28
Poland [1] -
23:12
policies [1] -
4:18
policy [7] - 51:2,
87:3, 88:27,
100:8, 108:4,
138:19, 138:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
21
political [1] -
38:28
politically [1] -
56:25
pollutants [1] -
24:9
pollution [5] -
24:8, 24:14,
24:25, 88:14,
94:10
poor [2] - 24:11,
26:8
Pope [1] - 24:5
popularis [1] -
37:4
population [4] -
25:9, 28:21,
39:28, 40:19
port [1] - 85:10
Portmarnock [5]
- 131:1, 135:6,
137:27, 138:1,
139:19
Portugal [1] -
23:12
posed [2] -
26:24, 148:23
poses [1] -
28:28
position [26] -
5:6, 19:1, 19:8,
20:9, 28:19,
31:27, 33:9,
41:17, 41:19,
55:25, 74:4, 74:5,
75:24, 81:9,
91:18, 94:17,
94:22, 97:13,
102:18, 106:29,
109:28, 122:11,
131:7, 132:17,
136:7, 150:5
positive [2] -
28:4, 29:29
possibility [2] -
12:5, 13:29
possible [7] -
28:5, 28:6, 34:26,
36:19, 37:8,
43:24, 56:6
possibly [1] -
24:2
postdate [1] -
69:11
postdates [1] -
66:25
potential [7] -
14:28, 20:19,
143:22, 143:27,
145:1, 146:25,
147:18
potentially [2] -
132:4, 147:18
power [5] -
18:21, 102:11,
106:26, 110:3,
110:4
pp [2] - 34:20,
39:3
practicable [2] -
33:3, 148:12
practical [2] -
65:17, 72:2
practice [1] -
59:7
pre [6] - 61:9,
76:20, 90:22,
96:12, 96:16,
120:2
pre-
construction [1] -
96:16
pre-
construction.. [1]
- 96:12
pre-enactment
[1] - 61:9
pre-existing [2]
- 76:20, 120:2
pre-school [1] -
90:22
preamble [1] -
30:15
preceded [1] -
65:6
preceding [4] -
18:19, 66:2,
88:29, 103:29
precise [7] -
13:17, 14:12,
14:14, 14:25,
115:6, 118:11,
118:19
precisely [10] -
46:2, 62:16,
77:23, 116:1,
117:22, 125:16,
125:18, 146:23,
148:15, 149:19
preclude [1] -
47:3
precluded [1] -
11:13
precludes [2] -
108:7, 112:22
predecessor [1]
- 63:12
predicted [1] -
92:20
prefer [1] - 93:9
preferred [2] -
64:18, 65:19
pregnancy [1] -
28:12
pregnant [2] -
26:23, 33:5
prejudice [2] -
37:14, 101:2
prejudicial [1] -
88:14
preliminary [2] -
21:8, 80:16
premature [1] -
24:11
premise [1] -
4:11
prepared [3] -
52:13, 150:1,
150:6
present [22] -
24:26, 26:24,
34:2, 35:4, 60:6,
61:18, 65:17,
72:22, 84:1, 84:4,
86:17, 88:13,
90:4, 96:28,
102:19, 109:7,
119:27, 120:4,
121:16, 123:11,
123:15, 141:9
presentation [1]
- 4:12
presented [5] -
3:24, 24:19,
34:26, 125:19,
129:12
presently [2] -
25:19, 64:17
preservation [2]
- 31:7, 34:7
preserving [2] -
34:5, 100:9
President [1] -
54:17
presiding [1] -
140:3
pressure [1] -
101:21
presumably [1] -
42:25
presumes [1] -
44:18
presumptions
[1] - 57:25
presumptively
[1] - 43:22
pretend [1] -
41:18
prevailing [2] -
30:23, 146:7
prevent [4] -
37:22, 38:12,
94:18, 137:10
prevented [2] -
35:29, 126:27
prevention [1] -
94:9
previous [6] -
18:18, 18:29,
19:4, 19:9, 87:14,
119:6
previously [5] -
79:25, 89:12,
102:28, 114:14,
136:26
primarily [2] -
37:25, 101:15
primary [1] -
37:20
principle [18] -
33:11, 35:29,
55:6, 55:10,
63:11, 66:2,
73:23, 73:24,
84:22, 109:15,
109:16, 109:17,
110:16, 115:26,
117:8, 120:17,
120:19, 120:20
principles [4] -
6:24, 7:12, 60:5,
144:13
priority [1] -
87:9
Prison [1] - 61:2
privacy [5] -
22:18, 26:26,
26:27, 27:2,
36:25
private [4] -
34:4, 34:7, 48:20,
110:2
privilege [1] -
64:29
Pro [4] - 5:11,
5:14, 102:17,
102:29
Pro-Baine [4] -
5:11, 5:14,
102:17, 102:29
problem [2] -
24:22, 150:12
problems [2] -
24:20, 57:27
procedural [1] -
109:1
procedure [10] -
6:22, 16:15, 20:1,
20:6, 59:7,
100:19, 101:1,
101:7, 113:19,
137:2
procedures [9] -
43:22, 43:25,
82:7, 82:14,
82:20, 83:1, 83:8,
113:12, 125:25
proceed".. [1] -
74:21
proceeded [1] -
114:13
proceeding [1] -
114:7
proceedings
[61] - 28:25, 35:5,
36:1, 39:10,
40:23, 41:23,
42:12, 42:29,
44:6, 44:24,
50:14, 56:28,
57:12, 76:11,
79:2, 79:26,
79:27, 79:28,
80:14, 80:21,
80:28, 83:25,
90:4, 104:22,
106:17, 106:20,
108:19, 109:6,
109:7, 109:21,
109:24, 109:28,
110:1, 110:6,
110:7, 110:9,
110:11, 110:17,
111:21, 114:25,
115:14, 120:26,
121:1, 121:11,
122:22, 123:3,
123:7, 123:15,
123:16, 123:23,
123:24, 124:17,
124:23, 124:29,
125:17, 127:8,
129:21, 138:27,
146:16
proceeds [2] -
117:21, 119:6
process [28] -
9:5, 10:7, 11:25,
17:28, 44:14,
56:25, 58:15,
58:18, 58:21,
102:8, 114:7,
114:11, 117:21,
119:1, 123:8,
124:6, 125:27,
125:28, 127:23,
128:15, 133:8,
139:28, 143:8,
147:2, 147:3,
147:26, 148:26,
148:29
produced [1] -
24:25
produces [1] -
24:9
products [1] -
25:6
professional [1]
- 67:13
Professor [4] -
21:18, 25:28,
28:26, 139:23
profound [4] -
26:7, 36:17,
40:17, 41:25
progress [1] -
61:9
prohibition [3] -
26:25, 27:13,
114:6
project [32] -
8:14, 8:24, 12:21,
12:22, 14:7,
15:25, 15:27,
16:2, 16:5, 16:17,
17:2, 17:9, 17:26,
18:3, 18:7, 18:8,
18:20, 18:22,
18:23, 18:27,
19:19, 19:27,
20:16, 20:17,
20:18, 74:27,
75:11, 97:8,
102:27, 103:5
projects [7] -
8:17, 12:24, 14:8,
17:10, 17:14,
17:29, 75:5
promote [2] -
30:16, 41:27
promoted [2] -
54:9, 73:16
promoter [5] -
55:26, 55:28,
56:12, 56:16,
56:29
promoters [1] -
56:21
promoting [1] -
56:24
promulgated [1]
- 55:14
pronouncing [1]
- 93:13
proof [1] - 105:9
proper [3] -
59:5, 88:16,
89:20
properly [7] -
61:25, 94:16,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
22
111:22, 122:15,
122:17, 122:26,
138:12
Properties [1] -
79:14
properties [3] -
129:10, 132:16,
149:16
property [16] -
43:15, 43:29,
49:2, 49:3, 81:11,
81:27, 82:13,
83:1, 84:12,
84:14, 84:20,
85:5, 85:6, 85:18,
98:17, 148:20
Property [1] -
76:29
proportion [2] -
22:3, 115:10
proposal [7] -
55:15, 96:7,
129:10, 131:14,
143:23, 146:11,
148:19
proposals [3] -
4:23, 93:27,
137:9
propose [8] -
31:17, 66:6,
66:15, 72:16,
91:15, 97:17,
99:2, 115:7
proposed [35] -
3:21, 5:28, 9:21,
9:24, 10:1, 10:14,
10:27, 11:5, 11:7,
11:13, 11:17,
11:29, 12:3,
12:13, 13:20,
14:23, 15:5, 16:6,
16:10, 45:15,
88:2, 88:7, 89:19,
90:8, 90:23,
93:26, 128:13,
131:16, 132:26,
133:26, 144:12,
146:5, 146:8,
148:11
proposes [1] -
100:13
proposing [1] -
130:2
proposition [5] -
33:7, 59:16,
76:23, 84:17,
123:18
prosecution [2]
- 119:9, 120:6
prosecution' [1]
- 119:9
Prosecutions
[1] - 69:7
prosecutorial
[2] - 120:1, 120:4
protect [4] -
35:19, 36:1, 36:4,
46:3
protected [8] -
13:20, 40:7, 95:7,
95:20, 95:26,
97:9, 97:11,
133:15
protected" [1] -
33:20
protected' [1] -
38:20
protecting [2] -
35:11, 100:9
protection [9] -
16:8, 32:28, 34:9,
34:18, 40:13,
41:25, 41:26,
95:21, 97:10
Protection [1] -
36:8
protections [1] -
113:20
protocol [2] -
4:7, 98:1
prove [2] -
19:24, 22:23
proves [1] -
24:20
provide [13] -
29:20, 81:9, 87:5,
87:8, 87:15, 88:4,
104:29, 113:10,
113:12, 123:18,
131:18, 131:28,
132:27
provided [12] -
4:4, 7:7, 13:10,
45:21, 51:22,
101:1, 122:22,
127:23, 133:20,
135:13, 144:27,
146:20
provides [6] -
8:4, 9:22, 70:21,
94:13, 97:9,
107:28
providing [3] -
70:23, 71:22,
111:17
provision [25] -
9:23, 35:1, 39:7,
58:9, 61:29,
62:14, 63:5,
63:13, 72:12,
72:25, 72:28,
76:19, 76:20,
77:4, 77:5, 77:6,
77:9, 78:29,
81:14, 93:7,
93:14, 95:10,
95:11, 95:29,
96:1
provisions [22] -
7:24, 8:22, 9:27,
27:16, 27:26,
39:27, 50:26,
62:6, 63:12,
71:28, 81:8,
83:10, 91:8,
92:12, 93:21,
94:24, 101:15,
101:19, 111:25,
111:26, 115:19,
122:24
proviso [2] -
27:17, 28:3
provoking [1] -
26:4
proximity [3] -
20:17, 33:16,
41:20
prudence [4] -
30:10, 30:17,
30:22, 55:20
prudently [1] -
138:13
public [36] -
8:27, 17:3, 17:6,
17:25, 17:28,
18:18, 34:3, 34:5,
34:6, 34:9, 35:6,
35:7, 36:17,
37:16, 39:11,
40:6, 41:1, 48:17,
65:23, 85:19,
86:5, 86:6, 87:9,
88:14, 88:26,
90:17, 94:9,
125:26, 127:17,
128:17, 129:25,
132:7, 136:20,
137:24, 141:12,
143:7
Public [1] - 69:7
publication [1] -
36:12
published [1] -
136:20
purchase [3] -
84:7, 92:18,
92:24
Purchase [1] -
131:23
purely [1] -
85:27
purported [1] -
5:1
purports [1] -
15:12
purpose [9] -
38:6, 51:1, 51:13,
52:26, 56:12,
58:8, 62:16,
107:26, 136:2
purposes [21] -
5:29, 6:5, 11:12,
11:23, 11:24,
15:25, 17:21,
18:27, 19:5,
19:19, 42:9,
56:18, 56:22,
57:1, 62:4, 62:19,
62:28, 67:20,
70:5, 72:22, 79:2
purposive [1] -
57:29
pursuant [3] -
7:18, 11:8, 11:11
pursue [1] - 46:7
pursued [1] -
49:20
put [16] - 18:26,
28:10, 39:3, 47:5,
52:29, 72:26,
95:25, 95:27,
101:21, 105:26,
119:4, 119:21,
126:25, 131:10,
147:15, 149:26
puts [1] - 73:17
putting [1] -
27:29
Q
qualified [2] -
33:8, 134:28
quality [3] -
100:10, 140:24,
141:13
Quarries [2] -
44:10, 44:28
quarry [4] - 45:3,
45:6, 45:24,
46:19
quarrying [2] -
46:13, 46:14
question' [1] -
34:19
questioning [1]
- 109:4
questions [3] -
39:26, 40:18,
141:8
quick [1] -
147:16
quickly [2] -
130:1, 143:15
quite [12] -
10:10, 24:2,
34:29, 39:4,
49:23, 55:3,
83:27, 92:12,
94:16, 141:7,
142:21, 142:22
quotation [1] -
68:10
quote [1] -
127:28
quoted [8] -
32:25, 64:1, 67:1,
67:28, 70:18,
71:16, 78:28,
118:29
quotes [3] -
43:16, 107:17,
107:20
R
radio [1] -
137:17
radioactive [1] -
24:29
rain [1] - 134:14
raise [3] -
110:16, 116:29,
142:3
raised [15] -
4:13, 42:17,
50:11, 50:12,
60:14, 79:17,
113:6, 117:3,
117:4, 121:16,
136:24, 137:18,
138:5, 145:16,
146:15
raises [6] - 15:8,
39:25, 40:17,
113:5, 126:2,
141:28
raising [3] -
126:28, 138:4,
141:27
range [4] -
57:24, 91:21,
91:22, 128:11
rather [5] -
10:17, 46:8,
62:18, 100:13,
131:18
rationale [5] -
51:1, 51:12, 58:8,
59:18, 66:3
re [3] - 15:13,
45:23, 61:26
re-evaluation [1]
- 15:13
re-examine [1] -
45:23
re-visited [1] -
61:26
reached [4] -
11:17, 125:18,
145:7, 146:23
reaches [3] -
43:12, 145:6,
149:20
read [6] - 43:24,
71:15, 78:17,
89:5, 127:12,
130:2
reading [1] -
65:24
reaffirmed [1] -
33:10
real [4] - 15:3,
26:24, 28:28,
120:8
realignments [1]
- 133:8
really [18] - 7:6,
32:12, 58:3,
70:10, 73:29,
74:2, 76:3, 77:2,
77:5, 82:16,
123:26, 126:20,
127:9, 135:16,
135:24, 145:2,
146:15, 147:22
reapply [1] -
45:3
reason [13] -
4:26, 7:9, 34:10,
35:17, 43:28,
50:15, 51:15,
51:27, 72:11,
93:23, 94:7,
124:9, 146:7
reasonable [3] -
13:4, 13:18,
14:26
reasonably [3] -
54:7, 54:29,
148:21
reasoned [1] -
52:11
reasons [15] -
7:7, 7:10, 7:22,
19:18, 27:12,
50:19, 51:2,
56:23, 63:19,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
23
64:16, 73:26,
77:29, 80:18,
86:29, 87:1
reassessed [1] -
46:14
rebut [1] - 41:6
recap [1] - 37:13
receive [1] -
144:24
received [3] -
17:3, 136:19,
137:26
receiving [1] -
94:11
recent [5] -
25:20, 36:11,
61:1, 61:11,
95:15
recently [1] -
13:8
recognise [3] -
21:21, 23:3, 29:5
recognised [7] -
21:2, 23:4, 23:8,
23:15, 23:18,
31:9, 38:11
recognising [2]
- 21:23, 31:13
recognition [1] -
21:25
recommendati
on [1] - 89:10
Record [1] - 1:5
record [2] -
68:16, 144:13
recording [1] -
140:12
records [2] -
129:2, 129:6
recounts [1] -
119:5
REDMOND [2] -
1:7, 1:7
reduce [2] -
146:11, 148:12
reenforced [1] -
90:23
refer [10] - 3:10,
23:25, 50:28,
51:7, 51:21,
56:15, 89:3,
129:5, 129:13,
140:26
Reference [1] -
121:22
reference [37] -
4:4, 7:29, 13:22,
14:16, 20:15,
20:16, 33:8,
51:28, 54:6,
64:23, 64:25,
71:18, 77:14,
79:10, 82:12,
82:13, 82:18,
82:19, 93:19,
106:6, 106:7,
125:20, 133:15,
134:11, 134:21,
134:22, 136:4,
137:1, 137:7,
137:16, 138:19,
138:23, 139:14,
139:20, 139:22,
140:11, 145:8
reference... [1] -
106:4
references [4] -
72:15, 133:14,
141:29, 142:1
referred [14] -
18:20, 37:12,
51:8, 52:22,
60:11, 60:12,
66:11, 67:16,
74:10, 89:23,
100:23, 103:12,
120:20, 134:18
referring [7] -
27:8, 47:21, 69:1,
72:19, 72:21,
73:5, 103:10
Referring [1] -
32:23
refers [11] -
29:19, 29:24,
32:16, 53:20,
74:18, 74:19,
87:27, 96:9,
130:11, 130:12
reflect [1] - 59:2
reflects [1] -
26:1
refusal [3] -
28:13, 89:24,
90:18
refuse [3] - 33:4,
89:10, 117:18
refused [2] -
46:19, 114:19
refusing [1] -
82:8
regard [32] -
27:23, 37:11,
50:6, 59:18,
60:12, 61:26,
62:17, 62:27,
65:5, 65:25, 67:3,
68:25, 71:13,
77:17, 81:7,
86:22, 86:25,
87:3, 87:11,
89:27, 98:19,
106:13, 106:23,
109:9, 111:24,
111:25, 115:8,
120:17, 121:2,
136:6, 146:7
regarded [4] -
19:26, 30:9, 85:2,
103:16
regarding [1] -
63:17
regardless [1] -
10:20
regards [4] -
33:12, 34:16,
60:23, 64:13
regime [4] -
91:4, 94:13,
145:17, 145:22
region [1] - 16:4
regional [3] -
48:22, 88:28,
138:21
Regional [3] -
87:12, 94:4, 96:3
regions [1] -
98:20
Regions [2] -
100:21, 101:14
Register [2] -
106:4, 106:6
REGISTRAR [1]
- 3:4
regulate [2] -
100:2, 100:13
regulated [1] -
99:26
regulation [1] -
91:9
Regulations [5]
- 16:21, 18:24,
86:24, 91:6,
121:24
regulations [6] -
16:22, 17:13,
17:19, 18:28,
43:21, 122:25
regulatory [1] -
67:13
rehearsed [1] -
44:15
Reid [1] - 55:1
REILLY [1] - 1:8
Reilly [3] -
129:3, 129:6,
129:14
rejected [2] -
33:7, 75:26
relate [1] - 50:25
related [2] -
60:25, 85:10
relates [3] -
7:16, 32:17, 99:7
relating [3] -
17:26, 37:21,
145:17
relation [91] -
3:19, 5:25, 8:11,
19:14, 20:26,
21:15, 27:6,
31:18, 34:19,
36:26, 38:22,
40:9, 40:29,
41:10, 41:16,
41:17, 42:12,
45:15, 49:13,
49:19, 50:24,
51:8, 60:13, 62:3,
67:12, 67:13,
70:6, 71:9, 73:15,
73:18, 80:12,
80:19, 81:28,
82:24, 83:19,
83:24, 84:6,
90:13, 90:21,
91:11, 92:4, 92:7,
93:22, 94:17,
94:24, 94:27,
96:20, 97:2, 99:2,
99:9, 101:22,
102:12, 103:22,
104:13, 104:14,
105:1, 105:7,
105:17, 109:26,
110:5, 111:23,
113:24, 114:12,
114:28, 120:13,
124:2, 124:13,
124:18, 124:19,
124:25, 124:26,
125:6, 126:9,
126:23, 126:28,
130:21, 131:22,
132:10, 134:28,
134:29, 135:1,
135:29, 136:11,
138:14, 139:13,
140:22, 140:29,
141:8, 141:24
relations [2] -
24:21, 26:22
relative [1] -
90:14
relatively [1] -
135:3
relevance [3] -
30:29, 63:16,
146:2
relevant [39] -
3:18, 3:28, 8:4,
9:1, 10:28, 11:6,
14:24, 15:24,
16:25, 17:19,
19:2, 27:12,
32:12, 39:16,
43:25, 51:19,
60:5, 60:6, 63:18,
65:26, 66:21,
68:6, 72:22,
76:22, 89:6,
91:14, 95:4,
95:21, 97:8,
97:16, 101:27,
102:10, 104:16,
109:21, 112:14,
120:3, 120:17,
127:29, 139:27
reliability [1] -
134:29
reliance [7] -
57:18, 57:20,
70:29, 73:7,
73:21, 83:24,
108:6
relied [9] -
31:28, 84:11,
87:1, 118:16,
120:20, 121:15,
123:21, 136:9,
146:22
relief [47] - 33:4,
46:19, 76:9,
79:20, 80:26,
81:4, 81:14,
81:16, 82:24,
82:26, 83:16,
83:19, 83:20,
97:19, 97:21,
97:24, 99:2, 99:7,
99:9, 99:12,
99:25, 103:21,
104:1, 104:13,
105:6, 109:20,
110:11, 110:19,
111:20, 112:12,
112:27, 113:24,
115:12, 115:19,
115:29, 116:2,
118:12, 120:29,
121:10, 121:18,
122:8, 122:14,
123:3, 123:17,
123:19, 123:21,
123:23
reliefs [4] -
83:10, 116:7,
116:22, 123:28
relies [1] - 79:6
religious [3] -
26:2, 29:14,
29:21
reluctant [1] -
63:20
rely [16] - 21:16,
22:21, 23:1, 37:1,
43:28, 44:21,
55:17, 58:21,
59:1, 73:9, 108:2,
114:18, 114:19,
116:5, 119:28,
120:29
relying [6] -
28:6, 28:17,
42:20, 69:17,
77:2, 84:15
remain [2] -
92:26, 93:8
remaining [1] -
3:9
remains [4] -
13:5, 14:27,
33:11, 56:20
remedial [2] -
20:24, 20:25
remedied [2] -
15:22, 16:15
remedy [2] -
6:15, 65:14
remember [1] -
52:3
remembered [1]
- 54:1
remit [1] - 4:13
removal [1] -
96:21
removed [1] -
97:1
removing [1] -
13:18
renders [1] -
121:25
renege [1] -
46:15
reneging [1] -
46:20
renewal [3] -
18:17, 18:28,
19:3
repeated [2] -
52:14, 117:9
repeating [1] -
136:26
replace [1] -
146:9
replaced [1] -
63:4
reply [1] - 44:17
replying [1] -
118:18
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
24
report [17] -
21:17, 21:18,
58:13, 78:26,
107:14, 125:19,
125:22, 129:1,
129:6, 129:28,
130:1, 130:16,
138:8, 143:17,
149:4, 149:12,
149:20
Report [1] - 3:16
report.. [1] -
149:10
reporter [1] -
78:13
represent [3] -
41:24, 61:20,
139:3
represented [6]
- 33:6, 139:4,
139:15, 139:16,
139:17
reproduced [1] -
2:31
Republic [2] -
23:10, 23:13
repugnant [2] -
113:8, 113:18
request [1] -
144:6
require [4] -
14:15, 16:3, 45:8,
135:20
required [14] -
10:12, 13:11,
38:7, 60:27,
70:26, 86:24,
104:21, 115:13,
115:16, 117:16,
134:6, 134:9,
134:13, 137:9
requirement [10]
- 7:15, 14:14,
44:3, 82:20, 96:6,
97:7, 112:5,
112:21, 135:22,
145:29
requirements
[15] - 12:12, 71:4,
71:8, 71:29, 72:1,
72:9, 72:16,
99:15, 104:3,
106:9, 106:13,
112:6, 112:22,
121:28, 122:18
requirements"
[1] - 71:18
requirements'
[1] - 13:26
requires [10] -
9:19, 13:28,
14:10, 14:18,
53:24, 64:22,
65:2, 104:22,
106:10, 117:21
requiring [2] -
18:9, 43:21
resident [1] -
98:8
residential [2] -
85:8, 128:13
residents [11] -
93:6, 126:16,
126:27, 132:1,
132:3, 134:15,
138:11, 142:26,
143:10
Residents [8] -
128:4, 128:8,
129:9, 129:20,
131:7, 137:29,
139:8, 142:9
residue [1] -
24:26
resolution [1] -
57:27
resolve [1] -
69:14
respect [15] -
3:14, 20:24,
46:16, 50:4, 50:7,
54:8, 60:22, 66:5,
66:26, 70:26,
80:8, 105:24,
113:7, 114:20,
115:18
respected [1] -
139:12
respectful [24] -
5:4, 5:13, 5:18,
5:20, 6:19, 16:19,
20:8, 20:10, 26:1,
31:10, 40:16,
40:20, 41:24,
43:13, 48:26,
52:12, 66:20,
68:12, 68:22,
87:18, 87:21,
108:18, 120:16,
146:22
respectfully [6] -
23:16, 26:3,
65:29, 73:26,
102:19, 105:5
respective [1] -
10:6
respects [1] -
90:16
respondent [1] -
2:32
Respondent [24]
- 5:5, 5:6, 6:2,
6:20, 20:13,
20:20, 43:2, 44:6,
45:20, 47:3,
80:27, 80:28,
99:14, 110:9,
110:24, 110:27,
111:1, 111:6,
111:9, 111:13,
112:3, 112:19,
121:12, 121:27
RESPONDENT
[1] - 1:15
Respondent's
[1] - 110:20
respondents [5]
- 60:13, 116:16,
116:26, 117:3,
123:7
Respondents
[10] - 6:6, 6:14,
50:16, 80:2,
81:17, 97:20,
97:26, 98:23,
120:25, 121:14
responding [1] -
47:14
response [7] -
71:29, 99:23,
99:24, 99:25,
129:26, 135:10,
137:21
responses [2] -
137:23, 137:26
responsibility
[1] - 57:11
rest [2] - 57:13,
98:26
restoration [1] -
96:2
restraining [2] -
114:6, 120:6
restriction [1] -
90:10
restrictions [1] -
89:28
restrictive [3] -
64:17, 93:5,
93:11
result [3] -
11:27, 21:10,
131:14
RESUMED [2] -
3:1, 3:6
retain [1] - 11:28
retained [2] -
138:12, 138:13
retention [3] -
75:8, 75:10,
75:12
retrospect [1] -
70:11
return [1] -
80:21
reverse [1] -
81:1
review [22] -
18:17, 79:29,
80:3, 80:8, 80:13,
80:15, 104:22,
109:6, 109:28,
110:6, 110:17,
114:21, 114:25,
115:10, 115:13,
116:1, 117:15,
117:27, 118:5,
119:19, 122:21,
132:9
revised [2] -
129:25, 137:24
revision [1] -
18:16
revisit [1] -
42:15
RICE [1] - 1:8
right-hand [3] -
3:22, 18:4,
140:16
rightly [1] - 6:6
Rights [10] -
31:28, 32:2, 32:4,
39:17, 41:7,
49:19, 98:1, 98:7,
98:19, 111:3
rights [37] -
21:15, 22:1, 22:3,
22:7, 22:10,
22:27, 27:27,
29:15, 29:28,
30:5, 30:21, 32:6,
32:10, 33:28,
34:15, 36:1,
36:24, 36:27,
37:6, 38:28, 39:1,
40:3, 48:25, 49:3,
81:11, 81:23,
81:27, 82:13,
82:19, 83:1,
83:14, 84:13,
84:15, 98:13,
111:2, 111:7,
111:10
rise [5] - 25:21,
56:2, 57:19,
84:21, 102:22
Risk [3] -
125:16, 145:9,
149:8
risk [35] - 26:24,
28:11, 28:21,
28:28, 40:22,
56:15, 84:9,
88:13, 93:20,
93:22, 94:10,
104:27, 119:15,
120:8, 125:15,
134:11, 135:18,
135:23, 140:24,
143:13, 146:12,
146:21, 146:26,
146:28, 146:29,
147:13, 147:17,
147:18, 147:23,
147:28, 148:10,
148:11, 148:13,
148:20, 149:15
risks [3] - 28:11,
135:22, 147:23
River [4] - 96:3,
144:7, 144:22,
144:24
road [3] - 87:10,
133:6, 133:7
roaring [1] -
41:21
Robert [1] -
139:21
Role [1] - 52:8
role [6] - 52:23,
55:11, 62:8, 62:9,
65:13, 101:11
Romania [1] -
23:12
Ronan [1] - 68:6
ROONEY [1] -
1:10
root [1] - 55:10
Roscommon [1]
- 7:3
round [1] - 73:13
route [2] - 48:7,
48:8
routinely [1] -
56:21
RPS [7] -
125:19, 125:22,
145:7, 146:21,
147:3, 147:7
rubbish [1] -
25:6
rule [2] - 53:9,
64:22
rules [2] - 36:16,
37:21
run [1] - 135:17
run-off [1] -
135:17
runes [1] - 65:24
runoff [3] -
144:19, 144:22
runway [28] -
3:21, 4:15, 5:27,
5:28, 15:5, 15:17,
15:24, 16:3, 16:6,
16:10, 21:9,
28:24, 47:4, 84:8,
87:16, 90:9,
90:10, 90:15,
91:23, 91:26,
92:22, 92:23,
93:3, 95:24,
98:11, 98:13,
98:25, 146:8
Runway [2] -
147:13, 149:16
runways [2] -
89:29, 90:9
Rupert [2] -
130:19, 140:4
rural [1] - 132:24
Russia [1] -
23:12
RYAN [1] - 1:9
Ryan [4] - 22:14,
22:16, 22:20,
22:22
RYANAIR [2] -
1:22, 2:27
S
s.1 [2] - 27:16,
28:3
s.177V [1] -
10:25
s.3 [1] - 28:3
s.34 [1] - 60:17
S.P.U.C [2] -
32:23, 32:24
SAC [1] - 143:28
SAC's [2] -
104:16, 104:27
SACs [1] - 95:21
safe [2] - 88:4,
108:3
safety [3] -
88:12, 90:18,
141:13
SALAGEAN [1] -
1:9
sale [1] - 26:25
salmonid [1] -
144:8
Sargent [2] -
130:27, 139:16
satisfactory [1] -
132:27
satisfied [7] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
25
89:26, 112:6,
112:22, 113:18,
119:25, 146:3,
149:14
satisfy [2] -
40:26, 106:29
satisfying [2] -
20:4, 106:27
saw [2] - 96:9,
111:21
SC [7] - 2:4,
2:13, 2:18, 2:18,
2:22, 2:23, 2:27
scale [3] - 16:2,
16:16, 20:15
Schedule [1] -
18:24
scheme [16] -
75:14, 84:7,
91:20, 92:1,
92:17, 92:20,
92:24, 92:26,
93:10, 96:4,
121:25, 128:14,
132:6, 132:7,
132:15, 132:26
Scheme [1] -
131:23
school [3] -
90:22, 90:25,
91:19
schools [1] -
90:21
scientific [14] -
12:26, 13:4,
13:19, 14:5,
14:17, 14:20,
14:27, 17:7,
22:21, 22:25,
23:20, 25:18,
26:11, 31:3
scientifically [1]
- 25:23
scope [3] -
92:25, 116:28,
118:28
scoping [2] -
45:13, 45:18
screening [6] -
9:9, 9:12, 15:28,
17:1, 19:11,
106:11
scrutinised [1] -
40:5
scrutiny [1] -
65:3
SCULLY [1] -
1:8
Scully [3] -
129:3, 129:7,
129:12
Scully's [1] -
142:28
se [1] - 84:22
sea [1] - 25:21
sealed [3] -
44:12, 144:18,
146:18
Sean [1] - 54:16
Seanad [1] -
60:16
search [1] - 59:3
Searson [2] -
138:8, 142:24
second [20] -
5:10, 6:15, 20:21,
24:5, 41:5, 57:14,
58:13, 58:29,
68:9, 71:22, 84:8,
98:25, 102:7,
102:9, 102:16,
102:21, 114:8,
127:20, 136:29,
143:19
SECOND [1] -
1:20
Second [4] -
18:24, 64:22,
99:14, 121:27
Second-
Named [1] - 99:14
secondly [1] -
16:2
Secretary [1] -
53:21
Section [40] -
15:12, 16:26,
17:21, 42:9,
44:13, 44:19,
46:9, 47:1, 60:18,
73:17, 77:18,
81:7, 81:20,
81:28, 83:3,
83:14, 97:28,
99:21, 102:9,
103:5, 103:6,
103:7, 103:8,
103:16, 103:26,
104:6, 104:8,
107:21, 107:23,
108:7, 111:24,
112:4, 112:20,
113:7, 113:18,
125:20, 126:19,
129:26, 137:21,
137:24
section [22] -
3:28, 9:19, 9:22,
9:27, 10:15,
63:22, 70:21,
70:22, 71:21,
71:22, 77:18,
77:20, 79:4, 79:6,
79:10, 95:3,
103:4, 105:23,
136:19, 141:15
sector [1] - 3:27
secured [1] -
119:7
security [1] -
102:13
see [78] - 58:9,
60:2, 62:12,
68:13, 68:23,
69:23, 70:18,
71:17, 73:16,
77:4, 78:16,
78:26, 81:3,
86:12, 86:18,
89:8, 90:2, 92:5,
93:8, 93:15,
93:23, 96:3,
97:25, 99:11,
99:18, 100:15,
105:27, 113:2,
114:8, 116:21,
118:2, 120:18,
120:20, 121:18,
122:2, 126:8,
127:15, 130:10,
130:26, 131:6,
131:7, 131:11,
134:24, 135:9,
135:25, 135:27,
136:11, 136:13,
136:22, 136:23,
136:29, 137:20,
137:22, 137:25,
138:1, 138:6,
138:26, 139:1,
139:2, 139:7,
139:20, 140:1,
140:17, 140:19,
141:3, 141:26,
141:27, 142:6,
142:18, 143:19,
144:1, 144:10,
146:7, 148:1,
149:24, 150:18
seeing [1] -
24:21
seek [10] -
35:16, 73:9, 80:3,
114:21, 116:17,
122:8, 122:23,
123:3, 123:21,
131:26
seeking [6] -
46:29, 50:29,
55:3, 112:27,
114:5, 115:12
seeks [6] -
35:19, 36:4, 38:8,
52:28, 82:3,
117:14
seem [4] -
35:28, 64:2, 66:8,
120:16
sees [1] - 72:20
sell [1] - 132:16
seminal [1] -
37:11
sense [5] -
27:19, 33:16,
34:3, 35:7, 36:19
sensitivity [1] -
144:7
sentence [11] -
69:3, 70:29, 72:5,
73:9, 73:22,
78:17, 78:23,
85:13, 127:20,
128:1, 143:19
sentiment [2] -
63:29, 132:20
separate [1] -
114:13
separately [1] -
71:28
September [4] -
45:19, 128:20,
142:20
seq [1] - 63:8
Serbia [1] -
23:12
series [4] -
44:11, 48:22,
139:18, 142:25
serious [5] -
39:23, 40:11,
85:4, 85:8, 120:8
serve [2] -
87:10, 131:17
served [1] -
144:20
Service [3] -
2:32, 61:2, 96:18
service [1] -
87:7
Services [4] -
1:27, 2:31,
107:12, 107:21
services [1] -
134:9
SERVICES [1] -
1:32
set [9] - 18:23,
71:8, 87:3, 88:7,
106:23, 109:9,
117:21, 123:20,
147:27
sets [8] - 76:10,
96:21, 106:20,
116:1, 121:10,
121:14, 121:15,
148:1
setting [2] -
115:19, 132:24
several [2] -
124:23, 130:20
severe [1] -
119:12
shall [22] - 8:6,
8:17, 8:23, 9:23,
9:25, 17:6, 69:26,
91:26, 92:18,
92:20, 92:24,
92:26, 93:26,
94:2, 94:28,
96:16, 96:26,
96:28, 97:4,
100:21, 101:14,
112:21
SHEELAGH [1] -
1:9
sheer [1] - 143:5
Sheila [2] -
129:2, 142:24
Shell [1] - 108:6
short [5] - 13:28,
61:19, 79:12,
107:29, 142:11
shorthand [1] -
54:6
shot [1] - 76:5
show [1] -
104:16
showing [1] -
92:3
shown [2] -
65:1, 149:10
shows [2] -
102:2, 125:25
Shreddies [1] -
66:9
shut [6] - 64:2,
126:2, 126:3,
126:5, 126:6,
143:11
sick [1] - 24:12
side [4] - 3:22,
76:18, 78:11,
140:17
sides [1] - 58:25
SIDNEY [1] - 1:9
significance [3]
- 48:26, 100:3,
131:25
significant [26] -
8:11, 8:16, 12:5,
13:29, 17:11,
20:19, 37:2, 49:6,
67:21, 74:25,
75:11, 89:18,
89:24, 90:6,
90:17, 97:9,
100:11, 104:12,
110:16, 115:10,
126:29, 127:2,
135:13, 138:3,
141:18, 142:22
significantly [1]
- 142:22
SILE [1] - 1:9
similar [8] - 5:5,
7:27, 98:15,
106:16, 109:1,
115:26, 117:11,
138:4
similarly [3] -
23:15, 38:27,
139:13
SIMONS [3] -
2:18, 52:2, 150:2
Simons [3] -
51:22, 51:29,
75:29
simple [2] - 7:9,
104:28
simply [12] -
4:29, 6:16, 72:17,
73:3, 73:7, 73:17,
82:13, 95:23,
110:10, 123:23,
126:24, 147:27
simultaneously
[1] - 137:14
sincere [2] -
39:23, 40:11
single [1] -
44:18
singular [2] -
136:10, 136:11
sit [1] - 150:4
site [28] - 8:15,
8:19, 8:22, 8:25,
10:2, 10:29, 11:6,
12:6, 12:14,
12:20, 12:29,
13:3, 13:20,
13:25, 14:1, 14:8,
14:24, 16:6, 16:9,
17:5, 17:9, 17:11,
19:28, 20:20,
95:3, 96:16,
141:9, 144:4
Site [3] - 17:6,
17:27, 143:18
site" [1] - 9:26
site's [2] - 8:19,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
26
13:1
sites [5] - 10:29,
11:19, 20:16,
25:1, 133:16
site’s [1] - 12:24
situated [1] -
85:12
situation [5] -
15:10, 20:11,
62:26, 143:24,
146:6
six [1] - 64:16
Sixth [1] - 65:17
size [1] - 91:11
Si’ [1] - 23:26
skip [4] - 9:14,
18:13, 38:25,
39:13
slight [2] -
79:25, 150:14
slightly [4] -
23:25, 41:16,
76:5, 81:1
Slovak [1] -
23:13
Slovenia [1] -
23:13
small [1] - 77:9
smaller [1] -
70:10
smoke [1] -
24:13
social [1] - 29:21
Social [5] -
60:15, 60:17,
60:19, 100:20,
101:13
society [2] -
29:10, 35:20
Society [1] -
36:8
society... [1] -
29:7
soil [1] - 24:16
sole [1] - 35:10
solely [2] -
51:10, 110:12
solicitor [4] -
119:11, 119:15,
125:3, 139:10
solicitor's [1] -
118:17
SOLICITORS [5]
- 2:6, 2:10, 2:20,
2:25, 2:29
solid [1] - 25:18
solution [2] -
131:18, 132:27
solves [1] -
24:22
solving [1] -
24:20
someone [2] -
75:9, 125:1
sometimes [6] -
24:22, 34:24,
40:12, 85:5, 85:6,
128:27
somewhat [1] -
115:20
somewhere [1] -
16:4
sophisticated
[1] - 57:26
sorry [20] - 9:17,
37:3, 42:16,
54:17, 59:24,
74:14, 77:11,
77:12, 84:18,
85:28, 86:10,
93:12, 97:15,
99:19, 99:20,
123:27, 127:8,
130:18, 147:9,
150:4
sought [61] -
18:22, 33:20,
35:1, 38:20, 39:6,
40:6, 45:6, 45:18,
46:10, 46:15,
46:20, 53:7, 61:8,
75:12, 76:10,
76:11, 79:20,
81:5, 81:16,
81:19, 82:3,
82:17, 82:22,
82:24, 83:10,
83:16, 83:20,
83:26, 97:20,
97:24, 97:25,
99:3, 99:7, 99:9,
99:12, 100:1,
103:21, 103:24,
104:1, 105:6,
106:25, 110:12,
110:19, 111:20,
111:22, 112:12,
112:27, 113:24,
114:18, 116:3,
116:8, 116:22,
117:18, 118:12,
121:18, 122:14,
123:17, 123:22,
123:23, 123:28
sound [1] - 51:2
sources [1] -
25:2
SPA's [2] -
104:16, 104:27
Spain [3] - 13:8,
13:22, 23:13
Spath [1] - 53:21
Spatial [1] - 87:4
speaks [1] -
29:19
special [12] -
8:7, 16:7, 21:17,
27:24, 33:9,
33:19, 38:18,
65:21, 95:21,
101:6, 109:27
specialist [2] -
96:27, 96:28
species [4] - 8:9,
97:9, 97:11
specific [4] -
37:15, 93:21,
117:15, 135:21
Specifically [1] -
70:21
specifically [6] -
49:17, 56:17,
84:9, 141:28,
142:1, 147:23
specified [3] -
10:15, 115:15,
115:20
spectrum [1] -
24:10
speech [3] -
50:22, 61:19,
73:10
spend [8] - 76:4,
121:8, 125:10,
135:7, 137:22,
138:18, 138:22,
141:14
spent [1] - 97:15
spoken [1] -
57:3
sponsors [1] -
65:19
SPUC [6] -
35:25, 36:7,
36:15, 36:21,
38:11
squarely [1] -
36:19
ss [1] - 9:6
St [17] - 124:29,
128:3, 128:8,
129:9, 129:20,
130:26, 131:6,
131:14, 132:2,
136:23, 137:29,
138:5, 138:9,
139:7, 139:28,
142:9, 142:19
stage [18] - 6:18,
9:5, 16:15, 20:1,
20:2, 20:6, 58:24,
58:29, 59:27,
73:1, 97:13,
102:7, 102:9,
104:8, 117:3,
136:24, 137:23
Stage [2] -
106:10, 106:11
Staines [1] -
139:22
standi [6] -
32:18, 33:13,
35:16, 36:17,
37:21, 39:14
standing [7] -
34:16, 35:23,
36:20, 37:17,
42:11, 42:15,
42:29
Stansfield [1] -
139:23
start [3] - 47:24,
130:23, 150:10
starting [2] -
137:25, 150:15
starts [5] - 7:12,
60:6, 74:14,
141:15, 147:10
STATE [1] - 2:25
state [8] - 27:8,
27:11, 27:22,
27:28, 65:2,
119:7, 122:9,
126:12
State [44] -
27:18, 28:2, 28:4,
31:18, 33:2,
34:10, 48:15,
49:27, 50:4,
50:16, 52:25,
53:21, 57:10,
73:25, 74:10,
74:19, 75:2, 75:8,
75:18, 75:20,
76:2, 76:10,
76:12, 79:21,
80:27, 82:25,
82:27, 97:20,
97:26, 98:23,
98:26, 99:14,
101:22, 103:21,
104:2, 110:10,
112:13, 113:25,
120:25, 121:13,
121:17, 123:4,
123:28
State's [4] -
50:2, 74:4, 74:17,
97:28
Statement [11] -
80:24, 80:25,
81:4, 83:11, 86:9,
89:15, 97:19,
104:19, 105:25,
114:27, 123:20
statement [17] -
33:10, 55:18,
56:11, 57:23,
58:29, 60:15,
62:17, 62:18,
64:21, 71:7,
71:10, 71:11,
93:29, 117:16,
117:24, 118:29,
119:23
statement/
submission [1] -
3:25
Statements [1] -
56:23
statements [9] -
50:28, 51:3,
56:17, 56:29,
57:19, 58:22,
59:1, 59:19
states [3] -
11:24, 16:28,
24:5
States [4] - 8:6,
56:19, 72:25,
72:26
stating [2] -
62:1, 62:25
status [5] -
55:19, 87:8,
88:23, 101:19,
101:24
statute [24] -
43:20, 51:15,
53:10, 53:12,
53:14, 53:18,
56:8, 57:21, 58:7,
58:22, 58:26,
63:4, 64:20, 65:4,
65:10, 65:11,
65:26, 76:17,
76:19, 77:25,
77:27, 78:6,
122:24
statutes [6] -
51:11, 55:11,
58:24, 59:2, 59:5,
76:13
Statutory [1] -
53:24
statutory [13] -
7:15, 18:21,
26:25, 43:21,
57:29, 58:9,
62:14, 65:23,
65:27, 83:6,
106:27, 115:19,
121:25
stenographic
[1] - 1:29
Stenography [3]
- 1:27, 2:31, 2:32
STENOGRAPH
Y [1] - 1:31
step [1] - 97:12
steps [3] - 8:6,
97:10, 144:29
sterling [1] -
59:29
still [2] - 144:16,
148:24
stipulated [1] -
134:4
stored [1] -
137:10
story [2] - 47:20,
78:19
straightforwar
d [1] - 104:28
strange [1] -
19:3
strategic [2] -
4:16, 98:24
Strategy [2] -
87:5, 87:13
straw [2] - 38:2
stream [1] -
148:25
Stream [2] -
144:21, 146:11
streams [1] -
94:14
stress [1] - 70:4
strictly [1] - 52:9
strictures [1] -
121:3
strike [1] - 141:5
strikes [1] -
123:10
striving [1] -
37:26
strong [2] - 64:5,
131:15
struck [1] -
75:13
structure [1] -
30:4
students [1] -
36:12
sub [1] - 144:21
Sub [3] - 9:19,
9:22, 9:27
sub-catchment
[1] - 144:21
Sub-section [3]
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
27
- 9:19, 9:22, 9:27
subject [18] -
8:18, 8:22, 9:27,
18:7, 19:10,
37:26, 47:4, 47:5,
57:10, 63:18,
65:3, 88:6, 91:3,
106:3, 106:9,
106:26, 129:21,
149:28
subjected [4] -
6:4, 15:18, 15:28,
114:11
subjective [4] -
53:4, 54:2, 54:8,
54:20
submission [48]
- 3:18, 5:2, 5:4,
5:13, 5:18, 5:20,
6:19, 16:19, 20:8,
20:10, 21:16,
26:1, 31:1, 31:2,
31:10, 40:16,
40:21, 41:1,
41:10, 41:24,
43:13, 44:2,
48:27, 49:25,
52:12, 66:20,
68:12, 68:23,
70:8, 71:17,
73:28, 77:14,
77:17, 86:14,
87:18, 87:21,
89:4, 108:18,
120:17, 126:17,
128:16, 129:25,
140:21, 142:8,
145:6, 146:22,
148:28
SUBMISSION
[1] - 47:10
SUBMISSIONS
[1] - 3:6
submissions
[54] - 3:11, 3:13,
5:12, 6:8, 6:9,
22:17, 27:11,
41:15, 44:16,
47:6, 47:15,
47:25, 47:27,
47:28, 47:29,
49:25, 50:6,
50:12, 60:23,
60:25, 70:19,
72:24, 74:11,
74:16, 76:6,
81:28, 82:9,
82:16, 82:21,
83:6, 83:29, 84:5,
84:21, 86:25,
89:7, 91:15,
97:17, 102:28,
103:13, 104:18,
109:18, 122:3,
126:2, 126:4,
128:11, 128:18,
129:8, 129:11,
129:21, 136:19,
138:12, 138:14,
141:23, 142:7
submissions"
[1] - 130:24
submit [4] -
5:17, 5:21, 85:25,
113:25
submitted [7] -
45:9, 89:15,
89:16, 89:27,
92:18, 96:8,
96:17
submitting [4] -
82:28, 109:12,
127:13
subordinate [2]
- 30:6, 30:7
subparagraphs
[1] - 18:20
subsequent [5] -
6:18, 9:10, 52:15,
56:3, 129:24
subsequently
[2] - 61:27, 78:8
subsists [3] -
20:26, 43:16,
109:3
substance [4] -
60:21, 64:14,
148:28, 149:21
substances [1] -
24:15
substantial [2] -
80:7, 80:17
substantially [1]
- 71:26
substantiate [2]
- 4:4, 104:23
substantive [1] -
21:1
subvert [1] -
22:10
succinct [2] -
71:7, 71:11
succinctly [2] -
60:4, 107:5
suddenly [1] -
85:10
sued [1] - 37:24
suffered [1] -
119:12
suffice [1] - 65:8
sufficient [7] -
35:20, 37:13,
42:8, 42:25,
45:22, 89:14,
146:4
sufficiently [2] -
78:15, 98:14
suggest [19] -
23:16, 26:3,
42:14, 48:4,
49:28, 50:7,
50:23, 51:11,
51:14, 65:29,
71:12, 73:25,
73:26, 83:26,
92:13, 102:19,
123:15, 126:21,
126:26
suggested [3] -
56:10, 61:20,
68:9
suggesting [3] -
50:19, 51:25,
106:18
suggestion [10]
- 22:8, 40:10,
40:14, 42:10,
42:13, 43:23,
50:1, 105:17,
105:21, 135:29
suitable [1] -
90:24
summarised [3]
- 14:3, 66:2,
136:27
summarises [2]
- 60:3, 131:6
summary [10] -
6:24, 74:17,
134:22, 134:25,
135:14, 136:23,
138:26, 140:26,
140:28, 142:11
Summary [1] -
149:4
sums [1] - 108:5
superior [2] -
23:3, 29:29
supplied [2] -
2:31, 146:4
supply [1] -
134:14
support [5] -
22:17, 59:16,
59:17, 84:17,
146:5
supporters [1] -
65:20
supporting [2] -
131:8, 131:10
suppose [24] -
47:20, 49:13,
50:10, 59:13,
79:21, 82:2,
83:21, 92:10,
95:14, 97:18,
99:1, 104:8,
104:12, 109:28,
113:2, 114:23,
121:3, 124:1,
124:18, 126:29,
130:3, 131:24,
139:10, 147:15
supra [1] - 37:13
Supreme [29] -
22:15, 36:20,
38:11, 48:27,
49:7, 51:18,
52:15, 58:10,
59:14, 60:28,
61:10, 64:4,
66:18, 77:11,
78:22, 79:13,
103:10, 103:13,
109:14, 112:14,
113:29, 114:17,
114:18, 114:28,
117:10, 120:12,
120:18, 121:2,
121:4
surface [10] -
93:26, 94:1,
94:14, 94:17,
135:17, 140:17,
144:12, 144:19,
145:17, 146:19
surrounding [3]
- 38:7, 134:14,
137:13
survey [2] -
96:1, 96:16
Surveys [1] -
136:1
suspect [1] -
40:5
sustainable [3] -
88:17, 89:21,
144:13
Sutton [2] -
32:17, 34:20
SUZANNE [1] -
2:24
sweeping [1] -
34:23
Sweetman [6] -
13:10, 124:22,
124:24, 139:4,
141:27, 142:1
sworn [2] -
98:23, 127:3
system [9] -
25:17, 25:20,
75:9, 87:10,
90:15, 94:2,
144:12, 144:18,
146:18
System [1] -
149:8
systems.. [1] -
144:14
T
Tab [15] - 6:27,
16:20, 19:15,
31:29, 70:13,
73:13, 76:28,
78:22, 78:26,
80:29, 97:18,
100:7, 103:23,
105:25, 107:3
tab [25] - 43:7,
44:11, 51:16,
52:7, 60:1, 67:7,
86:9, 86:10,
86:11, 100:7,
109:22, 113:29,
120:22, 120:23,
127:5, 127:8,
130:7, 143:17,
147:8, 147:9
tackled [1] -
4:16
Taisce [9] - 3:19,
3:24, 124:20,
124:21, 130:28,
134:26, 134:27,
135:4, 139:17
Taisce's [1] -
4:10
talks [4] - 133:6,
133:7, 137:6
tandem [1] -
26:10
tank [1] - 148:26
tanks [2] -
144:26, 146:19
Taoiseach [2] -
32:17, 37:12
tapes [1] -
130:12
task [3] - 47:14,
52:23, 53:26
tax [1] - 101:19
Tax [1] - 77:8
taxation [1] -
101:23
Taxes [3] -
76:29, 77:7, 77:9
Taylor [2] -
130:19, 140:4
TD [2] - 109:15,
130:27
teams [1] -
59:26
technical [3] -
109:26, 110:15,
138:15
technically [2] -
80:3, 80:6
Technology [1] -
24:18
teleological [3] -
57:29, 76:16,
76:21
telescoped [2] -
80:4, 80:6
temporary [1] -
71:21
ten [8] - 45:2,
46:14, 126:11,
126:14, 126:15,
126:16, 126:18,
134:17
ten-year [1] -
126:14
tendency [1] -
118:14
tendered [1] -
68:20
tensions [1] -
69:14
term [2] - 18:3,
74:25
terms [31] -
4:14, 28:2, 28:3,
28:22, 30:6,
35:17, 46:15,
49:21, 71:12,
74:4, 78:17, 85:7,
88:12, 89:20,
89:22, 90:17,
92:15, 98:4, 99:1,
103:19, 107:22,
112:4, 112:20,
121:1, 125:12,
130:9, 131:5,
132:15, 139:27,
143:26, 149:25
terribly [2] -
77:12, 99:19
test [12] - 12:13,
33:12, 67:11,
80:3, 80:6, 80:9,
106:27, 106:29,
148:1, 148:4,
149:7
testing [3] -
133:18, 133:19,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
28
133:23
text [3] - 28:6,
55:14, 142:13
texts [2] - 43:9,
43:12
textual [1] -
22:17
THE [11] - 1:1,
1:12, 1:19, 2:4,
2:8, 2:15, 2:22,
3:1, 69:29, 70:1,
150:21
the...proposed
[1] - 9:25
thee's [1] - 50:1
them.. [1] -
62:10
themselves [5] -
12:23, 30:16,
40:22, 65:8,
124:16
THEN [1] -
150:21
theological [1] -
23:22
thereafter [2] -
77:26, 108:1
therefore [12] -
6:17, 30:20,
32:26, 35:28,
37:24, 59:2, 69:5,
80:14, 120:27,
132:17, 144:24,
149:20
Therefore [1] -
123:6
thereof [1] - 62:6
thereon [1] -
8:16
Theresa [1] -
139:3
thereto [2] -
27:17, 98:1
thereunder [2] -
27:11, 121:25
they've [1] -
44:15
thinks [1] -
117:25
THIRD [1] - 1:20
third [5] - 7:15,
70:16, 113:9,
130:25, 135:10
Third [1] - 64:29
thirdly [1] - 16:5
THOMAS [1] -
1:8
Thornely [3] -
125:6, 130:19,
140:4
Thornely-
Taylor [2] -
130:19, 140:4
thoughtful" [1] -
25:29
threatened [2] -
35:4, 39:9
three [9] - 24:4,
50:21, 78:28,
90:2, 114:13,
119:6, 119:7,
119:13, 140:25
threshold [4] -
12:7, 15:1, 80:16,
115:20
throughout [1] -
91:10
thrust [2] -
55:29, 64:6
Thursday [1] -
70:15
TIM [1] - 2:13
timely [1] -
109:5
timing [1] -
96:19
tip [1] - 130:9
title [2] - 109:24,
110:8
TO [1] - 150:21
today [1] -
144:16
together [2] -
38:7, 95:11
TOLAND [1] -
2:23
Toland [5] -
49:16, 82:28,
83:22, 84:26,
98:3
tons [1] - 24:27
took [8] - 41:6,
66:29, 78:11,
78:14, 128:19,
139:9, 143:6,
143:8
top [7] - 78:16,
87:29, 121:18,
136:25, 137:28,
141:5, 141:6
topics [1] - 3:9
touched [1] -
63:7
town [4] - 99:29,
100:14, 101:17,
101:23
toxic [1] - 24:29
toxins [1] - 25:9
tradition [1] -
64:17
traffic [4] - 88:5,
88:12, 128:14,
137:16
training [1] -
30:20
trans [1] - 5:4
trans-
boundary [1] - 5:4
transcript [1] -
1:28
Transcripts [1] -
2:30
transitional [1] -
72:2
Transport [1] -
87:5
transport [2] -
24:15, 87:9
Transportation
[1] - 87:12
transpose [7] -
99:15, 104:3,
111:23, 112:13,
112:28, 121:28,
122:26
transposed [1] -
122:15
transposition
[2] - 112:7, 112:24
travel [3] -
36:26, 88:4,
88:21
treated [2] -
71:12, 102:22
treatment [2] -
94:2, 134:1
Treaty [1] -
99:27
trees [2] - 97:1,
97:4
Trevor [2] -
130:27, 139:16
TREVOR [1] -
1:7
trial [11] - 114:6,
114:12, 114:13,
114:15, 116:14,
117:4, 119:3,
119:4, 119:14,
119:21, 120:9
trials [1] - 119:6
trials' [1] -
119:13
tribute [1] -
47:25
tried [1] - 119:16
trigger [1] -
85:20
triumvirate [1] -
125:4
true [2] - 38:3,
78:5
truth [1] - 65:12
try [3] - 73:20,
125:10, 143:14
trying [3] -
51:14, 73:20,
107:7
Tuesday [4] -
149:26, 150:9,
150:14, 150:16
TUESDAY [1] -
150:21
Turkish [1] -
23:17
turn [29] - 27:8,
70:15, 78:25,
79:20, 81:3,
81:17, 91:16,
93:21, 94:21,
99:5, 103:29,
107:14, 109:20,
117:10, 118:2,
130:23, 135:9,
135:14, 136:17,
137:6, 137:20,
137:25, 138:26,
138:29, 140:15,
140:16, 140:28,
141:14, 142:15
turned [1] -
114:14
two [29] - 3:9,
3:10, 9:5, 16:8,
31:19, 41:3,
41:12, 50:28,
66:10, 69:6,
69:21, 76:23,
79:22, 91:13,
93:18, 93:21,
99:7, 102:4,
102:7, 104:12,
110:3, 113:27,
123:17, 127:2,
132:7, 133:13,
136:15, 142:6,
142:15
two-stage [1] -
9:5
twofold [1] -
124:10
type [1] - 23:3
types [1] - 109:6
U
UCG [1] - 36:12
UK [1] - 102:8
Ukraine [1] -
23:13
ultimate [1] -
57:4
ultimately [10] -
9:12, 15:6, 19:18,
22:27, 38:4,
46:19, 54:15,
63:23, 67:3,
133:3
ultra [1] - 111:15
unambiguous
[1] - 65:4
unanimously [2]
- 61:11, 101:6
unattenuated
[1] - 146:10
Unborn [1] -
36:9
unborn [3] -
33:1, 33:26,
36:14
uncertainty [2] -
57:18, 65:5
unclear [3] -
65:11, 73:3, 73:4
uncontroversia
l [1] - 63:3
Under [1] -
71:21
under [66] - 6:2,
10:25, 12:2,
12:19, 13:15,
15:12, 16:25,
17:18, 18:23,
19:5, 19:6, 20:23,
22:7, 27:9, 27:25,
29:4, 38:29,
44:23, 46:8, 47:1,
52:8, 52:17,
53:28, 54:28,
60:10, 63:11,
70:17, 70:22,
81:11, 83:2, 83:4,
86:24, 91:4,
91:27, 93:7, 95:2,
95:17, 97:29,
103:4, 103:5,
103:6, 103:7,
103:15, 103:16,
105:28, 105:29,
107:11, 109:1,
109:2, 110:28,
111:2, 111:7,
111:29, 125:15,
126:19, 129:25,
135:19, 136:29,
137:4, 140:17,
143:18, 145:9,
146:26, 148:27,
149:4
undergo [1] -
119:13
underline [1] -
108:11
underlines [1] -
74:16
underlying [4] -
51:12, 117:8,
124:5, 130:12
underscored [1]
- 86:5
underscores [1]
- 86:16
understood [2] -
34:24, 92:13
undertake [1] -
17:4
undertaken [4] -
11:22, 102:25,
148:27, 148:29
undertook [3] -
147:2, 147:3,
148:16
undo [1] - 42:26
undoubtedly [3]
- 66:25, 68:22,
138:15
unduly [1] -
37:23
unelected [1] -
65:12
unenumerated
[5] - 21:22, 26:15,
29:6, 31:13,
40:24
unequivocal [1]
- 57:23
unequivocally
[1] - 64:7
unfair [3] -
43:22, 119:14,
119:21
unfortunate [1] -
118:14
unfounded [1] -
50:17
uninterpreted
[1] - 65:10
Union [7] -
11:17, 91:10,
100:1, 100:8,
100:12, 100:22,
111:4
unique [1] - 34:4
uniquely [1] -
64:20
United [2] -
23:14, 56:18
Unless [1] - 11:3
unless [3] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
29
11:8, 11:14, 12:4
unlike [5] -
22:22, 43:29,
77:2, 110:6,
121:15
unlikely [3] -
40:1, 40:20,
43:23
unnecessary [1]
- 65:5
unqualified" [1]
- 33:12
unreasonable
[1] - 111:14
unreliable [2] -
73:8, 141:16
Unreported [2] -
67:27, 108:26
unsatisfactory
[1] - 117:2
unsuccessful
[1] - 40:24
untenable [1] -
132:17
unusually [3] -
23:25, 125:4,
150:4
unwelcome [2] -
48:5, 48:9
up [9] - 15:6,
26:28, 33:22,
45:11, 55:7,
66:12, 69:23,
114:14, 130:6
updated [2] -
45:21, 91:9
upgraded [1] -
87:9
uphold [1] - 40:4
upwards [1] -
46:17
urban [2] -
132:25, 144:13
urges [1] - 62:16
used' [1] - 55:4
useful [2] - 6:24,
7:12
usefully [1] -
60:3
useless [1] -
48:12
usurpation [1] -
65:12
utilise [1] -
63:20
utilised [1] -
136:2
utility [2] -
48:17, 65:29
utilized [1] -
25:7
utterly [1] -
102:10
V
vacate [1] -
42:27
VALENTINE [1] -
2:19
VALERIAN [1] -
1:8
validation [1] -
4:3
validity [5] -
105:22, 106:21,
108:8, 108:14,
108:20
Valley [1] - 96:3
value [3] - 84:14,
85:6, 98:16
valued [1] -
38:29
values [3] -
84:20, 85:5,
85:19
variance [1] -
53:17
variety [2] -
63:24, 77:29
various [12] -
32:5, 42:13, 61:8,
81:18, 116:7,
116:22, 122:3,
123:28, 139:19,
140:7, 140:11,
142:17
vary [2] - 23:5,
124:24
varying [1] -
54:23
vast [1] - 16:5
vault [1] - 12:7
veil [1] - 38:6
ventilated [4] -
49:24, 90:4,
124:14, 141:18
ventilating [1] -
137:3
ventilation [1] -
125:13
veracity [1] -
4:27
verbatim [1] -
1:28
version [1] -
24:3
versions [1] -
63:5
vest [1] - 36:27
vexatious [4] -
37:23, 39:24,
40:15, 123:8
vi [1] - 40:6
vicinity [1] -
90:7
view [18] - 4:10,
8:19, 10:29, 17:7,
17:8, 20:18, 26:2,
33:26, 35:27,
53:2, 58:20,
61:14, 77:25,
78:10, 88:26,
104:29, 118:13,
146:5
viewing [1] -
133:26
views [3] -
29:12, 98:14,
134:28
vindicate [5] -
33:3, 34:18, 38:9,
41:27, 81:10
vindicates [1] -
81:22
vindication [1] -
34:15
vires.. [1] -
111:15
virtually [1] -
107:22
virtue [5] - 28:2,
30:9, 30:10,
30:12, 86:23
virtues [1] -
30:24
visited [1] -
61:26
visual [2] -
128:15, 141:1
vital [2] - 48:14,
48:15
voiced [3] -
59:8, 132:21,
134:25
voicing [1] -
137:3
volume [2] -
3:12, 67:7
voluntary [6] -
84:7, 91:18,
91:20, 91:29,
92:18, 128:13
Voluntary [1] -
131:23
votes [1] - 54:15
W
Waddenzee [1] -
12:15
Walsh [7] -
26:19, 26:29,
27:3, 29:4, 30:29,
33:24, 38:27
Ward [4] - 96:2,
144:7, 144:22,
144:24
warming [2] -
25:19, 25:20
warrant [4] -
35:2, 39:8, 89:24,
90:18
Warrant [1] -
61:29
warrants [2] -
35:6, 39:11
WAS [1] -
150:21
was.. [1] - 61:16
waste [3] -
24:26, 24:27,
25:6
water [21] - 21:4,
22:24, 24:16,
88:13, 93:26,
94:1, 94:11,
94:14, 94:17,
134:13, 135:15,
135:17, 137:10,
140:17, 140:22,
140:24, 144:12,
144:19, 145:17,
146:19
Water [2] -
107:11, 107:21
watercourse..
[1] - 144:8
watercourses
[1] - 137:11
WBQ [1] - 3:25
weather [1] -
25:23
Wednesday [2] -
142:20, 149:26
week [1] -
149:26
weeks [1] -
36:11
welcome [1] -
48:12
welcomed [1] -
25:27
Welfare [3] -
60:15, 60:17,
60:19
well-being [1] -
98:20
well-
established [1] -
63:11
well-
intentioned [1] -
64:27
well-known [1] -
25:27
Wells [2] -
102:5, 102:7
West [1] - 87:15
western [1] -
144:25
whatsoever [3] -
73:18, 123:4,
126:3
wheeling' [1] -
60:10
whereby [2] -
19:8, 28:9
Whilst [1] - 7:24
whilst [2] -
33:24, 35:25
whole [11] -
35:20, 44:11,
48:22, 53:12,
58:20, 59:3,
64:20, 130:6,
139:18, 141:18,
142:25
wide [1] - 57:24
widely [1] -
54:23
wider [1] - 28:21
widest [2] -
35:7, 36:19
wild [1] - 133:15
Wildlife [1] -
96:18
wind [2] - 7:2,
7:3
wise [1] - 149:29
wish [6] - 19:13,
41:7, 41:8, 44:26,
72:5, 122:25
wished [2] -
122:13, 122:16
wishes [1] - 17:3
witness [1] -
114:14
witnessing [1] -
25:19
woefully [1] -
54:25
woman [4] -
27:7, 27:27, 28:8,
33:5
wonder [1] -
89:2
woodland [1] -
95:10
word [10] - 28:5,
67:21, 67:23,
74:21, 76:5,
84:18, 93:22,
132:19, 132:20
word-for-word
[1] - 132:20
wording [1] -
108:24
words [17] -
50:20, 53:25,
54:24, 54:28,
55:4, 56:1, 56:3,
56:7, 57:3, 67:22,
67:23, 68:13,
68:22, 75:2,
86:14, 86:18,
108:11
works [9] -
13:19, 19:25,
46:29, 47:2,
74:26, 75:4,
75:11, 102:24,
146:5
world [2] -
30:11, 98:27
worth [1] - 78:12
writing [4] -
92:19, 94:3,
96:21, 96:26
written [3] -
2:32, 70:19,
74:11
wrongly [2] -
43:4, 139:10
X
XAB [2] - 7:19,
7:24
xxvii [1] - 121:19
Y
year [4] - 24:27,
72:13, 120:24,
126:14
years [11] - 31:2,
40:12, 45:2,
46:14, 46:17,
126:11, 126:15,
126:16, 126:18,
133:13, 134:17
yesterday [9] -
3:11, 21:17,
49:25, 51:8,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
30
66:12, 67:15,
68:7, 74:13,
136:1
Z
Zimbabwe [1] -
23:17
zoned [2] -
95:12, 148:5
zoning [4] -
85:4, 85:8, 148:5,
148:6
€
€400 [1] - 16:4
É
Éireann [3] -
60:16, 62:19,
68:17
8
THE HIGH COURT
DUBLIN
COURT NO. 12
Record No. 2017/344JR
BETWEEN:
HELENA MERRIMAN, MICHAEL REDMOND, ADRIENNE MCDONNELL, PETER COLGAN, ELIZABETH MCDONNELL, TREVOR REDMOND, PATRICIA DEIGHEN, MARGARET THOMAS, NOEL REILLY, HELEN GILLIGAN, JAMES SCULLY, FERGUS RICE, NOEL DEEGAN, VALERIAN SALAGEAN, SIDNEY RYAN, GREG FARRELL, SHEELAGH MORRIS, JIMMY O'CONNELL, SILE HAND, DECLAN MCDONELL, ELIZABETH ROONEY & DESMOND O'CONNOR
and
FRIENDS OF THE IRISH ENVIRONMENT CLG APPLICANTS
and
FINGAL COUNTY Council RESPONDENT and
DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PLC FIRST NOTICE PARTY
and
IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SECOND AND THIRD
NOTICE PARTIESand
RYANAIR DAC FOURTH NOTICE PARTY
ACTION HEARD BY MR. JUSTICE BARRETT
ON TUESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER 2017 - DAY 8
Gwen Malone Stenography Services certify the following to be a verbatim transcript of their stenographic notes in the above-named action.
______________________ GWEN MALONE STENOGRAPHYSERVICES
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANTS: MR. JERRY HEALY SCMR. OISIN COLLINS BL
INSTRUCTED BY: O'CONNELL & CLARKE SOLICITORS
FOR FRIENDS OF THE IRISH ENVIRONMENT CLG: MR. JOHN KENNY BL
INSTRUCTED BY: FP LOGUE SOLICITORS
FOR FINGAL COUNTY Council: MR. CONLETH BRADLEY SCMR. TIM O'SULLIVAN BL
INSTRUCTED BY: THE LAW AGENTMS. HELEN O'NEILL
FOR DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY: MR. GARRET SIMONS SC
MR. BRIAN KENNEDY SCMR. FINTAN VALENTINE BL
INSTRUCTED BY: ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS
FOR IRELAND & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: MR. DENIS McDONALD SC
MR. CIARÁN TOLAND SCMR. CHRISTIAN KEELING BLMS. SUZANNE KINGSTON BL
INSTRUCTED BY: CHIEF STATE SOLICITORS OFFICE
FOR RYANAIR DAC: MR. MARTIN HAYDEN SCMR. DAMIEN KEANEY BL
INSTRUCTED BY: PHILIP LEE SOLICITORS
COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to any other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:05
10:05
10:05
10:06
10:06
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
3
THE HEARING COMMENCED ON TUESDAY,
17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 AS FOLLOWS:
REGISTRAR: Resume at hearing, as I understand it,
Friends of the Irish Environment CLG -v- Fingal County
Council.
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. McDONALD RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
MR. McDONALD: May it please the Court. On Friday,
Judge, I had been looking at the actual EIA that had
been carried out at the An Bord Pleanála level and
there were just two other observations I wished to make
about that process. The first relates to Mr. Healy's
suggestion that An Bord Pleanála were approaching this
on the basis of a 10 year perspective and I would be
respectfully disagreeing with that suggestion on the
part of Mr. Healy; I don't believe that the An Bord
Pleanála materials that I addressed on Friday bear this
out at all.
There was certainly a 10 year period to allow the
runway to be constructed, but when one looks at the
main concerns that were addressed during the course of
that process it wasn't really in relation to
construction. There were certainly some concerns
expressed in relation to construction and the
consequences that it would have in terms of access and
so on, but the principle concerns related to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:07
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
4
operation of the runway. And, of course, the operation
of the runway was intended to be for a significant
period into the future. So I don't think it is correct
to suggest that the perspective of the EIA in that case
is limited to a ten year period. And it also, I think,
is borne out, I don't think it is necessary to look at
this now but it is borne out if you were to look at
Annex IV to the Directive which sets out the kind of
things you must look at in the context of EIA, a very
significant part of those considerations relate to the
operation of the project, not just the construction.
So I think it would be wrong to regard the 10 year
period as relevant in those circumstances. Clearly,
what An Bord Pleanála was required to do was to look
into the future and see what would the consequences or
impacts be once this runway was up and running. And
that's, indeed, what the main concerns of both sets of
Applicants here today relate to; the operation of the
runway, not to the construction of the runway.
Insofar as construction is concerned, I think it is
clear from the Inspector's Report -- again I don't
think it is necessary to look at this now -- I think it
is clear from the Inspector's Report that delays in the
project were always envisaged as a possibility. I will
just give the Court the reference for this. In Book 2
of the Merriman pleadings at Tab 14 at page 38, or page
364 if you are looking at the -- well, it is actually
the page opposite page 364 if you are looking at the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:08
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
5
books pagination, but it is page 38 of the internal
pagination of the Inspector's Report, what the
inspector said, and I can briefly read this out, under
the heading "Duration of permission sought" the
inspector says:
"A ten year permission is being sought in this
instance. As per details provided by Mr. Hamilton and
Mr. O'Donnell, on behalf of the Airport Authority, a
ten year permission is considered justified given the
size of the project and the potential for delays from
external factors where statutory responsibilities and
procedural matters will have to be satisfied in
addition to procurement procedures and compliance with
European requirements."
The inspector then observes in the next paragraph, he
says:
"That is reasonable in view of the size of the project,
the estimated three year construction period and the
potential for delay from external sources."
So clearly at the time this EIA was being carried out
there was an awareness on behalf of all parties in that
process that there was the, at least, the possibility
of delay in the project, having regard to external
sources. And that's really all I wanted to say about
the evidence before the Court.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
6
I now want to turn to whether a Section 42 decision can
be considered to be development consent for the
purposes of the EIA Directive. And before looking at
the cases, and I don't propose to look at very many of
the cases because I think the case-law establishes a
very clear authority for the proposition that Section
42 is not a development consent, but before I look at
that case-law I do want to look at Section 42 itself
very briefly. What we will be saying, before I open
its term, what we will be saying is that it is crucial
that Section 42 does not allow the Planning Authority
to interfere with the conditions of the planning
permission or to extend the scope or extent of what is
to be constructed under the planning permission. The
terms of the planning permission remain the same, the
work authorised remains the same, and if any
enforcement action subsequently has to be taken in
relation to the planning permission it is the original
permission that will be referred to for that purpose,
not the Section 42 decision.
But you will find the relevant section of Section 42 in
the form in which it was at the time the decision was
made at Tab 4 of book 1 of the Books of Authorities. I
appreciate this has been opened substantially by
Mr. Healy already but I do want to draw attention to
some features of it, if I may.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Just so I'm sure, I have section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:11
10:11
10:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
7
28 at Tab 4 but I have Section 42 --
MR. McDONALD: Yes, yes, actually section 28 is section
28 of the 2010 Act, which inserts what was then,
certainly in 2017, the current form of Section 42.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Very good, okay.
MR. McDONALD: And it is in somewhat different terms to
the provision that was looked at by Mr. Justice Gannon
back in the McCoy -v- Dun Laoghaire County Council
case, which is at Tab 55 of Book 3 I think. But,
firstly, if I just ask the Court to look briefly at
subsection (1) before we come to paragraph (a).
Subsection (1) simply says
"On application to it in that behalf a Planning
Authority shall...."
And I draw attention to that word "shall".
"....as regards a particular permission, extend the
appropriate period by such additional period not
exceeding 5 years as the authority considers requisite
to enable the development to which the permission
relates to be completed provided that each of the
following requirements is complied with:"
So I draw attention just for the moment to the word
"shall". Clearly, the Planning Authority, therefore, is
required to extend the period where the relevant
requirements which are set out in the section are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
8
complied with. But you will note that the language now
is "provided that each of the following requirements is
complied with", it has lost the language that Mr. Healy
drew attention to when looking at the McCoy case, the
"if, and only if". So that to extent the observations
of Mr. Justice Gannon in McCoy must be treated with
some degree of caution. Although the underlying
principle I think is still extant.
If we then look at paragraph (a), that's the paragraph
that deals with circumstances where the development has
started and has been substantially completed before the
expiration. That's not immediately relevant for
present purposes and I will pass over it. Sorry,
that's (i) I should have said of paragraph (a). If you
then go down to (ii) of paragraph (a), that's the
provision which is inserted now in Section 42 by this
amendment made in 2010. And, of course, I draw
attention to the fact that it is an amendment made in
2010 and I think when one thinks back to all this
country has experienced over the last decade one can
understand why this provision was enacted at that time,
and you will see that very clearly when you look at the
first of the four subparagraphs that follow, and that
is:
"(I) that there were considerations of a commercial,
economic or technical nature beyond the control of the
applicant which substantially militated against either
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
9
the commencement of development or the carrying out of
substantial works pursuant to the planning permission."
And that obviously, I would submit it is obvious, in
any event, but that follows from the economic shock
that the country suffered in the period after
2007/2008. It is understandable why the legislature
should wish to introduce such provision, indeed were
still feeling the effects of the stasis that struck the
construction industry at that time. We have a shortage
of housing, for example, because housing schemes
weren't proceeded with.
But what I do draw attention to is the language that's
used there because much of the criticism of Fingal's
decision by Mr. Healy seemed to suggest that Fingal
weren't themselves sufficiently expert to look at the
material that was put before them by the airport
authority and that in some way Fingal had a duty to
essentially find or make a specific finding that the
airport authority was definitely unable to proceed
because of these economic circumstances. But that's
not what the paragraph says at all, in our submission.
What it says is, simply, that there were
"considerations of a commercial, economic or technical
nature beyond the control of the Applicant which
substantially militated against...". That's a
relatively low standard, I would respectfully suggest.
It doesn't mean that the applicant for permission has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
10
to prove beyond doubt or even prove as a matter of
probability that it wasn't able to proceed with the
development. It simply "substantially militates
against the commencement of the works or the carrying
out of the works pursuant to the planning permission."
I would also respectfully suggest that you don't need
to have an economics degree in order to form a view as
to whether there were considerations of that kind which
substantially militated against the commencement of
development or the carrying out of works. I would
respectfully suggesting that a Planning Authority, who
is used to considering a wide range of sometimes
difficult and significantly more complex than this
considerations, is well capable of forming a view as to
whether there were such considerations -- and that's
all that has to be established -- which "substantially
militated against the commencement of the carrying
out".
If you then look at the next paragraph II:
"(II) that there have been no significant changes in
the development objectives in the development plan or
in regional development objectives in the regional
planning guidelines for the area of the planning
authority since the date of the permission such that
the development would no longer be consistent with the
proper planning and sustainable development of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:17
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
11
area."
I suggest that's an important safeguard. It is one
which the Planning Authority is in a unique position to
see because the Planning Authority will be familiar
with all of the relevant provisions of the Development
Plan and the developed objective guidelines at a
regional level and so on. And, of course, the
consequence is that -- and this I think is relevant to
the EU law aspect that I will be coming to in a
moment -- the consequence is that if there has been a
significant change which does mean that the development
would no longer be consistent with the proper planning
and sustainable development of the area then the
Planning Authority cannot make the order under Section
42. I think that is of significance when one comes to
look at the European case-law.
And the same issue really arises in relation to III,
that's dealing with changes that have occurred as a
consequence of any guidelines issued by the Minister
such as to make the development inconsistent with the
proper planning and sustainable development of the
area. Again, that's obviously an issue which the
Planning Authority is well capable of forming a view
on, and it is also an issue which is of, obviously,
general application because it is an issue as to what
would be appropriate for the area. And the same
applies, I think, to the preceding paragraph.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:18
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
12
You then have IV in capitals and it says:
"Where the development has not commenced, that an
environmental impact assessment, or an appropriate
assessment, or both of those assessments, if required,
was or were carried out before the permission was
granted."
And some significant criticism has been made of that
provision. But again I would suggest that it is a
perfectly understandable provision in the
circumstances. I would suggest that the legislature
may well have had in mind the kind of considerations
which this Court considered in the Harrington case;
that, obviously, if there has been a development
consent given the period or duration of that
development consent is about to expire. If it is about
to expire then, obviously, any ability to challenge
them under the two month period in section 50 has also
expired. And, therefore, I think it would be perfectly
understandable why the legislature, in those
circumstances, should take the view that it is entitled
to include a provision of that kind, and also entitled
to make a distinction between circumstances where a
development has commenced, where somebody has acted on
the principle of legal certainty, acted on the planning
permission which was previously granted and
circumstances where no one has acted on foot of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
13
permission, where no works have in fact been commenced.
I think there is a significant distinction between
those two circumstances which the legislature was
entitled to differentiate or make a distinction between
and it is understandable why, certainly in my
submission it is understandable why the legislature
would have proceeded in the way that it did and to make
a provision in those terms.
If you then just go on to consider the remaining
provisions of Section 42. I don't think paragraphs
(b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) are hugely relevant,
they are all matters of what I would suggest are good
administration.
If you then go down to subsection (2) you have what I
would submit is a very important provision in the
context of European issues which this Court has to
decide because it makes clear that the Planning
Authority may only change the conditions in one respect
only, and that's in relation to "security for the
satisfactory completion" of the development. Obviously
a provision which is consistent with the desire to see
a development for which planning permission has already
been granted, a development being brought to completion
and not being left uncompleted. It would defeat the
object of the section if one could have a situation
where developments could be left uncompleted
notwithstanding an extension of time having been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:20
10:20
10:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
14
granted. But sorry, I should look at the text of
subsection (2). It says:
"(2) In extending the appropriate period under
subsection (1) a planning authority may attach
conditions requiring the giving of adequate security
for the satisfactory completion of the proposed
development, and/or may add to or vary any conditions
to which the permission is already subject...."
And then what follows is desperately important:
"....under section 34(4)(g)."
And section 34(4)(g), I don't think it is in the
book but that's the section that empowers Planning
Authorities when granting permission to impose
conditions requiring security to be given for the
adequate completion of the development.
So what is absolutely key, I think, in the context of
European law, is that there is no ability on the part
of the Council to change any of the other conditions,
and, indeed, there is no ability on the part of the
Council under this provision to extend the scope or
extent of the works to be carried out pursuant to a
planning permission.
If you then go down to subsection (3). It, I think,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
15
identifies very clearly that the legislature did not
have in mind that there would be public participation
in this phase, did not have in mind that there would be
submissions made at this stage. And I think when one
looks at the provisions of sub-section (3) one can see
this very clearly because it imposes very strict time
limits on the Planning Authority to make a decision as
expeditiously as possible. Subparagraph (a) says:
" Where an application is duly made under this section
to a planning authority and any requirements of, or
made under, regulations under section 43 are complied
with as regards the application, the planning authority
shall make its decision on the application as
expeditiously as possible."
Imposing a positive duty on the planning authority to
make its decision as expeditiously as possible. Then
go down to subparagraph (b):
"(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph
(a), it shall be the objective of the planning
authority to ensure that it shall give notice of its
decision on an application under this section within
the period of 8 weeks..."
And then it stays "beginning on" and I don't think the
"beginning on" is hugely relevant. But, clearly, you
have two provisions here; a requirement that it would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
16
be the objective of the Planning Authority to give its
decision within eight weeks, and secondly, a positive
duty imposed on the Planning Authority to make its
decision as expeditiously as possible. Both, I would
suggest, inconsistent with the idea that there would be
public participation at this stage, and inconsistent
with the suggestion that there would be an opportunity
to make submissions by third parties.
If you then look at subsection (4). I think it is
important to look as subsection (4) because I was a
little bit concerned during the course of the
submissions made by the Applicants that they were
putting before the Court an appalling vista where
somebody could get endless extensions and re-extensions
of time. Subsection 4 makes it quite clear that one
can't have that. It says:
"A decision to extend an appropriate period shall be
made once and once only..."
Very firm words.
"....under the section and a planning authority shall
not further extend the appropriate period."
Again a very sensible provision, one which ties in with
subsection (2) and clearly says this is the limit to
which an extension can be granted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:23
10:24
10:24
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
17
Subsection (5) is of marginal importance but it simply
provides that any decision must be entered on the
register. That's, obviously, a public register so the
public become aware of any decision in that way and the
public can challenge the decision by judicial review,
just as the present Applicants have done.
Then subsection (6) says:
"Where a decision to extend is made under this section,
section 40 shall, in relation to the permission to
which the decision relates, be construed and have
effect, subject to, and in accordance with, the terms
of the decision."
And that has to be read in conjunction with section 40.
And section 40 isn't in the books that were presented
to you previously but it is in the book that we handed
in last Friday, which, unfortunately, I have in a
slightly different form to the Court's book and I'm not
sure what number it is at in that book. Oh, Mr. Hayden
has it. I will tell you what number it is at now. It
is actually Tab 1 of that book.
For completeness, it is no harm to have regard to
section 40 because it is the provision which deals with
the duration of a planning permission. You will see
the marginal note says "limit of duration of
permission" in section 40, subsection (1) says:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
18
"Subject to subsection (2), a permission granted under
this Part, shall on the expiration of the appropriate
period (but without prejudice to the validity of
anything done pursuant thereto prior to the expiration
of that period) cease to have effect as regards -
a) in case the development to which the permission
relates is not commenced during that period, the entire
development, and
(b) in case the development is commenced during that
period, so much of the development as is not completed
within that period."
The "appropriate period" is actually defined in
subsection (3) and it says:
"In this section and in section 42 , "the appropriate
period" means -
(a) in case in relation to the permission a period is
specified pursuant to section 41 , that period, and
(b) in any other case, the period of five years
beginning on the date of the grant of permission."
So section 40 is simply setting out the limit of
duration of the permission and when one looks back at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
19
Sub-section (6) of Section 42, what subsection (6) of
Section 42 and read in conjunction with section 40 is
saying is that the planning permission previously
granted will not cease to have effect until the end of
the extended period. That's really all it does. So I
think it is just of some relevance just to consider
those two provisions together. And, obviously, I think
they are consistent and they identify that what the
Council is dealing with here is simply the limit of
duration of the planning permission, it is not dealing
with anything else.
Now, subsection (7) I just draw attention to for
completeness, it is not in issue in this case, it only
applies, as you will see:
"....where a decision to extend an appropriate period
has been made by a planning authority prior to the
coming into operation of this section..."
And in the case of those particular class of case there
can be further extensions of time granted. So that's
obviously not relevant to the present case because the
present case is governed by subsection (4) and in the
present case the extension that has been granted in
this case is not capable of extension in the future.
So I just thought it was important just to draw
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
20
attention to some features of Section 42 before I ask
the Court to look at the European case-law. Again I
emphasise the fact that the Planning Authority is not
able to interfere with the conditions of the planning
permission, and secondly, it is not able to extend the
scope or extent of what is to be constructed under the
planning permission, and the terms of the planning
permission remain the same, and the works authorised by
the planning permission remain the same.
Again just before I turn to the European authorities I
do think it is worth looking at two further authorities
on Section 42 that the Court has not had opened to it
yet and they are both in Book 3 of the Book of
Authorities, the Coll case and the McDowell case.
Coll is at Tab 44 of the book No. 3 and that's a
decision of Mr. Justice Peart, as the Court will see,
of July 2005. I don't think it is necessary to go
through the entire of the judgment, I just want to pick
out one or two passages in it. But you will see from
the first sentence of the judgment on page 1 that in
that case the Notice Party, Liam Gillespie, had applied
for planning permission for the erection of a shopping
centre and filling station with a sewerage treatment
plant at Bunbeg, Co. Donegal, in December 1998 and that
was subsequently extended under the equivalent of
Section 42 of the 2000 Act and the applicant, who was a
local resident, objected to the Section 42 decision.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:29
10:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
21
She also objected to another decision in relation a
public road, which isn't immediately relevant. But the
passage I want to draw the Court's attention to is at
page 16 of the judgment and it is just a short passage.
It is the second paragraph on page 16. Mr. Justice
Peart said:
"The second decision which the applicant seeks to have
quashed is that by which the respondent extended the
duration of the notice party's planning permission
until the 28th October 2005. The applicant has
submitted that the requirements of section 42 of the
Planning and Development Act, 2000 have not been
complied with in as much as the respondent could not
have been able to form the view as required by section
42(1)(c)(iii) that "the development will be completed
within a reasonable time"."
And they were obviously relying on the old provisions
of Section 42, the one that I skipped over in opening
the Section 42 to the Court a moment ago. But it is
the next paragraph that I want to draw particular
attention to. Mr. Justice Peart says:
"In my view, firstly, the applicant enjoys no locus
standi to seek the relief she seeks under this heading.
Firstly, she did not participate in the planning
process at all..."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
22
And obviously that is not the case here insofar as the
Merriman Applicants are concerned. But you will see
that it is the next part of the sentence that is
relevant for present purposes because Mr. Justice Peart
says:
".... but secondly and critically, the power of the
planning authority to exercise a discretion to extend
the duration of a planning permission is one which may
be exercised appropriately without consultation with
the public. It is not necessary under the statutory
scheme to publish any notice of intention to apply for
an extension, and neither is it necessary to erect any
notice at the site of the development indicating an
intention to apply for an extension. Under that scheme,
as provided by section 42 of the 2000 Act, a planning
authority shall on application being made to it, extend
the appropriate period for such additional period as it
considers requisite to enable the development to be
completed provided certain requirements are complied
with, one of which is that referred to already, namely
that the planning authority is satisfied that the
development will be completed within a reasonable time.
The applicant has no entitlement to be consulted in the
making of that decision and therefore in my view cannot
be heard to raise objections to the decision made. It
is a matter within the discretion of the planning
authority, and provided that the discretion is
exercised in a judicial manner it is a decision which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
23
then planning authority may make in its discretion."
And then he goes on to consider the Applicant's
particular submissions in relation to development. I
don't think it is necessary to open those. But you
will see that is consistent, I think, with what we saw
in the terms of section 42; the fact that the Planning
Authority has a very limited time to make its decision
and so on.
There is also then at the next tab the McDowell case.
That was a case where Roscommon County Council had
refused to make an order under section 42 in relation
to a construction of a house in Co. Roscommon, being
constructed by the Applicants. They then challenged
the decision of the County Council by way of judicial
review. The issue in the case was whether the Council
was entitled to refuse under section 42 in
circumstances where the development, it was argued
certainly by the Council, was not being constructed in
accordance with the conditions of the planning
permission. This I think is relevant to one of the
arguments that Mr. Healy made, I think last Thursday,
where he was suggesting that if the development here
was commenced in breach of a condition of the planning
permission then the section 42 decision could not be
made.
A different view was taken by Mr. Justice Finnegan in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:33
10:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
24
this case and you will see that if you turn to page 12
of the judgment. He identifies on page 12 the McCoy
case. He then refers to a judgment of Ms. Justice
Laffoy to same effect in Littondale -v- Wicklow County
Council. At page 13 he refers to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Garden Village Construction -v-
Wicklow County Council. He then identifies the issue
for determination and it is really that page and page
14 that I want to draw attention to what he says. He
says:
"The Planning Authority having concluded (the
correctness of that conclusion not being a matter for
my consideration) that the development being undertaken
was not in compliance with the particular planning
permission were they entitled to have regard to that
conclusion and on the basis of the same refuse to
extend the duration of the planning permission? The
Respondents argument is that they have notwithstanding
the wording of section 42 of the Act of 2000 and the
decisions to which I have referred a residual
discretion which they were entitled to exercise and
refuse the extension. They argue that it would be
illogical for them to extend the duration in the light
of their conclusion as a development when completed
would not be in compliance with the planning
permission. There are a number of factors which
militate against my accepting this view."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:35
10:35
10:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
25
It is really the first of them that I think is
relevant. He says:
"1. The wording of section 42 is clear. It provides
that if the Planning Authority are satisfied on certain
matters the Planning Authority must grant an extension.
It is clear on the authorities that to take into
account any other matter, fact or circumstance is ultra
vires."
And that is consistent, obviously, with the views
expressed by the Supreme Court in Garden Village and
consistent, also, with the views expressed by
Ms. Justice Laffoy in the Littondale case and by
Mr. Justice Gannon in the McCoy case. And we
respectfully submit that there is a significant body of
case-law now as to the interpretation of Section 42.
There are decisions not just of the High Court but of
the Supreme Court in relation to section 42, and in
those circumstances we would respectfully suggest that
those are decisions which this Court should follow and
accept as representing the law on section 42. We have
in the additional book that was circulated on Friday,
or handed in on Friday, we have included the Worldport
decision, which says that even if all one had before
one was a series -- I don't think it is necessary to
look at the decision -- that even if all that one had
before you was a succession of High Court decisions,
the High Court Judge should be, at minimum, very slow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
26
to depart from the decision of a colleague. That's
simply the principle, I don't think it is necessary to
open the authorities, or to open Worldport.
Can I then address the European law having looked at
section 42, having looked at the way in which section
42 has been treated in the Irish case-law. All of the
authorities that I want to look, bar one, in relation
to this are in book 3 of the Book of Authorities. But
before I look at book 3 can I ask the Court to look
again at book 1 of the Book of Authorities and at the
EIA Directive, which is at Tab 13 of the book No. 1.
Can I ask you to turn -- there are two sets of
pagination on the EIA Directive, there is pagination on
the top right-hand corner and I'm looking at page 24 if
you are looking at that pagination, or page 118, if you
are looking at the books pagination. It is Tab 13. I
don't know whether the Court has that?
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: My Directive only goes to page
21.
MR. McDONALD: Oh! It should certainly go up to page
24. It is page 118 of the books pagination. It is
Annex II.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: It is not there I'm afraid.
MR. McDONALD: Oh! Well, we will have to hand one up
then. I'm terribly sorry about that, Judge. My
apologies.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Not at all. Sorry, hang on a
second. I beg your pardon. Annex II?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
27
MR. McDONALD: Annex II, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: That's at page 11 in my
Directive.
MR. McDONALD: Page 24 certainly on mine.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: This is Directive 2011/92/EU?
MR. McDONALD: It is, yes, absolutely. It may simply
be a different print out of the Directive.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: No, because it is the official
journal reference and it says L26 11.
MR. McDONALD: I certainly have -- well, I have 2011
L0092 and that's also the official journal. So I'm not
sure what has happened there, Judge.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Well as long as we are looking at
the right annex. "Projects referred to in Article
4(2)", is that it?
MR. McDONALD: Yes, exactly. But just before I come to
point 13 of Annex II. Annex II deals with "Projects
referred to in Article 4(2)" and those are projects
which do not automatically require EIA but which Member
States can subject to EIA, depending on the
circumstances. I want to ask the Court to look at
point No. 13, which is the very last paragraph of Annex
II, and I'm asking the Court to do that for two
reasons, first because it features, I would suggest,
significantly in the Pro-Baine case, which I'm about to
open, and secondly, it is also relevant to an argument
Mr. Kenny made on Friday, or possibly it was on
Thursday, but it certainly is an argument that
Mr. Kenny made. You will see that point 13 says that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
28
Member States can require EIA in this particular
circumstance.
"(a) Any change or extension of projects listed in
Annex I or this Annex, already authorised, executed or
in the process of being executed, which may have
significant adverse effects on the environment (change
or extension not included in Annex I)."
I want to just look at the language which is used
there. Mr. Kenny suggested in the course of his
submissions that the reference to an extension of a
project would extend to the extension of the duration
of a development consent. In my respectful submission,
both when one looks at the language which is used here
and when one looks at the Pro-Baine decision, which I'm
going to look at in a moment, that is, with respect to
Mr. Kenny, I would say incorrect. But just let's look
at the language first of all.
"Any change or extension of projects...."
One has to look at what is meant by "project" in that
context and I want to look at that in a moment. But
"Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex
I". Just pausing there. A runway of more than 2.1
kilometres is an Annex I project. So any change or
extension of a project, including a runway project of
the kind that we are talking about here, may require
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
29
EIA. But it is:
"Any change of extension of projects listed in an Annex
I already authorised, executed or in the process of
being executed."
So it covers three situations: One where the project
has previously been authorised; one where the project
has previously been authorised and has been executed;
and one where the project has been previously
authorised and is in the course of execution. But all
three of those eventualities are covered and I think
that's important when one comes to look at the
Pro-Baine decision. But in addition to that, going
back to the meaning of the word "projects", its only
changes are extension of projects which is fall within
this particular provision. You need to go back, and
unfortunately I don't have the pagination of the
version of the Directive that the Court has, but one
needs to go back to Article 1 to look at what "project"
means because it is not development consent. You will
see it in Article 1 paragraph (2) subsection (a):
""Project" means the execution of construction works or
of other installations or schemes, or other
interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape
including those involving the extraction of mineral
resources."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:42
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
30
Having looked at that definition of "project" if you
then go back to look at point 13(a) and the language
which is used in point 13(a) and you substitute for the
word "projects" the language of Article 1(2)(a) I think
it is quite clear that it is only a "change or
extension of construction works or other installations
or a change or extension of interventions in the
natural surroundings" is caught by point No. 13. And I
think that's manifestly clear and reenforced by the
decision of the Court in the Pro-Baine case.
In order to come within point 13 there must be a change
or extension of a project, as defined, whether that
project was already authorised and no construction work
has been carried out, whether it is a project that has
been previously authorised and executed, or whether it
is a project that has previously been authorised and is
still in the process of being executed. It is only any
change to the physical works or to the ground over and
above what has already been authorised is what
paragraph 13 or point 13 captures.
So just having looked at that book I now want to turn
to book No. 3, if I may, and to the Pro-Baine decision,
which is at Tab 69 of that book. The Court will recall
that decision, it was opened by Mr. Kenny on Friday, or
on Thursday, and that was a case of an existing
landfill site already in operation in Belgium. I think
it was Belgium. Yes, it was Belgium. New legislation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:44
10:44
10:45
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
31
was introduced, the new legislation required all
existing operators of landfill projects to submit a
conditioning plan to an authority in Belgium and that
authority then had to decide whether to allow the
operation to continue and question was whether the
decision by that authority to allow a development to
continue constituted development consent. Can I ask
the Court to look at what the European Court or the
Court of Justice said at paragraph 26 and following
paragraphs of the judgment because you will see that
the court in its decision is influenced by what was
said in point 13 of Annex II, that we have just looked
at. But let's look at paragraph 26:
"It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether that
decision constitutes a ‘consent’ within the meaning of
Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337."
The decision in question being the decision of the
competent authority in that case to allow the landfill
project to continue. And then it says:
"In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the
concept of ‘consent’ is defined in Article 1(2) of
Directive 85/337...."
That was the previous Directive.
"....as being 'the decision of the competent authority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
32
or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed
with the project'. Accordingly, there can only be
'consent', within the meaning of that Directive, where
a 'project' is to be carried out.
The definition of the concept of a 'project' set out in
Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 does not specify
whether changes to or extensions of existing projects
may themselves be considered 'projects'."
And then it says:
"However, inter alia, the installations and sites
listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337, to which
reference is made in Article 4(2) thereof, are
'projects' within the meaning of that Directive.
They then deal with point 11 which is not relevant for
the present purposes. But going down to the next
sentence:
"Point 13 of that Annex includes in the list of
projects referred to 'any change or extension of
projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already
authorised, executed or in the process of being
executed, which may have significant adverse effects on
the environment...'.
And having quoted from point 13 they go on to say:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
33
"It follows from those provisions that any change to or
extension of a landfill site, such as the one at issue
in the main proceedings, may constitute a 'project'
within the meaning of Directive 85/337 where it may
have significant adverse effects on the environment.
As has been established by the Court, the term
'project' refers to works or interventions involving
alterations to the physical aspect of the site..."
And then they say, and this, in my submission, is a
critical paragraph:
"Thus, the mere renewal of an existing permit to
operate a landfill site cannot, in the absence of any
works or interventions involving alterations to the
physical aspect of the site, be classified as a
'project' within the meaning of Article 1(2) of
Directive 85/337."
So the Court made a very clear distinction in that case
to the extension of duration of a development consent
and the extension of the scope of a project. The
former, the extension of duration, is not a development
consent, but the latter is. And in my respectful
submission, that is a complete answer to the
submissions which have been made on behalf of the
Applicants in this case. All that section 42 does is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
34
to permit the duration of the existing permit to
continue. It is the exact parallel between the
Pro-Baine case and the present case. That's all
section 42 does. It doesn't authorise, it cannot
authorise the carrying out of any additional works
beyond what was previously authorised by the decision
granted by An Bord Pleanála. It would only be in
circumstances where it did authorise the execution of
new works that it would be a new project within the
meaning of the Directive and within the meaning of
point 13 of Annex II.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I just have noted there when
Mr. Healy was speaking: "So the question posed by
Pro-Baine is: Will the decision of the Respondent
under challenge lead to physical change in North
County Dublin?" And the answer to that question is of
course.
MR. McDONALD: It will lead to physical change, not the
section 42 decision but the original planning
permission will lead to change. What this is talking
about is going beyond what was permitted by the
original permission. And where you go beyond what was
permitted by the original permission point 13 of Annex
II is engaged. You have a new project at that stage, a
project which requires a new authorisation. That's the
critical distinction, in my respectful submission.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Well I think the point he's
making isn't. It is that but for the decision to
extend nothing would happen.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:49
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
35
MR. McDONALD: Well I don't think that's the way the
court here is dealing with it at all. I mean, when one
looks at the language of that paragraph, "mere renewal
of an existing permit to operate a landfill site
cannot, in the absence of any works or interventions
involving alterations to the physical aspect of the
site, be classified as a 'project'." Here you have an
existing -- going back to the language of point 13 of
Annex II -- you have an existing project which is
already authorised. Okay, no works have been executed
yet, no -- sorry, other than the small works that were
executed just before the period expired. But it is one
which is already authorised, it is in the course, it is
in the process of being executed. But nothing else has
happened in relation to the project, the project hasn't
been extended. All that has happened is that the
duration of the development consent has been extended.
And that I think is absolutely crucial when one looks
at the language of point 13 of Annex II, when one looks
at the language of paragraph 32 of the judgment. You
are not in fact here extending in any way beyond what
was previously authorised, what was "already
authorised", to use the language of point 13. There
is, therefore, no new project. And that's the critical
thing.
There would be a new project if section 42 had
authorised the Council and the Council had granted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
36
Dublin Airport Authority, for example, an extension of
the runway beyond the three point whatever kilometres
it was given permission for in 2007 or, or if they had
allowed the airport authority to undertake some new
ancillary facility ancillary to that runway. But
nothing like that happened, nor is anything like that
permissible under section 42. There is nothing in the
language of section 42 to permit that to happen. And
therefore I go back to the language of paragraph 32 of
the judgment, the "mere renewal of an existing permit
cannot in the absence of works or interventions
involving alterations". There are no alterations
whatsoever to what has been already authorised, to use
the language of point 13.
So, in my respectful submission, paragraph 32 of the
judgment provides a clear and complete answer and what
the Applicants have done in this case is to both
misconstrue point 13 of Annex II and to misconstrue the
judgment of the European Court, which I would
respectfully suggest is very clear in its term.
And that's really all I wanted to say about the
Pro-Baine case. The next authority to which I wish to
refer is the decision of the Court in the Wells case,
which identifies another circumstance in which a later
event or decision might give rise to a new development
consent. The Wells case, firstly I want to look very
briefly at Tab 60 of the book, which is the opinion of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:53
10:54
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
37
the Advocate General. As you will see, I think there
are two important paragraphs, paragraphs 15 and 17, in
order to understand the facts of that case. If you
look at page 730 of the pagination, paragraph 15
explains that:
". In 1947 permission to work Conygar Quarry was
granted under an IDO. In 1991 quarrying works, which
had stopped many years earlier, resumed for a short
period. The resumption resulted in blasting operations,
movements of heavy goods vehicles on the lane running
past Mrs Wells' house and crushing operations. Those
workings caused cracking to Mrs Wells' house and forced
her to keep her windows shut."
Then if you look at paragraph 17:
"The operators exercised their right of appeal to the
Secretary of State. On 25 June 1997 he issued his
decision letter in which he imposed..."
And this I think is the passage I would underline:
"...54 Conditions on the planning permission."
And that is something that the Court then characterises
as a fundamental change in the permission. And of
course a fundamental change in a permission must - and
one doesn't need any decision of the European Court to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
38
tell you that - constitute a new development consent.
It is a perfectly obvious proposition that if you could
simply substitute a whole rake of new conditions that
would be a new development consent. You would then be
looking to that decision in terms of enforcement,
rather than the original permission. Whereas in this
case, if anyone needs to enforce the planning
permission granted in the future as against the airport
authority what document will they hand up to the Judge?
They will hand up the decision of An Bord Pleanála,
which sets out all of the conditions which must be
observed as a matter of law by the Dublin Airport
Authority.
But if you look at page -- sorry, Judge, the judgment
is at the next tab, Tab 61, and I want to just look
really at one paragraph of the judgment. Well, two
paragraphs in the judgment and they are paragraphs 46
and 47. Actually I should start at paragraph 44. I'm
terribly sorry. At para. 44 the court said:
"In the main proceedings, the owners of Conygar Quarry
were obliged under the Planning and Compensation Act
1991, if they wished to resume working of the quarry,
to have the old mining permission registered and to
seek decisions determining new planning conditions and
approving matters reserved by those conditions. Had
they not done so, the permission would have ceased to
have effect."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:56
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
39
45. Without new decisions such as those referred to in
the previous paragraph, there would no longer have been
'consent', within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
Directive 85/337, to work the quarry.
46. It would undermine the effectiveness of that
directive...."
That's the EIA Directive.
"....to regard as mere modification of an existing
'consent' the adoption of decisions which, in
circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,
replace not only the terms but the very substance of a
prior consent, such as the old mining permission."
Then at 47:
"Accordingly, decisions such as the decision
determining new conditions and the decision approving
matters reserved by the new conditions for the working
of Conygar Quarry must be considered to constitute, as
a whole, a new 'consent'...."
And you contrast that with the present case where under
section 42 Fingal has no ability to impose new
conditions, certainly no ability to impose new
conditions which would replace the very substance of a
prior consent. And just looking at paragraph 46, which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:58
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
40
I think is the key paragraph there:
"It would undermine the effectiveness of that directive
to regard as mere modification of an existing 'consent'
the adoption of decisions which....replace not only the
terms but the very substance of a prior consent..."
I suppose two things can be drawn from that. It
appears to be clear that the court would not have had
difficulty with what they describe as a "mere
modification of an existing consent", and secondly,
they do have a problem, obviously, where there is in
substance a new consent. Which is not the case here.
But what you have here in this case is, when one looks
at all of the law in section 42 in this jurisdiction,
simply an extension of the duration of an existing
planning permission. And that is something, which I
indicated on Friday, is something which is within the
competence of national authorities to determine, the
length of a planning permission, and there is nothing
in European law which in any way interferes with or
prescribes any minimum period, or rather, maximum
period for a development consent.
I do want to look after Krizan in a moment because I
think Krizan has been mischaracterised by the
Applicants. But before I do that there are two Irish
decisions, the first of them in book 3, that are, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10:58
10:59
10:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
41
think, of some assistance to the Court and the first is
a decision of the Supreme Court in Dunne -v- The
Minister for the Environment which is at Tab 43 of the
same book. You will see in this case the Supreme Court
following the Wells decision and drawing attention, in
particular, to the paragraph on which we rely,
paragraph 46 of the judgment, and distinguishing the
decision in issue in this case from the observations of
the European Court in Wells. And if I could just look
at the headnote, I appreciate it is not a section 42
case but there is a parallel between the arguments made
by the Applicants in the present proceedings before the
Court and the arguments made by the applicants in Dunne
-v- Minister for the Environment, and that was a case,
it was quite a controversial case at the time, the
Carrickmines Castle case. You will see if you look the
headnote that Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council had
"....commenced road building works at a site which was
of archaeological significance, following authorisation
pursuant to consents and approvals issued by the first
defendant under the Roads Act 1993. There was, in fact,
no distinct consent for the purposes of the EIA
Directive, rather, the requirements of the Directive
had been implemented through the Roads Act 1993. During
the course of development works, it became apparent
that the nature and extent of the archaeological
features at the site were greater than had been
anticipated at the time of the initial environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
42
impact statement. Works were then halted for some time
following various applications for injunctive and other
relief by persons concerned about the interference with
a national monument caused by the works. The approval
of the first defendant under the National Monuments
Acts for interference with the national monument for
the purpose of continuing the road building works was
subsequently struck down as being ultra vires.
Modifications to the road building plan were then made
by the various State parties so as to preserve some of
the archaeological features."
This is the bit where the parallel arises.
"In the meantime, the National Monuments (Amendment)
Act 2004 amended the National Monuments Act 1930 and
introduced a special provision, at section 8, which
provided, inter alia, that the consent of the first
defendant was not required in relation to the carrying
out of any works by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County
Council affecting any national monument in connection
with the completion of the roadway but that any such
works should be carried out on the directions of the
Minister. In considering whether to issue such
directions, under section 8 the Minister was not
concerned if such works would interfere with national
monuments if they were in the public interest. Works
recommenced pursuant to the directions issued by the
first defendant."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:01
11:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
43
Then you will see:
"The plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations that
section 8 of the Act of 2004 was invalid as being in
contravention of the Constitution..."
But crucially for our purposes:
"...that the directions of the first defendant pursuant
to section 8 were invalid by reason of the failure to
comply with the EIA Directive....and it was submitted
that the works....constituted a project within the
meaning ascribed by the Directive and that the
directions issued by the Minister constituted a
development consent...."
So that's the parallel argument that was made in that
case. And you will see if you turn to page 216 the
Chief Justice delivering the --
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I wonder could we just pause
there.
MR. McDONALD: Of course, absolutely
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Now this might take about ten
minutes so if you want to take a break or whatever and
I will just deal with these matters.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:26
11:27
11:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
44
THE HEARING ADJOURNED BRIEFLY AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
MR. McDONALD: I was looking at the decision of the
Supreme Court in Dunne -v- The Minister for the
Environment, it was at Tab 43 of book 3 and I was just
going to ask the Court to turn to page 216 of the
judgment of the court delivered by Chief Justice Murray
and you will see at paragraph 43 on page 216 the Chief
Justice says that:
"The concept of "development consent" has been
considered in a number of cases, including Wells -v-
Secretary of State..."
If you then look at page 217 of the report, at
paragraph 46 Chief Justice Murray actually quotes from
the paragraph that I just opened to the Court a few
moments ago, paragraph 46 of the judgment in Wells, the
one that talks about the conditions being replaced and
the very substance -- sorry, I should open it again .
""It would undermine the effectiveness of that
directive to regard as mere modification of an existing
consent the adoption of decisions which, in
circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,
replace not only the terms but the very substance of a
prior consent, such as the old mining permission".
And you will see that the Chief Justice has emphasised
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:28
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
45
those words "the very substance". If you then go down
to the end of that page, at paragraph 48 the Chief
Justice continues:
"In the present case, it seems clear to the court that
the principal development consent is that of October,
1998. The court is of the view that the plaintiff is
mistaken in suggesting that the decisions of 1998 and
the directions given in August, 2004, are, in some
manner, different stages in the same decision making
process. In our view, the decisions of 1998 are stand
alone decisions which allow the road development to
proceed whereas the directions involve merely the
regulation of activities for which the principal
consent, raising the substantial environmental issues,
has already been given."
Again there is a parallel between that case and the
present case, where all of the concerns about the
environment were addressed at the EIA stage at the time
the original decision of An Bord Pleanála was given.
And then the Court continued at paragraph 49:
"The court is satisfied for the following reasons that
the ministerial directions under section 8 of the Act
of 2004 do not fulfil any of the requirements necessary
to constitute a "development consent":-
(a) firstly, the first defendant does not have power
under section 8 of the Act of 2004 to embark upon a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:29
11:29
11:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
46
reconsideration of the environmental issues arising for
the road development..."
And obviously the same issue arises here.
"And, more importantly, does not have power to modify
the road development."
And again here under section 42 there is no power to
modify the development.
"All that is left for the first defendant is a power to
regulate the manner in which the works which are
necessary to allow the road to proceed are carried out;
(b) secondly, the project is prescribed for the
purposes of Council Directive 85/337/E.E.C., as
amended, as the road development, the subject matter of
the consent of 1998. Excavation works of the type the
subject matter of the ministerial directions under
section 8 of the Act of 2004 are not a prescribed
project."
But it is really paragraph (a) there which I think is
of some relevance to the issues which this Court has to
decide.
Now, there is one other authority, Irish authority
which I want to draw the Court's attention to, it has
been opened in part by Mr. Healy, and that's in another
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:31
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
47
book, unfortunately, it is book 2 and Tab 38 of book 2
and that's the Lackagh Quarries case. It is at Tab 38.
I'm not going to go through the facts again but that
was a case where Galway City Council had refused an
application under what I think was then section 4 of
the 1982 Act to extend the permission in that case and
it had done so on environmental grounds. Ms. Justice
Irvine in that case came to the conclusion that the EIA
Directive did not have direct effect as between the
parties before her. That issue obviously doesn't arise
in this case because the State is a party and,
therefore, any question of direct effect can obviously
be invoked as against the State. And I absolutely
accept that. So what Ms. Justice Irvine said is
strictly obiter in those circumstances.
But I would ask the Court to look at what she says at
page 30 of the judgment, paragraph 70, because although
this judgment was delivered, I think, two years before
the Pro-Baine decision it is, in my respectful
submission, entirely consistent with Pro-Baine and the
approach which the European Court itself took in
Pro-Baine. And if you look at what Ms. Justice Irvine
said. She said:
"The respondent has failed to convince me that there is
any regulation or statutory provision in this
jurisdiction from whence it can be maintained that the
section 42 application was a project which required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
48
development consent within the meaning of the EIA
Directive, or was one requiring appropriate assessment
under the Habitat’s Directive."
This is the obiter statement on which I rely:
"Even if the Directives had direct effect, which they
do not, there are strong grounds to argue that
development consent was given following the assessment
of the likely environmental impact of the proposed
project at the time of the application for planning
permission. An Environmental Impact Statement was
submitted and considered subsequent to which the
project received approval. A similarly strong argument
can be made to the effect that a section 42 application
should not be considered to amount to a change or
extension to the project as referred to in Annex II of
the EIA Directive, such as to require further
development consent."
And that obviously echoes the approach which the
European Court itself took two years later in
Pro-Baine:
"The development as planned and approved of from an
environmental prospective remained the same as did the
scale of the project."
And again those observations apply equally to the case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
49
before this Court.
"It was only the addition of time to complete the
previously approved project that had changed. However,
as already stated, the Directives do not have direct
effect."
I fully accept that's an obiter observation by
Ms. Justice Irvine but I would say that it is entirely
consistent with Pro-Baine and provides added support
for the proposition which we suggest the Court should
adopt; which is that absent any additional works being
undertaken pursuant to a section 42 decision, absent
any new conditions which changed the substance of the
pre-existing condition there is no development consent
under section 42.
Now, I said I would come back to the Krizan case and
I'm sorry, that's back in book 3. I'm really sorry
about this, Judge. It is at Tab 67 and 68 of Book 2.
If I could ask the Court to look first at the court's
decision at Tab 68 before looking at the Advocate
General's opinion. Before I open the relevant
paragraph I suppose I should just identify what was in
issue in that case. That was a landfill case as well
and there was a significant gap of several years
between the EIA which had previously been carried out
and the subsequent development concern.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
50
Now, we are just a little concerned that the Applicants
have sought to characterise this case as being about
development consent. In our submission, it is not
about development consent. What it is concerned with
is the existence of a time gap between a pre-existing
EIA and a subsequent development consent.
Obviously what happened in Krizan is not something that
will happen under our system, because under our system
the relevant Planning Authority's decision will be made
only after the EIA has been completed and there will
not be a significant gap between the carrying out of
that EIA by the relevant Planning Authority and the
issue of the planning permission or development
consent.
Can I ask you to look at the judgment, first. The
reason why I do that is because there is a significant
point of fact in this case, which I think has to be
borne in mind when one looks at the observations of the
Advocate General in her opinion. If you look at
paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court there
identifies what was the relevant Slovak law. You'll
see it was a very curious law. They say :
"Paragraph 37 of the Slovak law provides: 'The period
of validity of the final opinion concerning an activity
is three years from its issue'."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
51
That's the final opinion dealing with environmental
impacts. So unlike in the present case, where, for the
reasons which I identified this morning, An Bord
Pleanála was looking into the future in relation to the
operation of this runway well into the future, the
noise that would be generated as the number of planes
increased landing on the runway, and so on, or using
the runways and so on, here you had national system,
which only looked three years ahead. I don't know how
that worked. I really don't know how that worked but
that's the system which they had. They specifically
had a system that only looked three years ahead. But
that isn't the only oddity about it because you'll see
in the next sentence it says:
"The final opinion shall maintain its validity if,
during that period, a location procedure, or a
procedure for a permit for the activity is initiated
under the specific legislation."
So you had this disconnect, very strange disconnect
between the period of validity of the EIA and then this
location procedure. It appears from what we see there
that you could actually have an EIA carried out before
the location was chosen. Now how anyone could carry
out an EIA in those circumstances I just don't know but
that seems to have been the position under Slovak law.
Then you'll see that there was this provision in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
52
paragraph 7:
"The validity of the final opinion concerning an
activity..."
Again that was the EIA opinion.
"...may be extended by a renewable period of two years
at the request of the Applicant if he adduces written
evidence that the planned activity and the conditions
of the land use have not undergone substantial changes
or that no new circumstance connected with the material
content of the assessment has arisen and that new
technologies used to proceed with the planned activity
have not been developed."
Then I think that's really all I wanted to refer to
there. But it was a very curious position under
national law.
Then, just for completeness, if you turn to paragraph
104 of the judgment you'll see that the Court came to
the conclusion that the relevant facts weren't caught
by the Directive because of the fact of the date when
Slovakia exceeded to the European Union. You'll see at
paragraph 104 they say:
"Consequently, the obligations arising from that
Directive do not apply to the project and therefore it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
53
is not necessary to answer the relevant question."
If you then go back to tab 67, the preceding tab in the
Book, you'll see the opinion of the Advocate General
and again I'm conscious this has been opened to the
Court previously. If you look at paragraph 39 under
the heading "Environmental Impact Assessment" you'll
see:
"On the application of the company as of 16 December
1998, the Ministry of the Environment conducted an
environmental impact assessment of the landfill project
and issued a final opinion on the environmental impact
on 26 July 1999."
Then they say:
"In parallel with the procedure to determine the
location..."
Just going back to what we saw in the judgment. It
appears that the procedure to determine the location is
something that took place subsequent to the EIA.
Again, impossible to understand how anyone could carry
out an EIA in relation to a left-hand fill project
without knowing where the landfill was going to be,
without knowing what the particular impacts of that
landfill was and all of the things that have to be
considered in the particular context, air, water. So
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
54
unless you knew what the water courses were, you know,
what was the impact of the landfill on the water
courses, I just don't know how the procedure here was
envisaged by the Slovakia. We just don't have any
information about that.
Just looking again at paragraph 40:
"In parallel with the procedure to determine the
location, upon the request of the relevant company by
its decision of 27 March the Ministry of the
Environment prolonged the validity of the
aforementioned opinion on the environmental impact
until 1 February 2008."
Then you'll see, if you go down to paragraph 43 that it
was just a few days before 1st February that the
relevant consent was issued, because it says:
"On 22 January 2008, the Environment Inspectorate
issued the integrated permit for the construction and
operation of the landfill site."
So you had this very, very strange situation where the
EIA was carried out in July 1999; it was extended in
2006 at the time the location procedure was being in
being; and then subsequent to that, in January 2008,
the relevant development consent was issued. We are
the entire opposite of that. In this case we have a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
55
situation where the EIA took place immediately before
the decision of An Bord Pleanála. There is no
significant gap in time but here you have a very
significant gap in time between the EIA that was
carried out in 1999 and the development consent granted
ten years later.
I think everything that the Advocate General has to say
must be seen against that background.
If you then look at paragraph 124 of the opinion, this
is a passage that was opened by Mr. Healy but there are
just some aspects of it that I wish to draw attention
to. It has the heading:
"b) The criteria for planning the validity of the
decision on environmental impact.
124. If it were to become apparent that the EIA
Directive is applicable to the permit for the landfill
project or that national law requires a corresponding
application of the requirements of that Directive, the
question arises whether it was compatible with the
Directive to prolong the validity of a decision on
environmental impact issued in 1999 in 2006.
In this respect, the national court would have to
review, first of all, whether the assessment issued in
1999 already satisfied all the requirements of the EIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
56
Directive: even in the event of its validity being
prolonged..."
An observation that I think is fairly understandable in
light of what we've just seen.
"...an inadequate assessment cannot be a substitute for
an assessment within the meaning of the Directive."
Then at 126:
"The EIA Directive does not expressly govern the
request whether the validity of an assessment which is
adequate in terms of its content can be prolonged."
That's dealing with, not with the prolongation of
development consent but with the prolongation of an EIA
assessment. That's what it's dealing with. Utterly
different to the present circumstances. If we are
correct in suggesting that a section 42 decision is not
a development consent, everything that Advocate General
Kokott says here is entirely irrelevant and beside the
point. But going on with what she says:
"Nevertheless, the objective of the environmental
impact assessment which is laid down in Article 2(1) of
the EIA Directive must be determinative. Pursuant to
that provision, projects likely to have significant
effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
57
their nature, size or location are made subject to an
environmental assessment. Such an assessment cannot be
restricted to the effects which would have been caused
if the project had been proceeded with at some time in
the past. On the contrary, it must include all the
effects which may actually be likely at the time of the
consent."
I draw attention to those words "at the time of the
consent". She is clearly looking at this in accordance
with the structure of the EIA Directive which envisages
that at the time of the development consent, an EIA
should be carried out. That's what she has in mind.
She anchors everything she says by reference to those
words "at the time of the consent" and there's no
suggestion that once consent has been given there's any
obligation thereafter to carry out any new or fresh
EIA, no suggestion of that kind is made anywhere in
this opinion.
Then at paragraph 127 she says:
"This is also apparent from Annex II, point 13, of the
EIA Directive, which covers changes to projects, for
the purpose of which the concept of changes must be
understood in a broad sense."
Of course that's what we just looked at in the context
of Pro-Baine. Then at 128:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
58
"If, in the meantime, environmental conditions or the
project have changed so that other significant effects
on the environment are possible, the procedure for the
environmental impact assessment must be supplemented or
even be carried out completely again in a repeat EIA
procedure."
Again that's dealing with circumstances where there's a
gap between a pre-existing EIA and a subsequent
decision as to whether or not to grant development
consent. Utterly different, we would say, to the
present circumstances. But look at what she says in
the next sentence because again she anchors what she
says by reference to those words "at the time of the
consent" and those words "at the time of the consent"
also appear, I'm not going to open now, in the
Nomarchiaki opinion at tab 66 of the book, paragraph
138. Again, she anchors her observations there by
reference to those words "at the time of the consent".
But going back to paragraph 128:
"Consequently, it may become necessary to examine
whether the environmental impact assessment still
correctly represents the possible significant effects
of the project on the environment at the time of
consent; therefore, in other words, an updating
assessment must be carried out with the objective of
determining whether a supplementary environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
59
impact assessment is necessary."
Then she draws attention to a number of significant
factors that arose in that case, which she says could
be of significance in the context of an updating
assessment.
She identifies in paragraph 130 that:
"...the environmental impact assessment must already
taken into consideration the specific form of the
project as apparent from the integrated permit.
It would not be surprising if the effects of the
project on the environment had changed as compared with
the environmental impact assessment. The Landfill
Directive adopted only in the year of the decision on
the environmental impact, but the requirements of that
Directive had to be complied with for the purposes of
the integrated permit." And so on.
At the next paragraph she identifies another issue
which had arisen since the EIA had been carried out.
She says:
"Furthermore, since the environmental impact assessment
the town of Pezinok has changed its development plans.
Consequently, the possibility cannot, in particular, be
ruled out that the environmental effects of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
60
landfill project need to be reevaluated with regard to
changes to the use of neighbouring areas which have not
yet been taken into account. Such uses could be more
sensitive ass regards the effect of a landfill or could
intensify the cumulative effects compared to the
original assessment."
Perfectly understandable in circumstances where the
development consent had yet to be issued in that case.
Then at 132:
"However, intensified cumulative effects might also
result from the fact that the existing Pezinok landfill
site was not closed in 2001, as had been assumed in
environmental impact assessment, but had continued in
use until 31 October 2007, possibly even for longer.
As a consequence of this, the previous impact upon the
area could have increased."
Again perfectly understandable on the facts of that
case; the facts being utterly different to the present
case.
She then goes on to deal with a separate issue, which
is public participation in the decision whether an
older environmental impact assessment is still
sufficient. Again, that arose in the context of the
facts before her where what was in issue was a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
61
significant gap in time which doesn't exist in the
present case, between the carrying out of an EIA and
the issue of a development consent. But even in this
context it is, I think, of some significance that the
Advocate General took the view that there is no
mandatory requirement for public participation although
obviously the competent authority could decide for
itself as to whether it should invite public
participation.
She identifies a number of, I suppose, significant
concerns that have to be borne in mind in considering
whether public participation should be required. In
paragraph 134 she says:
"In that regard, it must be noted that the updating
assessment should determine whether repeat public
participation is necessary."
She identifies "the interests in effective and
administrative proceedings must be balanced against the
rights of the public. Public participation would make
the procedure more cumbersome, especially since in the
course of a permit procedure it would possibly be
necessary to examine, on more than one occasion,
whether the environmental impact assessment is
sufficiently up-to-date following changes in
circumstances which have occurred in the meantime."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
62
Then she says, she identifies at the next paragraph
that even if there is no public participation, the
public is not left without rights. Obviously there is
the right, as there is in this case, to challenge the
decision by judicial review.
She says at paragraph 136:
"These principles must apply to an updating assessment,
since it is also aimed at identifying significant
effects on the environment which have not yet been
sufficiently assessed. Subject to that proviso, it
should be left to the Member States to determine
whether and, where appropriate, to what extent they
involve the public in the updating decision."
That is obviously of significance in the context of
some of the arguments which the Applicant seeks to put
before you, although, as I said, our main submission in
relation to that case is that it isn't relevant in
circumstances where, on the facts it's quite clear that
there was an EIA, a very significant gap between the
EIA being carried out and the relevant development
consent. It doesn't deal, at all, with the issue that
was dealt with in Pro-Baine about the duration of the
development consent. Pro-Baine is, in fact, a
subsequent decision to that and in my respectful
submission Pro-Baine and Wells are the relevant
decisions that the Court has to bear in mind in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
63
context of development consent as opposed to the
particular circumstances which arose in Krizan.
Just for completeness, I'm not sure a whole lot turns
on it but in the booklet we handed up last Friday we
included the new 2014 Directive and, I suppose, going
back to the observations of the Advocate General in the
Krizan case where she said that there is no
provision -- what was the language that she used? She
says at paragraph 126:
"The EIA Directive does not expressly govern whether
the validity of an assessment which is adequate in
terms of its content can be prolonged."
You now have, at page 11 of the new Directive, you have
a new provision, Article 8A and -- sorry, a new version
of Article 8A, there was Article 8A in the 2011
Directive as well. But it contains a new provision in
paragraph 6 as you will see. If you look at paragraph
6, which is at page 12, it says:
"The competent authority shall be satisfied that the
recent conclusion referred to in
Article 1(2)(g)(iv)..."
That's the EIA conclusion.
"...or any of the decisions referred to in paragraph 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
64
of this article, is still up-to-date when taking a
decision to grant development consent."
So the legislature in Europe obviously thought there
was a gap, there may well have been, this was
introduced after the opinion of the Advocate General
has been issued in Krizan. But if you look at the next
sentence you'll see that the legislature has decided to
leave it up to the Member States as to whether they
should set a timeframe for an EIA. You will see:
"To that effect, Member States may set timeframes for
the validity or the recent conclusion referred to in
Article 1(2)(g)(iv) were any of the decisions referred
to in paragraph 3 of this article."
So the legislature didn't think it was incumbent on
Member States, or that it should be made compulsory for
Member States to introduce a timeframe or limited
timeframe for the duration of an EIA which I think is
certainly informative for present purposes. I don't
think I need to put it any higher than that.
I want to turn in a moment to deal with the Habitats
Directive very briefly, but just before I do that,
there is an issue which I think I should address for
completeness. I don't believe it arises in this case.
It's put forward very much as a subsidiary position on
the part of the State but I think it's something that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
65
the Court needs to be aware of. It is something I'm
sure the Court is already aware of, which is what it is
sometimes referred to as a duty of consistent
interpretation or conforming interpretation. It's a
bit like the in the European context a bit like the
East Donegal principle that one can interpret a statute
in a particular way to give effect to constitutional
rights. If the Court is against the State on all of
the arguments we have sought to make it in relation to
the EIA Directive and indeed the same will apply to the
Habitats Directive, we would draw attention to the duty
of consistent interpretation and suggest that, just as
in East Donegal, one can take the approach that one can
interpret provisions of national law in a way that will
allow them to be consistent with European law.
I emphasise again I mention this solely for completion,
completeness, because I don't believe that it arises
but I do think I have an obligation to bring that to
the Court's attention when dealing with the law.
Obviously it doesn't apply where the ability to
interpret the section in accordance with European law
would be utterly inconsistent with the provisions of
the section and I think a similar principle applies in
the constitutional context. But that's solely for the
sake of completeness.
Can I then just turn to the Habitats Directive. I
won't spend long on this. I've already dealt with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
66
collateral attack issue and I'm not going to say
anything further about that. I rely on the
observations of this Court in Harrington and what this
Court said about that. As in the case of the EIA we
say that no issue arises in relation to the section 42
of the Habitats Directive because section 42 does not,
in any way, alter the project in issue. What
Article 6(3) requires is that before development
consent is given for a project, that the project must
be subject to an AA in those cases where an adverse
impact on a protected site or a protected species
cannot be ruled out. But there's no separate
requirement to carry out an AA where all that is done
is to extend the duration of the planning permission.
We make the same arguments in relation to that as I
have sought to do in relation to the EIA issue. But
leaving all that aside, in our submission the issue of
appropriate assessment simply doesn't arise on the
facts of this case because all you have before you are
assertions - very bald assertions if one looks at the
pleadings or the affidavits - that there will be an
impact on protected sites some kilometres away from the
runway. But in our submission mere assertion of that
kind is not sufficient. One must put evidence before
the Court to engage or to suggest that Article 6 is in
fact engaged.
I want to draw your attention, if I may, to a decision
that Mr. Valentine has drawn to our attention, a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
67
decision of An Taisce -v- An Bord Pleanála. It's a
decision which I'm going to hand in now. (SAME HANDED)
I'm sorry to hand it in loose but we have punched it so
it can be slotted into a book. I just want to ensure
that we all have copies of it. It's a decision which
you'll see, which like the present proceedings, were
two sets of proceedings which were heard together by
Mr. Justice White. They were proceedings brought by
An Taisce on the one hand and by Friends of the Irish
Environment on the other and they both related to a
decision by An Bord Pleanála to allow a development in
the nature of a power plant, a peat and biomass power
plant to proceed in County Offaly, presumably somewhere
on the Bog of Allen. Just to identify the relief that
was sought by, it's really the Friends because like in
the present case you'll see the relief that is sought
by the Friends at page 3 of the judgment, you'll see
that Mr. Justice White there at paragraph 3 identifies
that they sought, as one would expect, an order of
certiorari but you'll see then at (ii):
"A declaration by way of application for judicial
review that the effects of extracting the peat fuel
source for the thermal power plant were not properly
assessed for the purposes of the Habitats Directive;
and
(iii) A declaration that the First and Second
Respondents have failed to fulfil their obligations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
68
pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive to
establish necessary conversation measures and to avoid
deterioration of natural habitats and disturbance of
species in Natura 2000 sites.
(iv) A declaration by way of application for judicial
review that the First Named Respondent is obliged to
conduct an appropriate assessment pursuant to Article 6
of Habitats Directive in respect of the peat extraction
works that will occur directly or indirectly as a
result of the proposed development."
So the relief that was being sought in those
proceedings very similar to the relief that is being
assault in the present proceedings.
If you then turn to page 10 you'll see
Mr. Justice White drawing attention at paragraph 17 to
an issue which I dealt with on Friday, this is at
paragraph 17:
"This Court is bound by the parameters of the orders of
Mr. Justice Peart granting leave to bring the judicial
review proceedings. This Court has no jurisdiction to
impugn the IPPC licences granted in respect of the peat
extraction from the relevant bogs, nor is a collateral
attack on the legality of these licences permitted.
It does not have jurisdiction to determine if the peat
extraction is exempted development, because that issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
69
is outside the parameters of the leave orders."
If you then turn to the next page, page 11, paragraph
24 Mr. Justice White says:
"The evidential burden on the Second Applicant is
different. The Applicant is relying on the provisions
of a separate Directive..."
That's the Habitats Directive. This Applicant is the
Friends he's talking about now.
"...on the conservation of natural habitats of wildlife
and flora in special areas of conservation. It submits
that the extraction of peat on the bogs supplying the
power plant is likely to have significant effects on
the River Barrow and River Nore, special area of
conservation and the River Boyne special area of
conservation."
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Did the Supreme Court just say
in, is it one of the wind farm cases that went before
them, I think it was a lay litigant, and leave was
granted on a particular basis and the lay litigant
wanted to raise other points, did the Supreme Court not
just say: 'Well, that's all right you can go a little
bit beyond what the leave says'?
MR. McDONALD: I am not personally familiar with the
judgment but it may be that other people in court are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
70
familiar with it and will be able to address that. I'm
conscious that my Friends have yet to speak. I've gone
first, but I'm not naturally the first person to go
first.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I think it is very recent and
you'll be pleased to hear in the middle of the storm
yesterday I was flicking through courts.ie.
MR. McDONALD: I'm glad you had an internet connection
yesterday, I think quite a lot of the country had the
internet down.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: True.
MR. McDONALD: In any event, no, I'm personally not
familiar with it and I should be familiar with it, of
course, Judge, I'm really sorry that I'm not.
Hopefully it can be addressed by one of my Friends in
the course of their observations. I suppose there may
be a difference between a lay litigant on the one hand
and a legally represented litigant on another. Courts
have traditionally provided a degree of leeway to lay
litigants for understandable reasons. Of course I
don't know the underlying facts of the case but, in any
event, I'm sure it will be addressed by one of my
Friends and my apologies that I'm not personally
familiar with it.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: No, no, not at all. Thank you
very much.
MR. McDONALD: If I can ask the Court to turn to page
12 because this is the more relevant issue, the
evidential burden on the Friends and I've already
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
71
opened, I think, paragraph 24 where they were making an
assertion which is very similar to the assertion in the
present case, that there will be an adverse or there
may be an adverse impact on the particular special
areas of conservation. If you look at the top of page
12, paragraph 25:
"The Second Applicant relies on the affidavit of David
Healey, an environmental consultant sworn on 22nd
January 2014, which exhibits the Respondent's
inspector's report, a written submission of Friends of
the Irish Environment of 12th August 2013, to the
Respondent, a site synopsis of the River Barrow and
River Nore, special area of conservation, a site
synopsis of the River Boyne and Blackwater SAC, and the
National Parks and Wildlife Service Conservation
Objects, River Barrow and River Nore SAC."
Something which hasn't been done by any of the parties
in the present proceedings.
"26. There is also a reference to the Inspector's
report to the Long Derries special area of
conservation.
27. The Respondent's inspector's report refers to the
River Barrow and River Nore SAC and notes, that it is
located circa 14km to the south of the power plant and
that the Long Derries special area of conservation is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
72
located circa 5.2km to the north east of the power
plant."
We've had similar observations made in the present case
about the proximity by a number of kilometres of the
runway to certain special areas of conservation.
Then at 28:
"The Respondent supported by the First and Second
Notice Parties has argued that the Applicant has failed
to adduce any evidence to support its contention and
relies.." on the judgment of Mr. Justice O'Neill in
Harrington -v- An Bord Pleanála."
If you then turn to page 29 of the judgment you'll see
how Mr. Justice White deals with that issue. In my
respectful submission the observations he makes in
relation to the failure of the Applicants in the
present case to discharge the evidential burden on them
in relation to the Habitats Directive apply equally
here. You'll see at paragraph 75 of the judgment at
page 29:
"The Court has serious concerns about the application
of the Second Applicant."
Which was the Friends.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
73
"Order 84, rule 20(3) of the Rules of the Superior
Courts requires an applicant for judicial review to
state his or her grounds..."
He quotes that provision. Then he quotes Harrington.
You will see what Mr. Justice O'Neill in Harrington
said. Mr. Justice O'Neill said:
"There is no doubt that the procedure in this judicial
review is undoubtedly adversarial, and the onus of
proof resting upon the Applicant in these proceedings
is well-settled. The foregoing dicta from the cases of
O'Keeffe -v- An Bord Pleanála, Westin -v- An Bord
Pleanála and Lancefort Ltd. -v- An Bord Pleanála
clearly establishes that the Applicant carries the
burden of proof of establishing the grounds in respect
of which leave for judicial review was granted.
46. ...the Applicant failed to adduce any evidence
whatsoever to support her contention that the site in
question was a priority habitat, warranting, on the
basis of the 'precautionary principle', the elimination
of 'scientific doubt' by the carrying out of an
independent ecological assessment. Thus, on these
judicial review proceedings, I am quite satisfied that
the Applicant has failed to discharge the onus of proof
resting on her to establish that the Respondent failed
in its legal duty, as she contends, in that regard.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:04
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
74
I have already differentiated between the nature of the
application of the First Applicant and Second Applicant
and referred to the documents relied on by the Second
Applicant in advancing the reliefs for judicial review.
I am not satisfied with the assertion if the affidavit
of David Healey at paragraph 9 of his affidavit sworn
on 22nd January, 2014. This assertion is relied on in
the written legal submissions of the Second
Applicant...
I have already emphasised that the submissions made by
the Second Applicant relate to further downstream
consequences of the extraction of peat on the
designated peat bogs. The only documents generated by
the Second Applicant, other than the inspector's report
and the National Parks and Wildlife Service
Conservation objectives are the submission to An Bord
Pleanála ... the two site synopsis documents which I
presume have been prepared by Mr. Healey but that is
not clear.
The first Respondent has objected to the application
based on the dicta of Mr. Justice O'Neill, the Second
Respondent has relied on the provisions of the Rules of
the Superior Courts and that no case has been made
out..."
Then at 81:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
75
"The Second Applicant falls substantially short of the
standard I would expect to sustain its argument. I
accept that it may not be well resourced financially
but that does not excuse its failure to put before the
Court cogent material by way of expert analysis on
affidavit of the case it is making about the Habitats
Directive.
I am not satisfied to grant the relief sought."
I do suggest, Judge, that there is a similar lack of
not just cogent evidence but any evidence in the
present case to support the bald assertions which have
been are made that there's a risk to the protected
sites or to any protected species. And in my
respectful submission, in those circumstances, the
issue in relation to the Habitats Directive should fall
away.
Just two very brief --
MR. HEALY: Just before my Friend leaves that point,
because he may wish to say something further about it,
there is one feature of the case which I think is
relevant in this context and that is that whereas I
would hope to be able to rely upon the evidence such as
it is in the affidavits, in the High Court I did seek
to adduce additional evidence relating to environmental
matters and that was ruled out and I contemplated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
76
appealing it but my clients decided that they wanted
this thing brought to an end and there's a limit to
their resources. But what is significant is that the
State, in the High, Court submitted that the evidence I
wished to adduce was irrelevant, whereas now the State
contends that the evidence I wish to adduce is vital.
MR. McDONALD: With respect, I never made that
argument. Absolutely never made that argument. What I
will suggested to Mr. Justice McGovern was that it was
unacceptable that an applicant, in proceedings of this
kind in the Commercial Court, should seek to adduce
further evidence after the date for filing of evidence
by all parties had passed because the effect of that
would be that all of the parties would have to deal
with that evidence and the date for hearing of these
proceedings, which was, as the Court knows, at the very
beginning of term, could not have proceeded. That was
the argument that I made.
MR. HEALY: In fairness to my Friend, Judge,
Mr. Collins tells me that it was Mr. Justice McGovern
ruled it out as irrelevant and that my Friend's
submission is as he has just put it.
MR. McDONALD: Yes, absolutely. That is the submission
that I made. But even if that affidavit was before
you, all it does, as in the case that Mr. Justice White
dealt with, is to draw attention to the existence of
the SACs. It doesn't, in fact, provide any evidence,
at all, to suggest that there is a risk to those SACs.
So you are in precisely the same, even if that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
77
affidavit was before you, you would be in precisely the
same position as Mr. Justice White. What I was
observing was that on the basis of the evidence before
the Court they don't even go that far, whereas they
didn't even, on the basis of the evidence which this
Court has before it, they didn't even exhibit any of
the relevant NPWS objectives in relation to any special
area of conservation, even though all of this is
available on the internet. One doesn't need to be an
expert to find this out.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: If only I had known yesterday!
MR. McDONALD: Yes. Well, I think you could spend
hours trawling through, because there's so many special
areas of conservation and special protection areas.
Each one of them has conservation objectives so you
look at those conservation objectives, you look at the
activity that's proposed and you provide evidence to
the Court as to why that activity is going to interfere
with those objectives, not a very difficult task.
Something which the Applicants here, even on the basis
of the affidavit that has been excluded, did not do.
There were just two further issues then that I wanted
to deal with very briefly. One was the 2011
Regulations which are at tab 12 of Book 1 - I don't
think I need to open to them now - that Mr. Kenny
referred to on Friday and of course the first point I
would make is that, as Mr. Kenny very properly
acknowledged, those regulations are not applicable in
this case in any event so the point that Mr. Kenny
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
78
made, in my submission, is simply not relevant. There
is just one other observation I'd make in relation to
them.
The 2011 Regulations are regulations that apply in
relation to activities, even of public bodies. If a
public body like Coillte, for example, wants to carry
out an activity on its land that may join or indeed
even be part of a special area of conservation, it has
a duty under these regulations to carry out a screening
test and an appropriate assessment, where required.
It's understandable, I think, in circumstances where
Coillte, in those circumstances, it doesn't go to
An Bord Pleanála, it doesn't go to a planning
authority, it doesn't have its activity or its
screening activity reviewed by anybody else it just
does it, it's a self-assessment form of screening test.
It is perfectly understandable why the legislature, in
those circumstances, should impose a different
requirement in relation to those kind of public bodies
than it does in circumstances where you have an EIA
being carried out by a planning authority such as
An Bord Pleanála, or a screening assessment being
carried out by An Bord Pleanála, or An Bord Pleanála
deciding whether it has to carried out a screening
assessment at all. Utterly different where you have a
whole ability to have public participation and so on in
those kind of decisions. Utterly different to what
arises under the Regulations. Even if the Regulations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
79
could be said to be relevant, I would submit that there
is a basis as to why the legislature should have taken
a slightly different approach to those regulations than
it does in relation to development consent.
Development consent, of course, is solely governed by
the Planning Acts and the Planning Acts are a separate
and distinct code. So I would distinguish the 2011
Regulations on that basis.
Now the last issue I want to touch on very briefly is
the suggestion which hasn't actually been articulated
in any detail, and I'd have to suggest in the first
instance that if it was to be pursued it should be
articulated and dealt with very carefully and
comprehensively, something which hasn't happened in
this case and that's the question of a possible
reference to the Court of Justice. As I said, if that
was to arise it should have been articulated in some
detail to the Court as to what was the issue of doubt.
In my submission when there is no doubt you look, you
don't have to look beyond, you can look at as many
European Court cases you like, but you don't ultimately
have to look beyond Pro-Baine or Wells. One can see
very clearly from those decisions that what has
happened here is not a development consent because it
doesn't involve either new conditions or new works
beyond what was already approved, to use the language
of Point 13 of Annex II of the Directive.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
80
So we say this is irrelevant. No need to make a
reference in those circumstances and that one shouldn't
be seduced by the notion of making a reference to the
Court of Justice. There is, I think, in the James
Elliott case, the James Elliott -v- Irish Asphalt, an
observation by Mr. Justice O'Donnell in the course of
his judgment, which judgment I acknowledge ultimately
did make a reference to Europe where he said, you know,
there's almost a desire on the part of parties before a
court to cloud what is otherwise clear law in the hope
that the Court will be persuaded to make a reference.
There's a temptation on the part of parties before a
court to try to cloud what is the law and to try to
suggest there is a doubt when there is in fact no
doubt.
For the reasons which I have sought to identify, I
would respectfully suggest there is no doubt in this
case and that in those circumstances no issue of a
reference should arise, even if it had been
articulated, which of course it has not.
With the Court's permission Mr. Toland is going to deal
with the remaining issues in the case. Those are my
submissions.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
81
SUBMISSION BY MR. TOLAND:
MR. TOLAND: Judge, Mr. McDonald has dealt with the
facts of the case; he's also dealt with the case law on
section 42; he's dealt with the law concerning
environmental impact assessments and appropriate
assessments; and obviously the consequential EU rights
for public participation. So I'll do my best not to
repeat Mr. McDonald's submissions, nor to reopen
authorities which have been canvassed by various
parties.
I'll be dealing solely with the claims under the
Constitution. As the Applicants did not appear to
substantially advance the EU, the Convention and the
Charter claims, nor have they relied on any authorities
to that effect, I propose, with the Court's permission,
to rely on our written submissions in that respect.
Mr. McDonald summarised our submissions on the
Applicants' constitutional claims. With regard to the
claims under the Constitution, as they have been
refined and articulated at oral hearing they appear to
be as follows. Firstly, the constitutional claim
brought on behalf of the Merriman Applicants that they
enjoy a constitutional right to fair procedures such
that they were entitled to make a submission to Fingal
County Council on the DAA's application for an
extension. My principal submissions on this can be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
82
summarised as follows: First, no right to fair
procedures was engaged. The Applicants' interest in an
Extension Decision is not of a sufficiently substantial
nature to engage the right to fair procedures. In
particular, even if it's the case that the Applicants
enjoy a class of interest by reason that they fall
within a particular condition, Condition 9 of the
planning permission - and that's a matter the State is
a stranger to - it is not a material giving a
potentially adverse affect, having regard to the
opportunity for prior participation by the Applicants
in the planning permission process, and the limited
discretion to be exercised by Fingal County Council.
We say that there is no aspect of Fingal County
Council's discretion under section 42, which concerns
the Merriman Applicants' particular interests.
Second, even if third parties in the position of the
Merriman Applicants do enjoy a right to fair
procedures, we say that the Oireachtas proportionately
limited that right for the same reasons we say the
right wasn't engaged.
Thirdly, as Mr. McDonald has just adverted to the
principle of East Donegal, even if this Court considers
the Constitution required the Merriman Applicants to be
afforded such a right, the well-established doctrine of
consistent interpretation would mean section 42 is not
unconstitutional.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
83
The second constitutional claim is that of Friends of
the Environment and their claim effectively to a right
to public participation under the Irish Constitution.
Quite simply in respect of that I'd say that neither in
their written nor their oral submissions have they
advanced any argument, or any authority for the
proposition of a freestanding constitutional right to
make a submission. Insofar as it is said to derive
from the constitutional right to fair procedures I say
it runs against all authority to say that the
constitutional right to fair procedures would be
afforded to third parties with no material interest
whatsoever. The right of public participation is one
granted by statute, not the Constitution.
The third constitutional claim is that of Friends of
the Irish Environment. That an unenumerated right to
the environment is a personal right, enjoyed by its or
its members, under the Constitution and that the
Extension Decision infringes that right by reason of
the possible omissions.
I say, firstly, that the Applicants' rights or claimed
right is not specific. It doesn't lead to a remedy and
so is not capable of adjudication; secondly, no
evidence has been adduced save in the most general
terms; third, the case law is clear that a very high
threshold must be reached before judicial discernment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
84
of further unenumerated rights; fourth, Friends of the
Irish Environment have advanced no recognised method of
constitutional interpretation suitable to discern this
particular right; and fifth, policy, with respect to
the environment, properly falls to the legislature. In
respect of the standing of the Friends of the Irish
Environment, which was discussed with my Friend, we
rely on our written submissions.
So turning firstly to the Merriman claim, or the claim
to public participation. Mr. McDonald has taken you
through contents of section 42 and I don't propose to
do that again in any detail. But I would first like to
go over it slightly again.
The Applicants have presented the section 42 decision
as effectively a standalone decision as if it exists
bereft of the rest of the elements of the Planning and
Development Act. Rather, the planning process and the
decision made by the Oireachtas must be considered in
its entirety when considering whether or not the
Applicants' right to fair procedures has been engaged
or infringed.
First, Mr. McDonald has taken you through the overall
purpose of section 42 and has brought you through the
pre-existing case law on section 42.
Second, a section 42 application takes place in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
85
circumstances where works have been commenced. A
process is in being. A development has started. There
is an engaged right of the developer. He has expended
monies at that point. There is a very limited role
under section 42 for discretion of the Planning
Authority. I'll come on to that in more detail.
Third, the Extension Decision takes place in the
context of the prior planning process, including public
participation with the point of development plans, the
planning application, the appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
This isn't just a theoretical or statutory right which
they do enjoy, it is one these Applicants have availed
of, as Mr. McDonald took you through. They fully
participated in the planning process, providing
extensive written submissions, oral submissions,
supported by additional documentation, videos and
PowerPoint presentations. There were Council present
during these representations. So on that there has
been very extensive public participation afforded by
the Act itself.
Fourth, there were many opportunities to judicially
review that permission and its conditions.
What we have here, at the point of section 42 and at
the point of extension of that decision is not a review
of any of those conditions, and that's admitted by my
Friends. It is simply an application to extend based
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
86
on certain specified criteria in section 42.
We say that the decision-maker had either no discretion
whatsoever or very limited discretion on the conditions
under the planning permission. He is confined to the
matters specified in section 42, as the Court found in
the McDowell case which my Friend opened. He cannot go
beyond section 42 and trespass upon the original
planning permission.
So what is that discretion under section 42 if it
exists? Firstly, under the first condition it is an
assessment of whether or not there are considerations
of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond
the control of the Applicants which substantially
militated against either the commencement or
development of the carrying out of substantial works
pursuant to the permission. We say that's quite
clearly a matter wholly within the knowledge of the
Applicants' developer and wholly a matter for the
review and decision by the Planning Authority in
question. It is not something that can be aided by
debate and discussion amongst third parties, or at
least it is appropriate that the Oireachtas adjudicated
that that was not necessary.
Secondly, that there are no significant changes in the
development objectives in the development plans,
regional development objectives, and the regional and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
87
spatial economic strategy for the area of the Planning
Authority since the date of the permission such that
the development would no longer be consistent with the
proper planning and sustainable development of the
area. We say that all this is is an essential check
that the development objectives have remained
unchanged. As my Friend, Mr. McDonald, took you to on
Friday, there have been objectives in relation to a
North Runway for some considerable period of time.
This statutory check is limited and wholly within the
competence of the Planning Authority. My Friends have
adduced no evidence to suggest that the development
objectives were in any way changed. That's something
I'll return to.
In respect of planning, again, the third condition is
that the development would not be inconsistent with the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area
having regard to any guidelines issued by the Minister,
notwithstanding that they were so issued after the date
of granted permission in relation to which an
application is made. And it was under this that the
flood risk assessment was produced by the Dublin
Airport Authority. This, however, again is a rather
narrow provision. It is not a provision that asks the
Planning Authority to look in toto at the proper
planning and development and sustainable development of
the area. It is simply to check whether or not,
essentially subsequent Ministerial Guidelines, but on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
88
the face of it, all Ministerial Guidelines are such
that the development would not be inconsistent with the
proper planning and development having regard to them.
That's simply because given an elapse of time, there
may be subsequent guidelines that pertain. But that is
a check, it is not a reopening of all matters to do
with the proper planning and sustainable development.
As Mr. McDonald pointed out to you, with respect to the
only Ministerial Guideline that exists that is relevant
on flood risk assessment, the substance was previously
considered in the planning permission and it took
essentially a very different form but the content was,
notwithstanding, the same.
Leaving aside the particular decision which is made,
looking at the statute and the statutory discretion, it
is very limited for the Planning Authority and one
which is wholly within the competence of that Planning
Authority.
Fourthly, where the development has not commenced, that
an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate
assessment or both of those assessments, if required,
also were carried out before the permission was
granted. That's very much a matter of fact. Was the
development commenced? And after that was the EIA or
AA conducted? Those are very simple matters of fact
upon which no submissions are required. In fact - and
Mr. McDonald has opened the case law applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
89
primarily case law which resulted from consideration of
the original section 42, Section 42(1) which considers
substantial works being carried out. That is surely
far more of a discretionary consideration than the
simple fact of whether or not they have been commenced
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: When do you say the development
was commenced?
MR. TOLAND: As Ireland we are strangers to the
particular facts but we understand that from the
pleadings that it was commenced, I think my Friend put
it, some nine days working days prior to the
application being made. The application for extension.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, as Ireland would you
consider the removal of 327kg of asbestos to be
substantial works?
MR. TOLAND: We would consider the decision by the
Planning Authority as to whether or not works had been
commenced to be wholly a matter for that authority and
if this was a challenge to the decision, substantively
as to whether or not works would commence, that would
be an entirely different matter, but quite simply this
is a matter as to whether or not section 42 provides
the Planning Authority to make a decision on whether or
not works have been commenced and whether or not it is
for third parties to make submissions on that fact.
But if the third parties in question rather chose to
judicially review the decision on the basis that the
works had not in fact been commenced, that would be an
entirely different matter and they are not making that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
90
case. That is something which I will come back to
because in circumstances where they're not making that
case, but simply saying that they would like an
opportunity to have made submissions on that fact, we
say that's not enough at this stage. I will come back
to that, Judge.
A further point with regard to the fourth point and it
actually ties into what you were saying, is that in
their original submission, the submission that Fingal
County Council are considered not to have accepted,
they simply said, we understand some works have taken
place to date, although they cannot be considered as
substantial works. They don't challenge commencement
of the works. And then their sole submissions are:
"It is our submission that no environmental impact
assessment, no screening for appropriate assessment and
no appropriate assessment accompanied this extension
application and this is contrary to the old EIA
Directive. This development in question will have
impacts upon the surrounding community and there has
been no assessment of the potential issues which arise
since the initial permission was granted nearly ten
years ago, which is contrary to EU law."
Now, insofar as that submission referred to any aspect
of these considerations under section 42, I say that it
is primarily about our submission that no EIA or AA,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
91
screening for AA or AA has been conducted. It is
therefore about the second part of the fourth section.
It is not a challenge to commencement. If you wish to
construe the words that they cannot be considered as
substantial works, is a challenge to commencement,
that's certainly possible but that is not the form that
submission took. So the language that it used.
But fundamentally we would say that the reason why,
under section 42, third parties are not entitled to
make submissions on this point is that that
adjudication is solely a matter for the Planning
Authority upon the application of the developer. It's
up to the developer to prove that the commencement has
taken place and it's up to the Planning Authority to
decided whether or not that has taken place. It is not
something which is within the material interests of
third parties as to whether or not the commencement has
in fact taken place.
One point which Mr. Healy made was that the Applicants
contend they don't challenge the planning permission
that this is not the collateral attack which, in our
submissions, we had said. Instead, they wished merely
an opportunity to make a submission.
If that were the case, the sole infringement of the
rights that they claim is not the infringement caused
by the development in question, but rather of the
extension of time for its building. However, the time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
92
afforded doesn't form any part of the statutory
criteria for assessment. Subsection (1) provides that:
"The Planning Authority shall extend the period by any
such additional period, not exceeding five years, as
the authority considering requisite to enable the
development to which the permission relates to be
completed."
It is that element of discretion is the limit. The
statutory discretion is solely about whether the
development can be completed in that time. It is not a
discretion which takes into account any external factor
such as impact on residents, et cetera. That is not
the decision before the Planning Authority. So,
therefore, the Oireachtas exclude third parties from
that consideration.
Judge, I won't be opening many authorities to you but I
will be reopening Dellway. I hope not to reopen many
of the passages which my Friend, Mr. Healy, has taken
us through but I will be focusing on one passage in
particular. So if you could turn, Judge, to Book 2,
tab 37 you'll be quite familiar with Dellway at this
point. I think if we just stay at the headnote for the
time being. But before turning to any legal analysis
I'd just like to set the Court's considerations in
Dellway in some context. The context arising from the
facts of Dellway. Section 84 of the NAMA Act, and it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
93
is set out here on page 2 of the headnote:
"NAMA may acquire an eligible bank asset of a
participating institution if NAMA considers it
necessarily for desirable to do so having regard to the
purposes of this Act and in particular the resources
available to the Minister.
NAMA is not obliged to acquire any particular, or any,
eligible bank asset of such an institution on any
grounds."
The second subsection is:
"For the avoidance of doubt, NAMA may acquire, from a
participating institution, performing or non-performing
eligible bank assets..."
The fourth subsection:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1),
NAMA may, in deciding whether to acquire a particular
bank asset take, into account..."
Then there are a large number of factors here which
NAMA may take into account. Then you go down to (n):
"Any other matter that NAMA considers relevant."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
94
"Section 87 of the Act provides that when NAMA has
identified an eligible bank asset that it proposes to
acquire, NAMA shall serve on the institution a schedule
(referred to as an 'acquisition schedule')."
Then the following paragraph in the headnote:
"A participating institution may object to the proposed
acquisition of a bank asset if it is of the opinion
that a bank asset is not an eligible bank asset. There
is no express provision for objection by a borrower
whose loan was deemed an eligible bank asset."
So in looking at Section 84, it permitted NAMA to
selectively acquire the loan book of Mr. McKillen and
his associated companies. Considerable discretion was
given to NAMA as to whether or not it chose to acquire
that eligible bank asset if NAMA considers it necessary
or desirable, and considerable discretion is given on
the criteria such that they are non-exhaustive. They
indeed even are prefaced by saying that NAMA may take
them into account.
Banks can object only if they are of the opinion that
the bank asset was not an eligible bank asset. Now,
they are given a say but additionally, they're not
given much of a say. But no objection by the borrowers
was permitted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
95
The consequence of that was that with the various
statutory powers afforded to NAMA, it could control the
operation of and sell Mr. McKillen's businesses and
property.
If you go to number 7 in the Supreme Court headnote at
page 15:
"That NAMA had statutory powers a bank did not have.
It was a work-out vehicle with an expected lifespan of
seven to ten years and a core commercial objective of
recovering for the taxpayer whatever it had paid for
the loans. There was an expectation that a commercial
bank would renew an expired credit facility whereas
NAMA would be likely to rely on their legal expiry to
call in loans."
So a fundamental difference here between the contract
Mr. McKillen had entered into with the banks and the
regime to which he would now be subject. Obviously
that regime operated for important reasons of national
stability.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I would like to see what my bank
would say if I walked in with that expectation!
MR. TOLAND: I dread to think what mine would! I'm not
proposing to open it but I will read out what Chief
Justice Murray said on that:
"In short the Applicants would be deprived of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
96
right..."
This is at paragraphs 47 and 48 of his judgment at page
207.
"In short the Applicants would be deprived of the right
to deal with their property portfolio and associated
loan contracts as they judge fit in the ordinary way on
the commercial market, even if subject to any
vicissitudes of current market conditions. Again as
Finnegan J. pointed out there is a risk that properties
could be sold by NAMA in circumstances disadvantageous
to the Applicants in a way which could not be done by a
mortgagor exercising a power of sale.
48. It is in that sense that I consider that there is
a real risk that the property rights and interests may
be directed affected by any decision of NAMA pursuant
to Section 84 of the Act and for that reason they
should have the right to make representations to NAMA."
That is the salient point in this judgment "directly
affected by any decision of NAMA such that their
property rights and interests may be directly
affected." A real risk.
Leaving aside the legal consideration of whether or not
the Plaintiffs in that case enjoyed a legal right in
the bank's interests in their loans, this was, in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
97
reality, as strong an attack on the property rights and
right to earn a livelihood of Mr. McKillen and his
associated companies, as one could possibly imagine,
short of direct expropriation of the property itself.
This attack is the one upon which Mr. McKillen did not
enjoy a right to make submissions and it is in that
context that the Court's considerations in Dellway must
viewed.
I say that the position of Ms. Merriman and her fellow
Applicants is quite different. First, the discretion
to be exercised is different under Section 84, as I
just said, NAMA had a substantive choice to make about
the selection of assets. As Mr. McDonald and I have
outlined, the discretion left to the Planning Authority
on the Extension Decision is very limited indeed.
Second, unlike the situation in NAMA, there has been
extensive opportunity for public participation in the
planning permission and subsequent appeal. The fact
that the statute does not provide in section 42 for a
right of participation is because the statutory scheme
is provided for elsewhere. Third, the interests of
Mr. McKillen and his companies were adversely or
materially adversely affected by the decision. And his
proposed submissions would clearly be directly related
to this adverse affect on his rights.
Here, however, even if one takes the high point of the
Applicants' submissions, not only is the material
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
98
affect significantly lower, there is no aspect of the
discretionary element of the decision which the
Applicants have a direct material interest in
commenting upon.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: So you're saying they can't
comment on the elements even though they're affected by
the outcome?
MR. TOLAND: Yes, Judge. That those elements are not
elements which concern them. I also say that in terms
of being affected by the outcome, the parties may
differ on that point, fundamentally this all goes back
to the planning permission and it creates the affects
but the point I'm making now is about the element of
discretion and how an applicant has no right to comment
on issues which it cannot effect. It's not sufficient
merely that the Applicants have a material interest in
the submission at large and that that itself triggers
submissions in respect of other aspects such as the
commercial interests of the Dublin Airport Authority,
or matters distinctly separate in the assessment of
planning and proper planning and sustainable
development of the area. As Mr. Healy noted, it's
because of Condition 9 that he finds his client's
interest, for his part, a condition he acknowledges the
statute precludes the Planning Authority from varying
in the Extension Decision. Condition 9 remains.
Fourth, as I previously opened, the Applicants sought
only to make submissions in respect of an EIA/AA, that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
99
fourth condition. They didn't seek to make
submissions, nor do they seek now to challenge, as I
was saying earlier, the Planning Authority's
application of the statutory criteria such as the flood
risk assessment or the economic rationale for the
airport. Even if the Applicants did enjoy a right to
fair procedures they have not established that one is
engaged in this case.
I can take the Court, if you permit me about ten
minutes to go through the judgment of Mr. Justice
Fennelly in Dellway. Each member of the Supreme Court
delivered their own judgment. It's hard to discern an
absolutely clear reason for the decision. Each judge
differed. But I think what's quite helpful in terms of
assessing the overall decision of the Supreme Court is
the headnote itself.
If you turn to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court
headnote at page 12 of the headnote. This is the
Supreme Court's decision in respect of fair procedures
point.
"Held by the Supreme Court in granting a declaration
that the Applicants were entitled to be informed by
NAMA of any intention to consider the making of a
decision to acquire any eligible bank assets related to
their credit facilities with the participating banks so
as to afford them an opportunity of making appropriate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
100
submissions to NAMA concerning such a proposed
decision, 1, that the criteria for assessing whether
fair procedures required a person to be heard before a
decision was made included the nature of the decision,
the nature of the statutory scheme, the importance of
the decision to the person invoking the right and the
choice of the procedure adopted by the decision-maker.
There might be other relevant criteria such as
legitimate expectation. The test was whether or not a
person's rights were affected by the proposed
decision."
This language, you'll recall, was that of Ms. Justice
Macken, as Mr. Healy read into the record on Thursday.
The second provision here:
"That a person, whose interests were capable of being
directly affected in a material way by a decision,
should be allowed to put forward reasons as to why the
decision should not be made or that the decision not
take a particular form, even if that decision was
justifiable in the interests of the common good.
However, the mere diminution of property values would
not normally suffice to establish the right to be
heard. The right to be heard before a contemplated
decision was made was not dependent on establishing
interference with a specific and identifiable right.
No distinction should be made between an effect which
modified the legal content of rights and a substantial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
101
effect on the exercise or enjoyment of rights. The
Courts had never laid down rigid rules for determining
when the need to observe fair procedures applied: it
depended on the circumstances and the subject matter.
The fundamental underlying principle was fairness."
This paragraph is a synthesis of the core judgments,
particularly those of Chief Justice Murray, Mr. Justice
Fennelly and Ms. Justice Macken.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: What I'm just struggling with a
little is, you're saying they're not materially
affected but if the planning permission hadn't been
extended the runway wouldn't be built. So how can it
be that their interests are not materially affected? A
runway is now being built?
MR. TOLAND: Yes. The question isn't, however, whether
or not the runway -- whether the Planning Authority had
the ability to decide whether or not the runway ought
to be built. It is fundamentally a matter for planning
permission. What I am saying is that the discretion
afforded to the Planning Authority under section 42 is
extraordinarily limited. You're correct, Judge, that
if the Planning Authority had decided that the Dublin
Airport Authority had not fulfilled the statutory
criteria then they could have refused permission. But
I say it is in the interest of large third parties that
affords them a right to participate in a statutory
procedure. It is, as is summarised by this, about what
the nature of the statutory scheme and the nature of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:52
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
102
the decision being made. And, therefore, one has to
look to the type of discretionary matters which are
being decided upon and whether or not the Applicants
had an interest, a material interest such as it would
be adversely affected by a negative decision in those.
Merely because the Extension Decision exists does not
invoke the same rights as pertained in the original
planning permission for participation.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you.
MR. TOLAND: If I could take the Court to the decision
of Mr. Justice Fennelly at page 321. Paragraph 433:
"As I have explained, I have decided to consider as a
separate matter whether the Applicants have shown that
their rights or interests are in fact capable of being
affected by a NAMA acquisition decision. I am posing
as a first question, whether NAMA and the State are
correct in their submission that consideration of the
borrower's interest is excluded. I do so, therefore,
the on the hypothesis that Mr. McKillen's interests are
affected.
When the questions is expressed thus, there can only be
one answer. A person whose interests are capable of
being affected by a decision of a public body
exercising its statutory powers is ordinarily entitled
to have notice of the intention to consider the making
of the decision and to have his representations heard
by the decision-maker with regard to those effects."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
103
That is, of course, the general principle. What we are
here concerning is at what point is that right engaged?
Turning then to page 323 to paragraph 442 of
Mr. Justice Fennelly's decision. It is entitled:
"Would a decision to acquire the Applicants' loans have
the potential to affect their interests so as to
entitle them to be heard by NAMA?
I have set out earlier in this judgment the respects in
which the applicants claim that their constitutional
rights are liable to be affected by a NAMA decision to
acquire their loans. The Applicants have analysed
these effects under four principal headings, which I
now repeat:-
1. Effects their underlying properties, i.e. their
constitutionally protected property rights;
2. Effects on the right to income stream from their
properties, i.e. their constitutionally protected right
to earn a livelihood;
3. Effects on their bundle of contractual rights;
4. Effects on their reputation."
These have all previously been considered. I don't
propose to go into it in too much detail. But I do
want to take the Court, after Mr. Justice Fennelly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:53
12:53
12:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
104
considers the decision of - I'm never any good with
Irish - MacPharthalain -v- Commissioners of Public
Works. If I take you to paragraph 451 on page 325.
The judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court
in:
"The judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court
in MacPharthalain -v- Commissioners of Public Works
1992] 1 I.R. 111; [1994] 3 I.R. 353 held that the
decision 'affected the rights' of the Applicants. Does
that mean..."
This is it's question Mr. Justice Fennelly posed:
"Does that mean that the rights themselves have to be
infringed in their legal quality or does it include
cases where the exercise of the rights is rendered more
difficult, less valuable or merely less attractive?
A distinction has to made between decisions addressed
to or closely connected with named or identifiable
individual persons or bodies and decisions made in the
general public interest. The High Court cited the
following passage from the judgment of Costello J. in
Hempenstall -v - Minister of the Environment [1994] 2
I.R. 20 at pp. 28 and 29:-
'...a change in law which has the effect of reducing
property values cannot in itself amount to an
infringement of constitutionally protected property
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:54
12:55
12:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
105
rights. There are many instances in which legal
changes may adversely affect property values (for
example, new zoning regulations in the planning code
and new legislation relating to the issue of
intoxicating liquor licences) and such changes cannot
be impugned as being constitutionally invalid unless
some invalidity can be shown to exist apart from the
resulting property value diminution.'
We are not here, of course concerned with a legislative
matter. Nonetheless, government and other public
bodies may adopt decisions having general application
which, while they have effects on individuals, do not
impose an obligation on the decision-maker to accord a
hearing to affected persons. Planning authorities
adopt development plans and designate or 'zone' large
areas of land for specified types of use. Such
decisions are more relevant to this case than zoning
regulations, mentioned by Costello J. The legislation
provides its own mechanism for publication and
objection. Decisions may be challenged on judicial
review for want of vires or on other grounds. They do
not, however, require observance of the rule of audi
alteram partem.
I would add that I do not consider that the mere fact
of diminution of property rights would normally suffice
to establish an individual right to be heard. The
decision of a public body to embark on the construction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:56
12:56
12:56
12:56
12:56
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
106
of a bridge, an airport, sewerage works, a new motorway
or the like may affect many people, in particular by
adversely impacting on property values, but public
consultation rather than individual judicial review is
the preferred and appropriate means of balancing public
and private interests. At any rate, I do not think
that mere adverse effects on property values flowing
from a public law decision can, on its own, trigger the
right. I am prompted to recall the analogy with the
rules of compensation for a compulsory acquisition of
property. The rules make a distinction between
injurious affection caused by what is done on land
taken from the claimant and on land no so taken. In
other words, the claimant has to put up with the
effects of the compulsory purchase order, insofar as
they emerge from land not taken from him."
There's a comment on Ross O'Carroll-Kelly.
"The central, and the most difficult, question in the
appeal concerns whether the right to be afforded fair
procedures in accordance with natural and
constitutional justice depends on the contemplated
decision amounting to an interference with rights, in
the sense of legal rights only, guaranteed by the
Constitution."
Before I pass on to that particular question I would
underline what Mr. Justice Fennelly has said in respect
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
107
of the fact, the mere that fact the diminution of
property values is not sufficient.
There is a comment also that pertains to the Planning
Acts which he acknowledges require public participation
at various stages. Whilst this is an individual
decision and an individual decision affecting primarily
the Dublin Airport Authority, so might then be seen as
different from a zoning which would affect a much wider
number of people, the central point that is being made
here is that in not all cases is a right to hearing to
be afforded. It is a matter of degree and it is a
matter of context.
At paragraphs 456 to 458 he considers previously case
law in which notices ought to have been given where
there is in Haughey, a rather direct affect on an
individual. Then at 460 on page 328 he says:
"It does not appear to me that it has been established
that the right to be heard before a contemplated
decision is made depends on establishing interference
with a specific and identifiable legal right. It is
difficult to discern a principled basis for restricting
a right in that way. The courts have never laid down
rigid rules for determining when the need to observe
fair procedures applies. Everything depends on the
circumstances and the subject matter. The fundamental
underlying principle is fairness. If a decision made
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12:59
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
108
concerning me or my property is liable to affect my
interests in a material way, it is fair and reasonable
that I should be allowed to put forward reasons why it
should not be made or should take a particular form.
It would be unjust to exclude me from being heard. For
the purposes of the right to be heard, I would not draw
a sharp line, what is sometimes called a 'bright line',
of distinction between an effect which modifies the
legal content of rights and a substantial effect on the
exercise or enjoyment of rights. I would fully endorse
the first part of the statement of the High Court,
quoted above as follows:-
'The Court is not satisfied any mere possibility that
there might be an indirect consequence for a party's
rights affords the party concerned a right to fair
procedures. There must be a real risk that parties'
rights will be interfered with in the event that there
is an adverse decision.'
The problem is with the interpretation of the following
statement that 'the adverse decision must be such as
would directly interfere with those rights, or at least
any interference must be so closely connected with any
adverse decision so as to warrant that the party
concerned be entitled to invoke a right to fair
procedures'."
Mr. Justice Fennelly says:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
109
"If the requirement is that there be direct
interference with the legal substance of the rights,
the statement is too narrow. It should be capable of
including material practical effects on the exercise
and enjoyment of the rights. Subject to this
qualification, which was crucial to the outcome of the
case in the High Court, I would approve the passage at
paragraph 116..."
If he approves the passage at 116 quoted at paragraph
445 above, taking the Court to paragraph 445, that
passage ends with the statement the approved passage
ends with the statement:
"Obviously, the precise application of that general
principle requires an analysis of the right which it is
said might be interfered with and the manner in which
it is said that an adverse decision would interfere
with that right."
So, Judge, in short, we say that - I appreciate it is
1:00 o'clock but if you don't mind - there must be a
real risk of an adverse interference with a party's
rights, including adverse practical effects to the
parties' exercise and enjoyment of those rights, other
than that of the right to fair procedures itself. This
entails an analysis of the right which it is said must
be interfered. The Applicants rest their right on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
110
Condition 9, which will not change and/or the potential
diminution of the property rights and enjoyment of
their property. The State considers first that the
mere diminution of the property rights is not itself
significant to trigger a right to be heard, as we've
seen in the judgment of Mr. Justice Fennelly and of the
Court itself. And secondly, that Condition 9 is not a
condition which is amenable to change. The interests
to don't attribute. Then it is required under the
approved test there to analyse how an adverse decision
might interfere with that right and this takes into
account, as you saw in the first paragraph of the
headnote effectively quoting Ms. Justice Macken, the
nature of the decision, the nature of the statutory
scheme and the importance of the decision to the
Applicants. And the State says in its submissions
here, that the nature of the decision is such that it
changes nothing as to the property rights or enjoyment
of the Applicants' property, nor have the Applicants
evidenced anything in their submissions that could be
made to influence same. The nature of the statutory
scheme is one involving minimal discretion and one in
which the Applicant has been heard and has had the
opportunity to be heard and to litigate on many
occasions. Insofar as those narrow statutory criteria
are concerned, the importance of the decision is
limited.
I'll take up two further points in respect of Dellway
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
13:03
14:03
14:03
14:03
14:04
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
111
and its consequences for the Applicants after lunch.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Very good. Sure we'll come back
at 2:00 o'clock. Does that suit?
THE HEARING ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
THE HEARING CONTINUED AFTER LUNCH AS FOLLOWS:
REGISTRAR: Resumed at hearing in T -v- Fingal County
Council.
MR. TOLAND: Judge, just before lunch I concluded on
the substantive parts of the Dellway judgment,
summarising, in effect, that there must be a real risk
of an adverse interference with the party's rights and
I went on to say what the State's position was with
regard to the nature of the decision changing not just
property rights. But I just wanted to turn you to
discreet issues within this.
Firstly, that we say that there is no evidence advanced
showing an infringement of the Applicants' interest and
if I turn to -- Judge, well you have Dellway open in
front of you. After the principled consideration up to
paragraph 460, which Mr. Justice Fennelly considered,
he then turned to look at the actual effects on the
rights alleged by the Applicants at paragraph 461, as
to:
"Should the court itself assess its strength or weigh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:05
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
112
its value? Should the court arrive at a conclusion as
to the likely effects on the applicants’ business of
the NAMA business plan? I do not think it is necessary
for the court to go so far. It suffices, in my view,
that there is an apparently credible body of evidence
that the applicants’ business is likely to be
significantly affected."
"An apparently credible body of evidence that the
applicants’ business is likely to be significantly
affected.".
You might of course link that it was apparent that it
would have been.
"It is not for the court to decide on the weight to be
attached to that evidence or whether it should be
accepted at all. That would be to beg the question
which arises, which is what NAMA should be required to
take it into account when considering in its discretion
to make an acquisition decision."
Again here you see tied together questions of the
evidence required and the discretion to be made, the
discretion to be exercised.
If you turn to paragraph 463, he assesses the business
plan showing that NAMA is a work-out vehicle. And this
is something I referred to earlier just in terms of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:06
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
113
difference between this case, Dellway, and the instant
case.
"There was a reasonable expectation that existing
expired facilities would be routinely renewed as an
administrative matter..."
That is in normal business lending.
"....whereas NAMA will be able to and is likely to rely
on the legal fact of expiry. In a normal profitable and
performing banking relationship, a lending bank would
not, in practice, rely on breach of loan-to-value
covenants to call in loans. NAMA has a core commercial
objective of recovering for the taxpayer whatever it
has paid for the loans in addition to whatever it has
invested to enhance property assets underlying those
loans. It is expected to have a lifespan of seven to
ten years. This objective is incompatible with Mr.
McKillen's business model, which is to invest long term
and to enhance his portfolio."
And this again underlines the impairment of the
business of Mr. McKillen, the direct adverse affect
that is being considered here. And at paragraph 466
Mr. Justice Fennelly says:
"Finnegan J. has analysed in his judgment today the
foregoing and a number of other provisions of the Act
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
114
conferring specific powers on NAMA. He has demonstrated
that, at the very least, NAMA has powers which were not
available to the financial institutions. Their precise
effects cannot be judged in the abstract or apart from
the context of a particular dispute. It is not possible
to pass judgment definitively on these provisions. I
believe, however, that, when considered in their
entirety they show that the transfer of loans to NAMA
has the potential to affect borrowers, at least to a
sufficient extent to require NAMA to accord a hearing
to the applicants prior to making an acquisition
decision."
Then at paragraph 467:
"The central point is, in my view, that the transfer to
NAMA puts the applicants and Mr. McKillen in a
fundamentally different situation. NAMA, a statutory
body, with statutory powers and objectives replaces his
banks with which he has had, up to now, a commercial
relationship. His long term business model is not
compatible with NAMA's statutory remit, which is
essentially short term. Where NAMA is in a position to
rely on default by any of the applicants under their
loan agreements, it is not only likely to but obliged
to take action in pursuance of its statutory
objectives, where a bank either would, or at least
might, not do so. The consequence of an acquisition
decision...."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:08
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
115
Mr. Justice Fennelly is underlining this effectively.
"....is to make a substantial change in the way in
which the applicants are in a position to exercise
their property rights. Their ability to manage their
properties independently is reduced."
That fundamentally, as I was saying at the beginning,
is the crux of the NAMA decision -- or the crux of the
Dellway decision; that fundamentally Dellway is, as I
said, about as far as you could go with a direct
expropriation of property. This is a very substantial
interference and it is for that reason that
Mr. McKillen and his proper businesses were afforded an
opportunity by the Supreme Court to make submissions.
And I say that that is a very different position to the
position that the Merriman Applicants find themselves
in, in the context of a decision to extend in the
context of very limited statutory discretion.
And as I was saying, I was coming to the point where
there is no evidence of the infringement of decision
and at paragraph 471 of Mr. Justice Fennelly's
judgment:
"I have come to the conclusion that the applicants have
the right to be heard by NAMA before it makes any
acquisition decision in respect of their loans."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:09
14:10
14:10
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
116
And, of course, that's in the foregoing context.
"That right relates, as I have already emphasised, only
to representations with regard to the effects any
acquisition decision is likely to have on their
particular interests. It does not extend to making
representations concerning the considerations, other
than effects on the applicants, to which NAMA will have
regard when considering whether to make a decision."
And then he goes into substance of the right and then
at paragraph 472 whether an oral hearing is required.
But that aspect is important. The right to make
submissions must relate to an aspect of the decision
which the interests of the Applicants' concerns. It is
not all aspects, it must be an aspect that they are
directly interested in, adversely affected by. And we
say in respect of the discretionary elements of the
section 42 test, such as they are, that there are no
impacts on the Applicants, or at least they are not of
substantial gravity; they have a material interest in
any potential adverse effect.
And second, and I can hand up the authority of Wexele,
the Applicants must prove that they have something to
say. I have it here, an unbound but punched authority
Wexele -v- An Bord Pleanála. I may be mispronouncing
it there. It is being handed out to my Friends.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
117
(same handed)
I don't propose the rely on the -- I don't propose to
open the entire case. It is a case in which the
Applicant had been refused planning permission by a
Respondent to build a retail and residential complex on
the ground, inter alia, that the loss of parking spaces
created would result in under provision of car parking
spaces for the area, therefore adding to traffic
congestion and have sought to have that decision
quashed on grounds that issues as to parking and
traffic congestion were outside the scope of what the
Respondents could have regard to and, thus, irrelevant
and immaterial to the application. This is the point
where I am using it. If you look at paragraph 20:
"It was also argued that the Respondent had acted in
breach of the fair procedures in failing to notify it
of further observations made by a third party to the
planning appeal."
And paragraph 19 at page 15:
"To a limited extent, the principles of natural justice
have an influence on the interpretation of this
section. The Board is not obliged to bring every fresh
submission to the attention of a party to the appeal
and to ask for further observations. The first
principal applicable is that of utility. The scheme
under the Act is not to be replaced with a mechanical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
118
application of the notion derived from civil law that
everything before the decision maker must also be
before the parties and that everything which is
submitted must be known to all sides and that they must
be given a reasonable opportunity to counter to with
submissions of their own. That is clearly outside the
scheme of the Planning and Development Act, 2000."
And then the point upon which I actually wish to reply:
"Fundamentally, if a complaint is made that an
applicant was shut out of making a submission, that
party must show that they have something to say. What
they have to say must not be something that has already
been said. Nor can it be a reiteration in different
language of an earlier submission. If a party is to
meet the onus of alleging unfairness by the Board in
cutting them out for making a submission they must
reveal what has been denied them, what they have to say
and then discharge the burden of showing that it had
been unjust for the Board to cut them out of saying
it."
So I'm saying that even if it is the case that their
rights were engaged they must discharge the onus of
showing that it has been unjust that they were not
permitted to do so. They haven't done so. At no point
have they said that the Board is incorrect in some way.
As I said before, this is not a challenge to that. But
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
119
at no point have they actually said the Board was
incorrect in any of the material assessments that we
considered. Rather, they have simply said they wanted
an opportunity to make a submission. And the extent to
which they say anything which they originally said is
in respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment and
the Appropriate Assessment, which they say should have
occurred. And that is, of course, what they made a
submission on originally.
But of course under the statutory test Fingal County
Council says -- Fingal County Council's first duty to
that, before the rest applies, is whether or not it was
commenced. Not whether or not substantial works have
been done but, rather, whether or not, simply, it had
been commenced. So you don't get to that point. And
so I say that they have not discharged the burden of
showing it had been unjust to cut them out, in the
words of the court in this case.
And I also want to refer, because I have referred in
respect of the engagement of the right, to whether or
not the -- that the role of prior participation is an
important consideration as to whether or not the right
requires to be engaged, and that that is part of the
nature of the statutory scheme which is before you, not
merely section 42 itself but the overall statutory
scheme which permits them, which they have availed of.
So I just want to open briefly a case called Klohn -v-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:16
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
120
An Bord Pleanála.
MR. KENNY: Judge, not to be difficult but before
Mr. Toland opens that. I have just been handed an
index with an additional 15 authorities by the State.
The rules of this Court require the parties to confine
themselves to 10 authorities. Obviously, there is a
latitude within that. I handed in two additional
authorities which took me to 11. There comes a point
when, in my respectful submission, there can be no
allowance for the State, in effect, to double the
amount of authorities it wishes to refer to, without
any explanation for how that may have arise. I would
ask the Court to at least consider excluding some of
the additional authorities to which my Friend purports
to rely on.
MR. HEALY: Judge, I have no objection to additional
authorities, save to the extent that I may need time to
look at them. It is hard to read them as Mr. Toland is
opening them because he has the advantage of having had
an opportunity. But I, apart from what general
appreciation I may have them, I am certainly not
against any additional authorities. But there may be a
time element.
MR. TOLAND: I understand Mr. Kenny had also put
forward additional authorities on Friday. There should
be no difficulty in additional authorities being before
the Court, given the parties will have extra time this
evening to consider them and to address the Court in
conclusion in the reply. There is in unfairness in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:18
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
121
that.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I don't think there is. I mean,
if there is latitude required you will get the latitude
when you get to stand up the next time.
MR. KENNY: Very good, Judge.
MR. TOLAND: Obliged Judge. Has the court been given a
copy of Klohn?
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I have, yes. Thank you very
much. Oh sorry, I haven't been given a copy of the
case, no.
MR. TOLAND: Oh, sorry.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: If nothing else, at the end of
the day it will be lots of drawing paper for my kids!
MR. TOLAND: Sorry, Judge, I am just trying to confirm
the copy is the same. Yes. The particular issue in
this case that I wish to draw the Court's attention to
is an appeal under section 127 of the Act of 2000 and
whether or not there was permissible exclusion of the
right to make further representations or further
submissions. I will take you to paragraph 55 at page
78 under "Breach of fair procedures". We are not
dealing with Article 4.3 here.
"The applicant makes the case that the Respondent acted
unlawfully in failing to allow the appropriate persons
to make comments in respect of the submissions of the
Second notice party -- He makes the point that the
respondent, in this decision, admits that the original
application has been "amended" by the submissions dated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
122
the 16th February, 2004 and the 25th March, 2004 and,
as such, could not have been covered by the original
Impact Assessment.
The submission of the 16th February, 2004, was the
response by the Achonry Development Group to the
Developer’s appeal. The submission of the 25th March,
2004 was the second notice party's response to the
observations of the applicant. The applicant states
that these ought to have been circulated to the
applicant for his further comment. Specifically, the
applicant alleges that the respondent's action in this
matter was invalid for two reasons."
The first is in respect of Article 113, which I don't
propose to go into, and then the second:
"Second, he argues that as a matter of fair procedures
both he and the Achonry Development Group ought to have
been furnished with these submissions and given the
opportunity to make further submissions. Both of these
arguments will be discussed in turn."
And if I could take the Court to the consideration at
paragraph 62, page 82, in respect of the second
argument. Here, Judge, I will say that this case is
not directly on point. This concerns within an appeal
process a procedure in which further submissions were
not permitted. Rather than a procedure, such as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
123
section 42, in which no submissions are permitted.
However, the factors which Mr. Justice McMahon
considered here I say are of relevance in considering
the very limited discretion the Oireachtas has granted
the decision maker in extension decisions, and the
reason why the Oireachtas has limited submissions,
which is the extent of public participation prior to
that. So if you just open paragraph 62:
"62. The second argument advanced by the applicant in
this context, is that his right to fair procedures was
denied and, in particular, that he was denied further
opportunity to comment on the submissions made on the
16th February, 2004 and the 25th March, 2004, in breach
of fair procedures and, in particular, in breach of the
audi alteram partem rule.
63. In assessing this argument it should be remembered
that, in the present case, the applicant and the
Achonry Development Group, of which he was a member,
participated fully and actively in the whole process
from the very beginning. Both had made submissions in
response to the appeal lodged by the second notice
party. The Group, itself an appellant, had been
supplied with all relevant submissions and observations
and the applicant, as an observer and a member of the
Group, was fully aware of the submissions. A brief look
at the chronology of the events in the initial
application and the appeal discloses how thorough the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
124
process was and, in these circumstances, it is
difficult to conclude that the applicant or the Group
lost any significant opportunity to be fully heard. The
consultation process is not interminable: If the
applicant was afforded the opportunity to further
respond, would the respondent then have to provide the
developer with an additional right of reply? There must
be an end to the consultative process at some stage
and, in view of the fact that the respondent considered
that there was nothing new in the submissions of the
16th February or the 25th March, it was entitled to put
a halt to the submission and observation phase of the
process. It was entitled to move to the deliberation
and the decision phase. In contentious planning
applications it is, on occasion, understandable that
local feelings will run high and, while it is important
that objectors and others be given their say, it is
inevitable that a point will come when the decision
maker must bring an end to the consultation process and
proceed to make his decision. In reviewing this
decision in the light of fair procedures requirements
one must be mindful of striking a fair balance between
the competing interests. One is dealing here with
principles which should be applied in a sensible and
robust fashion. In entertaining an argument from an
objector who says that he was short-changed in the
participation, one is entitled to stand back and look
at the overall picture bearing in mind, at all times,
the discretion given to the decision maker. Before one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
125
would conclude that the applicant has not been given a
fair hearing, one would need to conclude that justice
has been seriously offended. Given the level of
participation and the level of information available to
the applicant in this case, I do not believe that there
has been any breach of fair procedures."
Now, Judge, obviously on the ratio this case is
different in that it concerns vindication of the right
to fair procedures in an appeal at an earlier point,
and the denial of further submissions at a later point.
But I say the factors which are being considered here
and urged, considered here by Mr. Justice McMahon,
which include the level of discretion which the
decision maker enjoys and the opportunity for past
participation, are factors which the Oireachtas
properly has considered in how it has framed section 42
and in the context of very limited discretion available
to the decision maker, the Fingal County Council or
other Planning Authorities, that the exhaustive prior
participation in complete planning processes, planning
application and appeal, mean firstly, in our
submission, that no right to fair procedures is
engaged. Or even if the Court is to take the view that
a right to fair procedures is engaged, that on the
basis set out by Mr. Justice McMahon it can be
circumscribed. And has been legitimately.
And that brings me, Judge, finally, to a general point,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
126
and I don't need to open anything in respect of it,
which is that the Oireachtas must be presumed to have
operated and enacted section 42 in a constitutional
manner. Either it is correct to say that third party's
rights are not engaged. Full stop. Or that they are
not engaged because they are not materially interested
in an adverse effective decision because of the very
limited discretion afforded. Or it is the case that
the right has been engaged and infringed but
proportionately so because of the right -- because of
the limited nature of the discretion and the prior
public participation inherent in the Planning and
Development Acts. And so for that reason we say that
section 42 in not providing for the right to make
submissions is entirely compatible with the provisions
of the Constitution.
That concludes my submissions in respect of public
participation and the Merriman Applicants' right to
fair procedures. Unless the Court has any further
questions.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: No.
MR. TOLAND: I now turn to two final matters which were
raised by Friends of the Irish Environment. The first
which I will deal with is the alleged constitutional
right to an environment, and the second I will turn to
the consideration by Fingal County Council of section
15, the factors outlined in section 15 of the Climate
Action and Low Carbon Development Act, 2015.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
127
In respect of the right to the environment, Friends of
the Irish Environment assert that natural and
constitutional rights to bodily integrity are
predicated and derived from -- they are dependent upon
a right to the environment. They submit that's
inherent in various articles, Article 40 of the
Constitution, and they claim that that right is --
42(a) of the Constitution -- and they claim the right
is not absolute; it must be balanced with other
competing rights.
They claim that the north runway will lead to an
increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which will in
turn lead to an increase in the pace of climate change
and, ultimately, directly and irrevocably impinge on
citizen's or resident's unenumerated right to an
environment.
My Friend stated that Friends of the Irish Environment
and the wider population are equally at risk in terms
of their bodily integrity from environmental
degradation which would occur if the north runway was
built and in the support of that he referred to two
reports, from the IPPC and Professor Bows-Larkin. I
don't propose to go into those in any detail but simply
to say this: that Friends of the Irish Environment,
firstly, have not specified the scope of the right to
the environment, either generally or in this particular
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
128
case. They have stated it almost as a principle but
not as an enforceable right. I will come back to that
briefly.
Secondly, the Applicants have established no
infringement of the purported right. First of all,
they must define its contours and they must say what
specifically is being breached. They have not done
that, in my view. But secondly, they have not
established a particular infringement. And unlike in
any of the cases in which an unenumerated right has
been established -- and you might recall, Judge, that
in Ryan -v- The Attorney General there is some 65 days
of evidence and submissions in the High Court and in
McGee medical evidence was advanced as to the health of
the Plaintiff. There is a dearth of evidence in this
case. Friends of the Irish Environment have advanced
no evidence to establish that the north runway will
cause an increase in the pace of climate change. The
only evidence adduced is a report concerning Heathrow
Airport and an IPPC report which contains generalised
remarks concerning correlation between expansion of
aviation and production of increased greenhouse gases.
This is not sufficiently precise for a breach of any
alleged right to be established consequential upon the
north runway. And I don't think it is necessary for me
to open those reports in order to say that.
There is no precise statement with regard to the impact
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:31
14:31
14:31
14:32
14:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
129
that Dublin Airport itself will have upon greenhouse
gas emissions. There is no link between that and
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. And so
there can be no -- even if that link -- even if once
you establish climate change there is a direct link
that can be assumed between that and personal rights,
and you don't need to evidence that, they haven't
reached the point of saying that Dublin Airport is
going to be directly impacting negatively upon climate
change.
The unenumerated rights doctrine also needs to be
considered because, of course, Judge, that is what this
Court is being asked to do; to specify a new
unenumerated right. And with apologies to my Friend,
I'm going to produce another authority. The judgment
of the Supreme Court in O'T -v- B (Same Handed). This
case concerned a finding, after an initial Circuit
Court hearing, a finding by the Supreme Court that a
natural child was entitled to know the identity of his
or her natural parent and that was an unenumerated
right guaranteed by the Constitution. If I could just
take the Court to the third page of the headnote at
point 6 and:
"That in view of the caution to be exercised with
regard to the duty of ascertaining and declaring what
were the personal rights of a citizen, other than those
specified in the Constitution, it was incumbent on a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:33
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
130
court declaring such a right to do so in clear and
explicit terms."
I say that hasn't been done in this case to enable the
Court to do so. I will just take the Court briefly to
page 369 which is the decision of Mr. Justice Keane.
Whilst this is essentially obiter I think it informs
the decision of courts in the future ascertainment of
unenumerated rights. Down at the bottom of page 369,
and he is commenting on and interpreting, firstly, Ryan
and then McGee. He says:
"There is no discussion in that judgment of the
question as whether, given that the unenumerated rights
clearly existed in the contemplation of the framers of
the Constitution, it was intended by them that the duty
of declaring what those rights were should be the
function of the judiciary rather than the Oireachtas,
although that fundamental issue is referred to in the
judgment of Kenny J.. Nor was there any explicit
endorsement of Kenny J.'s proposed criterion that they
might flow from the Christian and democratic nature of
the State. This might have been because the right
under discussion was conceded, on behalf of the
Attorney, to be such an unenumerated right, although
not in the precise form of the right to bodily
integrity.
It would unduly prolong this judgment to consider in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
131
detail the problems that have subsequently been
encountered in developing a coherent principle
jurisprudence in this area. It is sufficient to say
that, save where such an unenumerated right has been
unequivocally established by precedent, as, for
example, in the case of the right to travel and the
right to privacy, some degree of judicial restraint is
called for in identifying new rights of this nature."
And he goes on. I think that is the single most
important element of his judgment, the necessity for
judicial restraint.
My Friend referred to philosophical approaches. There
is a discussion of that on page 372 but I don't think I
need to open it, save to say that there is no known
method of constitutional interpretation or enumeration
of a right which has been advanced by Mr. Kenny or his
clients to claim the environmental right they rely on,
scientific consensus and an emerging, in the words of
Mr. Kenny, jurisprudential consensus, predominantly
international, and an emerging theological and
philosophical consensus, in sole support of which they
cite a recent papal encyclical.
There are, of course, various approaches to
interpretation of the Constitution. We could spend
days on it. It is unnecessary. The Applicants haven't
grounded their right to an environment on any of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
132
standard approaches: Literal; historical; harmonious;
purposive. They have not looked to the text of the
Constitution itself. Instead they have looked beyond
it. And in looking beyond it the Applicants have
advanced no authority to demonstrate that international
consensus can be relied on as an interpretive advice
for the finding of unenumerated rights in the
Constitution.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I fear you have just opened the
gateway there to yet another judgment being handed up!
MR. TOLAND: I apologise, Judge, I didn't hear you.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I fear you have just opened the
gateway there to yet another judgment being handed up!
MR. TOLAND: I may have. And I seek the right of
rejoinder. Whilst it is a case, of course, that the
case-law of the ECHR and the EU are persuasive and, of
course, other jurisdictions are persuasive, the English
system being, perhaps, one most familiar to us, in none
of those systems is the right to environment a legally
enforceable right. My Friends in their written
submissions mention Article 37 of the EU Charter on
Fundamental Rights and that, of course, is not a right,
but merely a principle applicable to Union
institutions, not an enforceable right open to
citizens. So within the orders with which we are most
familiar there is no international consensus.
And third, even if an international consensus could be
placed before this Court, or should be recognised in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
133
divining a right to the environment, there has been no
evidence placed before this Court of such foreign law.
It is not simply a matter in submissions of asserting
that a certain number of other countries, some of which
are named, have a right to the environment. There are
any number of ways in which a right to the environment
can exist. Firstly, there is its scope. It may have
various different scopes. Secondly, it may exist at
various different legal orders. Thirdly, it exists
within different legal systems, some of which -- or
most of which are unlike ours because ours actually
permit legislation and administrative acts to be struck
down on the basis of them. Fourthly, you need to in
advancing foreign law produce that on evidence, you
need to show how it sits within those legal orders and
explain to the Court. And so it is not simply a matter
of saying that a right to the environment exists as a
concept without actually explaining its contours and
how it does within those international systems.
Finally, and not to treat this in any further --
because this issue has come up on many occasions before
the Courts, but even if it were the case that - and
leaving aside any question of an international
consensus - the Court were to entertain the
establishment of a right to the environment within our
Constitution I say that that very firmly is a
socio-economic right and one which these courts have on
a number of occasions set a line firmly against.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:39
14:40
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
134
I regret to say I have another authority for you,
Judge, T.D. -v- The Minister for Education. No, sorry,
that's in the books. You will be pleased to know that,
Judge. Book 3, Tab 50. Just without opening the case
largely you will remember this, concerning the question
about whether or not there is a right to education or
what is called a general right for a citizen to receive
or an obligation on the state to provide medical or
social services as a constitutional obligation. If the
Court opens to the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy at
page 316 of the internal pagination.
"With the exception of Article 42 of the Constitution,
under the heading "Education", there are no express
provisions therein cognisable by the courts which
impose an express obligation on the State to provide
accommodation, medical treatment, welfare or any other
form of socio-economic benefit for any of its citizens,
however needy or deserving. It is true that the
exploration of unenumerated constitutional
rights....has established the existence of a
constitutional right of "bodily integrity". The
examination of that right in later cases certainly
establishes that the State has an obligation in respect
of the health of persons detained in prisons. However,
these authorities do not suggest the existence of any
general right in the citizen to receive, or an
obligation on the State to provide medical and social
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
135
services as a constitutional obligation.
In G. V. An Bord Uchtála [1980] I.R. 32, Henchy J.
Identified the right to bodily integrity at pp. 90 to
91 in the essentially negative terms following:
"As to a constitutional right to bodily integrity, such
a right arises for judicial recognition or enforcement
only in circumstances which require that, in order to
assure the dignity and freedom of the individual within
the constitutional framework, he or she should be held
immune from a particular actual or threatened bodily
injury or intrusion".
With the exception of the provisions dealing with
education, the personal rights identified in the
Constitution all lie in the civil and political rather
than the economic sphere. These are indeed important
rights which were won for citizens in different
societies over a period of centuries often in the face
of bitter opposition."
Moving down:
"The absence of any express reference to accommodation,
medical treatment or social welfare of any description
as a constitutional right in the Constitution as
enacted, is a matter of significance. The failure to
correct that omission in any of the 24 referenda which
have taken place since then would suggest a conscious
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
136
decision to withhold from rights, which are now widely
conferred by appropriate legislation, the status of
constitutionality in the sense of being rights
conferred or recognised by the Constitution."
He goes on to talk about the right to elevate social
welfare. He does refer to the direct principles of
social policy in the Indian Constitution, which some
commentators have said comes from ours, but then moves
to:
"The status of socio-economic rights in our
Constitution and the detailed provisions in relation to
education were explained by Professor Gerard Quinn:-
"De Valera cleverly genuflected before socio-economic
rights but made sure to insert them into a part of the
Constitution that is unenforceable by the courts. One
socio-economic right escaped into the hard text:
Article 42 on the right to education. Its presence in
the text has more to do with history than with logic."
And moving on:
"There are, as I would see it, serious arguments
against inferring the existence of positive
socio-economic rights (apart from the anomalous rights
relating to education) but there are impressive
authorities to the contrary."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
137
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: And when you have no less a man
that Pope Frances saying we live in an immense pile of
filth you don't think that impinges on the right to
bodily integrity, no?
MR. TOLAND: As a Presbyterian, I -- nevertheless I
give him his due. Important philosophical
commentators, important theologians are certainly those
whom any State should take as part of the mix. But the
question in ascertaining a socio-economic right, such
as the right to the environment, is which body and
which arm of the State should derive that right and
should mark its contours. And what I was saying is
that yes, absolutely you might be in favour personally
of a right to the environment being enforced as it is
in our current legislation, but that is separate
entirely from whether this Court should recognise it as
an enforceable right, one whose contours have not been
defined in this case and one which would involve an
adjudication by courts in future cases as to matters
fundamentally about natural resources, both above and
under the ground, and, therefore, substantially
interfering with the balance of powers between our
branchs of government. And that trespasses directly
upon distributed justice, which these courts have quite
definitely set their minds against.
And finally, and without going further at all legally
into the right to the environment, even if it is the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
138
case that the runway would cause an increase in the
pace of climate change, which, as I have said, has not
been established, and even if there is a constitutional
right to the environment it is the planning permission
and not the extension decision which is the cause of
that increase. Section 42 does not trigger it. That
concludes my submissions on the right to the
environment.
If I could take the Court to book 1, Tab 8 of the
authorities, that's to the climate change Act itself.
The long title provides:
"It is an Act to provide for the approval of plans for
the Government in relation to climate change for the
purpose of pursuing the transition to a low carbon
climate resilient and environmentally sustainable
economy; to establish a body to be known in Irish..."
I won't go there.
"....as the Climate Change Advisory Council and to
provide for matters connected therein."
I only pause to note the long title as its primary
purpose is to provide an obligation upon the government
to pursue a transition of an economy.
What my Friends have effectively said is that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
139
insufficient regard was had in the decision of Fingal
County Council to the objectives which are set out at
section 15 of the climate change Act and so I just want
to take the Court to section 15:
"Duties of certain bodies
15. (1) A relevant body shall, in the performance of
its functions, have regard to -
(a) the most recent approved national mitigation plan,
(b) the most recent approved national adaptation
framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans,
(c) the furtherance of the national transition
objective, and
(d) the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change
in the State."
Subsection (3) then provides for directions given by
the relevant Minister about compliance by relevant
bodies with subsection (1).
In section 1 of the Act "approved national adaptation
framework" means...a framework approved by the
Government under section 5"
An "Approved national mitigation plan" means a national
mitigation plan approved by the Government under
section 4..."
"An "approved sectoral adaptation plan" means a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
140
sectoral adaptation plan approved by the Government
under section 6..."
""Mitigation" means any human intervention aimed at
reducing harmful influences on the earth's climate
system, including action aimed at reducing emissions
and creating or enhancing sinks;"
""national transition objective" has the meaning
assigned to it by section 3(1)."
And if you turn to section 3(1) under "low carbon
transition":
"For the purpose of enabling the State to pursue, and
achieve, the transition to a low carbon, climate
resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by
the end of the year 2050 (in this Act referred to as
the "national transition objective") the Minister shall
make and submit to the Government for approval -
(a) a national mitigation plan, and
(b) a national adaptation framework.
So in this section 3(1) tells us that the "national
transition objective" is the transition by 2050 to "a
low carbon climate resilient and environmentally
sustainable economy".
So the obligations on Fingal County Council are to have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
141
regard to four separate provisions of section 15. If I
ask the Court to open the Merriman trial book 1 at Tab
3 I will just take the Court through the considerations
of Fingal County Council. So trial book 1, Tab 3
internal pagination -- sorry, book pagination 123.
Okay, thank you, Judge. And so towards the bottom of
the page under the heading "Climate Action and Low
Carbon Development Act 2015".
"The Planning Authority notes section 15 of the Act and
the requirements in that section for public authorities
generally to have regard to the matters referenced in
section 15 in the performance of their functions."
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I think I must have the wrong
book. Merriman, the pleadings book 1, is it?
MR. TOLAND: It was actually FIE book 1. Apologies to
the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Not at all.
MR. TOLAND: There is a lot of paper in this case,
Judge.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: It is all interesting though!
MR. TOLAND: So under the heading "Climate Change and
Low Carbon Development Act 2015", as I said, the
paragraph begins:
"The Planning Authority notes section 15 of the Act and
the requirement in that section for public authorities
generally to have regard to the matters referenced in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
142
section 15 in the performance of their functions. The
planning authority notes the progress made to date in
relation to the making of the first statutory approved
national mitigation plan on climate change, the first
statutory approved national adaptation framework, the
statutory approved sectoral adaptation plans. It is
also noted that these plans have not been finalised."
And the essential point there is that they have not
been, or weren't at the time. And so further
consideration of them was not appropriate within the
context of the decision. But more importantly, all
that suffices is that they actually have regard to them
and they are noting them here as having done so.
The more substantive elements of section 15, that's (c)
and (d), the furtherance of the national transition
objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse
gas emissions and adopting to the effects of climate
change on the State, are set out in somewhat greater
detail and they say there:
"In relation to the objective mentioned in section 15
of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and in relation
to the national transition objection, the planning
authority is conscious that a reduction in aviation
emissions will help to make a contribution towards the
overall greenhouse gas mitigation and towards the
national transition objective. The planning authority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
143
is conscious that a reduction in aviation emissions
will help make a transition towards greenhouse gas
mitigation and towards the national transition
objective, especially in the timeframe within which the
national transition objective is intended to be
achieved as defined within the Act as by the end of the
year 2050."
They couldn't have more express regard to the two
objectives.
"In circumstances where it is recognised that the
control of international aviation emissions requires a
collaborative industry based and multilateral approach,
the UN climate regime, for example, has historically
recognised the International Civil Aviation
Organisation as the appropriate forum through which in
the first instance to seek to achieve reductions in
international aviation emissions. The Planning
Authority notes the dialogue and efforts that have been
taking place in different international forra (e.g. in
the airline industry, the EU and the ICAO) to try to
achieve aviation emission reductions in different ways
(including various market based and technology
approaches to reduction).
The Planning Authority notes the recent agreement
reached within the ICAO in October 2016 for the
establishment of a market based mechanism (MBM) for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
144
proposed capping of emissions from international
aviation at 2020 levels, with the off-setting of any
increases beyond that period.
The Planning Authority notes the likelihood that in
2017 and 2018 the EU will consider its first future
approach to the control of aviation emissions with
inter-EU emissions as well as emissions from flights in
and out of the EEA, including whether to accept and
adopt the ICAO's MBM approach, or whether as one
alternative to resume the application of the EU ETS..."
That's the emissions trading scheme.
"....to emissions from all flights into and out of the
EEA.
The Planning Authority notes that as an EU Member State
Ireland will be involved in the EU's continuing policy
responses to aviation emissions control, and as regards
the ICAO initiative it notes Irelands long-standing
membership of the ICAO and it notes that prior to its
adoption in October 2016 the ICAO initiative was the
subject of a consultation process in Ireland, conducted
in early 2016, for the aviation services."
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I gave judgment earlier this year
in a case involving McDonald's out in Greystones and
there you had to have regard to the Healthy Eating
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
145
Guidelines and they did have regard to the Healthy
Eating Guidelines and I said "having regard to" means
having regard to. But I did wonder when writing that
judgment does "having regard to" also mean inadequate
or dismissive regard to. Because what you have read
out to me sounds like load of palaver, to be honest.
So I just wonder is that "having regard to"?
MR. TOLAND: "Having regard to" simply means that they
must consider the issues which are required for them to
be considered. Section 15 does not in any way change
the substance of section 42. The decision to be
adopted by the authority doesn't require to be changed.
So it is not a ground to refuse under section 42. So
the standard principles of judicial review of that
decision would normally apply in terms of the relevant
amount of reasoning that would be required within the
section 42 decision per se.
This is very different to that. Those are not
decisions that Fingal County Council must meet or must
make. They are, rather, considerations it must take
into account in the performance of its functions. It
would be impermissible for them to refuse the
permission or the extension decision on the basis of
any reasoning here and section 15 is solely there to
remind authorities, in the context of all their work --
and remember most of their work wasn't merely the
issuing of decisions but in the context of their own
business plans, et cetera -- that they should consider
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
146
these objectives and how they go about their normal
functions. And so I say that the requirement is simply
that of having regard.
I don't demur from the case which my Friend mentioned,
which, if it is found that there are reasons to depart
from -- if it is found that on a "have regard to" test
that one has to depart from the objectives that you
must provide those reasons I don't demur from that at
all. But I say that this decision isn't saying that,
doesn't consider that there is a departure. Nor have
my Friends made out there is, as I have said before.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I think what they said is there
is a failure to engage, that basically what it is, is a
news bulletin telling us what the State is doing. But
it doesn't engage with the issues that they were asked
to engage with.
MR. TOLAND: Section 15 requires that certain matters
be considered.
Section 15 requires that certain things be considered
and it has regard to them. Two of those are the plans
which are referred to; the third is a National
Transition Objective; and the fourth is about
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. There is very
clear engagement, Judge, on page 124, it expressly
considers those objectives. It, firstly, is conscious
of what those objectives are and sets them out clearly
in a way that is not incompatible with the Act and in a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
147
way, in my submission, which is directly on point with
the Act. It then, in its more detailed consideration,
it engages with the aviation sector and what is
happening within the aviation sector and the moves that
are afoot both at the international body which controls
the aviation sector and within the European Union to
address emissions. The Climate Change Act took place
in a wider context of EU legislation and of EU action,
policy action and international action to combat
climate change and it requires consideration. And this
type of consideration which actually refers to those
measures which are going to be put in place to deal
with emissions effectively, which are completely beyond
the competence of Fingal County Council to put into
place, but at least those elements, it is acknowledging
exist as part of the framework which will exist to deal
with greenhouse gas emissions, which will be part of
our National Transition Objective on mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions. It is these features, Judge,
and this is not being contested by my Friend, it is
these features which form part of our national strategy
to address greenhouse gas emissions. So I'll have to
respectfully say, I take issue with the use of the word
"press statement" or "palaver". This is as great a
consideration that the Fingal County Council was
required to have and, in my respectful submission, went
beyond their statutory obligations in considering it in
this detail.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: So if I was to have regard to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
148
implications of Brexit, you're saying it would suffice
for me to say there's a meeting of the European Council
next Thursday and they'll do whatever they're going to
do and that I will therefore have had regard to?
MR. TOLAND: The 'have regard to' test isn't in
dispute, Judge. A 'have regard to' test, within
Section 42 itself and under Section 28 of the Act there
is an obligation to have regard to Ministerial
Guidelines. Now that is a context where the Planning
Authority must actually consider those Ministerial
Guidelines and essentially, as I have said to you,
check that the proper planning and sustainable
development is not changed. Within other legislation -
that is not coming to mind - the 'have regard to' test
would be a statutory factor to consider in the course
of making a decision on the person adversely affected
by that decision. But here a 'have regard to' test, in
the performance of the functions of a public authority
is a test that is simply for that authority, in the
course of its ordinary decision-making and in the
course of its normal business functions, that it
actually must put its mind to certain factors which are
set out by statute. And it doesn't require that in
each and every decision at that it makes, each and
every administrative decision nor each and every
business decision that it makes that it has to engage
in some high level analysis in the commissioning of
reports, et cetera. This is something which is quite
simple and at this level of reasoning is sufficient
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
149
(inaudible) the day.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: You assume lawmakers want you to
do something for a purpose though; so what is the
purpose of the Council having regard to something if
there's nothing you can do about it?
MR. TOLAND: Because not every decision will be a
decision which doesn't impact, upon which greenhouse
gas emissions, for example, don't impact on it. Having
regard to in the performance of its functions,will, for
example, mean that when Fingal County Council's County
Manager chooses to develop the expenses policy for his
staff that he may have regard to the emissions targets
in his corporate plan, therefore, because he has had
regard to it he would refer to and say: 'Maybe having
regard to it I will make sure they used unleaded.' But
it isn't that I (inaudible) in saying that it's an
obligation of action; it's an obligation of
consideration and it is relevant in circumstances -- it
will be more relevant in certain spheres than it is in
others and it is certainly, in my respectful
submission, not directly relevant to the making of
decisions on Section 42. It is something they're
obliged by statute to have regard to so that it is
present in their minds. And it is part of our national
policy that we keep public authorities abreast of and
they maintain, as part of their daily considerations,
this alive in their minds. That is the only way in
which we will improve as a State, public adherence to a
national economic target so that the measures are not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:09
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
150
merely ones that are taken by direct government action,
but are part of a culture of change and that that is
the purpose of Section 15. But it is not the purpose
of Section 15 to alter existing statutory tests such
that there could be other methods of judicial review in
respect of those decisions.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: And in this case, if there was no
runway there'd be no emissions; if there is a runway
there'll be lots of emissions. But that's not a case
in which there should be more engagement that's a case
in which fairly limited engagement suffices, is it?
MR. TOLAND: Judge, firstly, as I said on a number of
occasions, that has not been established in evidence.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, no, but I think one can
take judicial notice of the fact that one extra
aeroplane will yield one extra aeroplane's worth
emissions.
MR. TOLAND: Well that's the point that is being made
in this consideration, Judge, and I think my Friends
from Ryanair might make, that there are alternative
methods of reducing emissions over time and that upon
the building of the runway more efficient aircraft with
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, will on the whole,
reduce emissions. There cannot be an assumption as a
result of the creation of a runway that there will be
more emissions, nor can there be an assumption that
that would increase the pace of climate change because
these things take part in a broader context, Judge.
Firstly, that's the evidential side.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
151
Secondly, that is not what Section 42 is about.
Climate change forms no part of Section 42. It is an
Extension Decision based on the prescribed defined
statutory criteria.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: I understood you to say that -
and correct me if I am wrong, I may be wrong - I
understood you to say that there was something of a
scale involved and that the level of engagement would
depend on the scale of the environmental problem that
was perceived to present. So here you could have a
fairly general level because there's nothing really the
Dublin Airport Authority can do about international
problems.
MR. TOLAND: Yes. What I said was that it's for the
decision-maker under the Act to consider and have
regard to those targets. Yes, what this decision-maker
has done is said that the control of those
international aviation emissions are for the relevant
international bodies to consider. Obviously the
control of them doesn't exist within Section 42. It
is, rather, something which exists at an international
and then subsequently national level. So there is
really nothing further the decision could have done in
having regard to those objectives than recite those
actions which are possible and those policy
deliberations which are occurring at an international
and European stage.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Just so I'm clear in my own mind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
152
and I don't want to put you on the spot, in what case
would 'having regard to' require you to go into great
detail as opposed to what you see here? And I don't
want to put you on the spot.
MR. TOLAND: You mean in the context of Section 15 or
in the context generally of 'having regard to'?
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: In the context generally of
'having regard to'.
MR. TOLAND: As I said, Judge, that very much depends
on the statutory context. A statutory context which
requires a decision to be taken with a number of
criteria and that you must have regard to, as it is in
Section 42, Ministerial Guidelines does require you to
have reasons in respect of those statutory guidelines.
And within this decision you find that there's
consideration of the Ministerial Guidelines and the
DAA's fulfilment of that in the flood risk assessment.
But here, the statutory context here is that they must
take note of in the performance of the functions. They
must consider. There is no obligation on them to do
anything, nor is there an obligation -- this is the
critical thing, there's no obligation on them to make
adverse decisions to individuals where those decisions
are before them for other statutory reasons. And
there's no obligation on them, within their reasoning,
to adopt any level of decision-making. But I do take
my Friends' point, as I said to you, that if there is a
departure they must reason that. But I would say to
you, even if it is the case in your view that there is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
153
a departure, which I say there isn't, the consideration
that has taken place here is as complete a
consideration as is required.
Judge, that concludes my submissions on the Climate
Change Act, unless the Court has any further questions.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Not at all. Having had the
benefit of your erudition I'm no longer sure whether it
is palaver or genius.
MR. TOLAND: I think I'm obliged, Judge. There, for
the various reasons, outlined by myself and
Mr. McDonald, the State rests.
SUBMISSION BY MR. BRADLEY:
MR. BRADLEY: Having listened to the exchange, Judge, I
don't know whether to start out with Brexit or the
Papal Encyclical!
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Wherever you like.
MR. BRADLEY: Judge, Mr. Healy has a lot to say about
the Papal Encyclical I think.
Judge, I'd like to take you back to the beginning.
It's my decision. I'd like to take you back and
discuss the process that is engaged under Section 42
and the nature of the decision that's made under
Section 42. What I propose to do, Judge, is in the
first hour today, is to go back and look at the process
under Section 42 and look at some of the key decisions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
154
Mr. Healy and Mr. McDonald opened some of them but I
want to look at them in a bit more detail because it is
a terribly important factor in terms of the decision
that was made by Fingal County Council to look at the
context and the statutory context in which that was
made.
I then want to turn, Judge, and look at Section 42
itself, and Section 42 is more than
Section 42(1)(a)(ii) (I) to (IV) it includes 42(1)(b),
(c) and (d). They're important, Judge, from our case
because they look at the regulatory framework in which
Section 42 has been set out. Again, that's important
when dealing with Mr. Healy's point of Dellway and the
prism of Dellway.
I then want to spend some time, Judge, on
Section 42(1)(a)(ii)(IV) and that really engages,
again, the nature of the decision, the issue that
Mr. Healy has asked Your Lordship to look at, which is
the engagement, notwithstanding Section 42 that he says
rests on the Council. Also, matters of EU law - and I
don't intend to trespass over the matters that
Mr. McDonald and Mr. Toland have raised and which
Mr. Simons and Mr. Kennedy have set out in their
submissions, Judge, but I'll look at that as well.
That also engages, as I said, the prism of Dellway.
Lastly, Judge, the matter in which the Court has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
155
engaged with Mr. Toland on which is uniquely to
Mr. Kenny's case which is the Climate Change Act and
what does 'have regard to' mean and what does it not
mean. In my respectful submission that issue has been
addressed by the Supreme Court authority in Glencar but
I will take Your Lordship to that as well. In fact
Glencar, in that case, had regard to Section 7(1) of
the then Local Government Act which has been repeated
and reenacted in Section 68, I think, of the Local
Government 2001 Act, which we'll look at.
If I could start, Judge, again, just to give the Court
more paper as if it hadn't enough. I'm going to hand
up a Book of Authorities to the Court, but they're not
new authorities, Mr. Kenny will be glad to hear, they
are effectively to assist the Court from jumping from
one to the other. (SAME HANDED) There are some new
authorities at the end of the it, Judge, but they're
just a reaffirmation of the McDowell case and I can
speak to those very, very quickly.
One matter I will be coming back to, Judge, is the 2010
Act and the 2010 (Amendment) Act which was brought into
force, I think, on 19th August 2007 and that date is
important, Judge, because we'll come to look at what
Ms. Justice Irvine had to say in Lackagh Quarries,
erroneously referred to in our submissions as Lackagh
Rock. That's a different case, Judge, but Lackagh
Quarries is the decision of Ms. Justice Irvine. She
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
156
refers to Section 42 and it was Section 42 that was in
place in at that case, Judge, not Section 4(1) of the
1982 Act but I'll come to that in due course although
it's an obiter statement.
You'll see the first statutory provision we refer to is
the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act and there
are two provisions that I will be coming back to when I
look at what this Court has to do in terms of statutory
interpretation. If I could just ask the Court to note
them. Section 28 inserted a new Section 42. That's a
section that deals with 42(1)(a)(ii)(I) to (IV) but it
also inserted another provision, Judge, which is
important when the Court looks at some of the arguments
that Mr. Healy has sought to make. It also inserted a
new Part XA in Section 57 dealing with substituted
consent. You can see the Oireachtas dealt with a
number of matters on 19th August 2007 in the suite of
measures brought in in terms of environmental impact
assessment, remedial environmental impact assessment,
AA appropriate assessment and remedial appropriate
assessment. I'll come to that when I look at the
statute of interpretation.
The first authority, Judge, if I could just speak to
these authorities, first of all, for a few moments
before I come back to them.
The State (McCoy) -v- Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
157
Corporation is a case that is cited in all of the
jurisprudence dealing with Section 42. One theme that
I would ask the Court to look at in all of these cases
is what was the purpose of Section 4 of the 1982 Act
and Section 42? In our respectful submission the
purpose has been continuous and that's to enable
development to be completed. That was the purpose of
Section 4 and that's the purpose of Section 42 in its
first iteration, in its latest iteration and in the
last iteration that Mr. Kenny referred to, to enable
development, the subject of the permission, to be
completed. And that's referred to throughout in the
case law.
Secondly, Judge, when you look at The State
(McCoy) -v- Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Corporation (or Dun
Laoghaire Corporation as it then was), when you look at
the suite of measures that were referred to in
Section 4(1) initially and amended in Section 42 and
then amended twice in Section 42 they are primarily
factual matters. Again, that's an important
consideration because that goes to the nature of the
"discretion". It's not a box-ticking exercise but it's
a prescribed discretion. The factors are set out and
the Planning Authority have to engage with those and
those are questions of fact. It becomes very apparent,
when one looks at what Mr. Healy had to say about
Section 42(1)(a)(ii)(IV). I'll come to that, Judge, a
little bit later. But what Mr. Healy effectively
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
158
criticised was the nature of the expert view taken by
the Planning Authority. Now in my respectful
submission questions of fact, questions of assessment
are uniquely given to the Planning Authority and
expressly given to the Planning Authority in this but
also in a number of matters, Judge. When you come to
look at the provisions that took over from the
Development Plan levies, the nature of contribution
schemes, they involved complex, financial and economic
assessments that have to be engaged by the Planning
Authority and when one looks it at the grounds upon
which the Applicants have sought to impugn, there's
actually no challenge to the first ground in (1) and
there's no effectively challenge to (2) and back (3).
There is a challenge to (4) and what Mr. Healy says -
and I'll come to that - he says that if - and I'm not
taking this as a concession but this is what he said -
if, as a matter of fact, the Planning Authority find
that development has commenced then you don't look at
the rest of it. And that's effectively what happened
here. So when you look at the factors that have to be
engaged in and assessed by the Planning Authority,
they're questions of fact, they're heavily prescribed
and while it's not a box-ticking exercise, the
assessment is a limited assessment in terms of the
discretion that has to be exercised. Of course that's
important, Judge, when you look at Dellway and what is
said about Dellway and the nature of the discretion
that was exercised under Section 69, primarily
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
159
Section 84 and Section 87 of the NAMA Act. So if you
look at the list of authorities, there, Judge, The
State (McCoy), Garden Village, culminating in McDowell
and Coll, I say that the matters that the Planning
Authority have to engage in are essentially factual
matters and the discretion is limited, Judge. I want
to look at, in particular, the McDowell case, the Coll
case and the Lackagh Quarries case because that engages
some of the EU arguments that were made as well, albeit
obiter.
So if I could ask the Court first of all to look at The
State (McCoy) -v- Dun Laoghaire. It's been opened to
the Court. It's behind tab 2. My observations in
relation to this case, Judge, are as I've just set out.
It emphasises that the statutory purpose of the then
Section 4(1) of 1982 Act has been repeated in
Section 42, initially in 2000 and in the amendments
that followed. The statutory purpose is in relation to
a particular permission, extended period for which
permission is given to enable the development to be
completed. That is the statutory purpose of
Section 42.
When one looks at -- I think Your Lordship might have a
couple of copies of this at this stage but if I could
ask the Court to look at internal page 8 and 9 of the
judgment in that book, Judge. Could I ask the Court to
begin with "Section 11", does Your Lordship see, that:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
160
"Section 11 of the 1982 Act empowers the Minister to
make regulations providing for any matter of procedure
in relation applications under Section 4 of the Act..."
Can I come back to that, Judge, and say that also
applies in this case, and when we look at the
Regulations that were made one will see that there is
no prescription for public participation or
participation in the manner urged by Mr. Healy.
"...also enumerates particular aspects of such
applications for which special requirements may be made
by such regulations. It follows that in relation to
compliance with conditions indicated at subparagraphs
(a) and (b) of Section 4(1) of the 1982 Act the onus is
on the Applicant to clear the negative aspect and make
way for the positive aspect of the decision imposed as
mandatory on the Planning Authority. Compliance with
the terms of subparagraph (c) of Section 4(1) requires
that the Planning Authority 'be satisfied' on all of
the matters under three sub-headings in relation to the
particular permission. These are factual matters in
relation to the performance of works of development
within the control of the developer upon which the
Planning Authority is required to make an assessment or
evaluation."
That's repeated, Judge, when we come to see the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
161
McDowell case as well. So primarily the matters that
the Planning Authority have to be satisfied and the
phrase is "the Planning Authority will be satisfied"
are matters of fact. It is simply not good enough, in
my respectful submission, for Mr. Healy to say: 'Well,
I will disagree with that expertise or that expertise
isn't sufficient enough.' That's not the test, Judge,
and when we see what Ms. Justice Laffoy had to say in
Littonvale, I mean that doesn't pass muster even on an
O'Keeffe test or a The State (Keegan) test or an
O'Keeffe test revised in light of Meadows. That's not,
in my respectful submission, a correct assessment in
terms of what the Planning Authority has to do. They
simply have to be satisfied with those matters as a
matter of fact and in terms of how they address them.
At the next paragraph, Judge, on page 9 --
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: And when does Council say the
works commenced?
MR. BRADLEY: The Council say the works commenced,
Judge, in light of the application that was made. If
the Court goes to the report, the report that
Mr. Toland referred you to.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Yes.
MR. BRADLEY: At page 15 - and it is dealt with in
Mr. Byrne's affidavit as well. I will take you through
that. If you go to the report, the planning report.
Judge, can I say, when I come to the McDowell decision,
the engagement that Your Lordship had with Mr. Toland
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
162
in terms of asbestos and other issues is important
because the McDowell decision quite clearly sets out
that a planning authority dealing with a Section 42
application has no role to play in terms of enforcement
or compliance. It would be erroneous for the Planning
Authority to take such matters into consideration but
I'll come to that when we look at the McDowell case.
What happened here, Judge, at the bottom of the report
on page 15 is that reference was made to
Section 42(1)(a)(ii)(IV) and it's quoted:
"Where the development has not commenced that an
environmental impact assessment or an appropriate
assessment or both of those assessments, if required,
was or were carried out before the permission was
granted. The DAA state that construction works
commenced on Friday, 16th December 2016 on the North
Runway Construction Package (NCRP1)."
That's set out in Appendix E, Judge. You'll see over
the page:
"The works comprised in the North Runway Construction
Package No. 1 (NRCP1) are listed in Appendix E. A map
illustrating the locations where works have commenced
is also included in Appendix E.
The DAA confirms that the following works have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:30
15:31
15:31
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
163
commenced:
1. Establishment of the contractors' compound;
2. Hedgerow removal and tree felling works (including
along Barberstown Lane);
3. Site security fencing to the site perimeter;
4. Demolition of the former airport fire service
training ground buildings and training structures,
including the house, aircraft simulator, smoke training
buildings and fuel management system;
5. Demolition of the existing high mast lighting and
associated cabling at the former airport fire service
training ground and removal of the existing hard
standings;
6. Demolition of the existing farm outbuildings
adjoining the former airport fire service training
ground all associated permitted works.
The site was inspected on 2nd February 2017 by a Senior
Planner..."
You'll see in Mr. Byrne's affidavit, Judge, that he
says he's the person who carried out the inspection and
the reference to the Senior Planner is a reference to
him in his affidavit:
"...and the Senior Executive Planner and the site
inspection confirmed that development has commenced as
stated."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
164
That's the reference above.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: So it's taking the view, when it
says "as stated" that as of 15th December the works
commenced, is that right?
MR. BRADLEY: Works commenced, Judge, as of 16th
December.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: There's a dispute over that
because in the extension application form they had the
15th and the 16th.
MR. BRADLEY: Judge, it's very important from the
Planning Authority's perspective dealing with
Section 42, it deals with the application made to it
under Section 42 and assesses it. Mr. Byrne set this
out in his affidavit. He's also set out how he dealt
with compliance in relation to 12(h), but we'll come to
that in due course.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: When he says "as stated" does he
mean I accept that it commenced on 15th - well you're
saying 16th - December?
MR. BRADLEY: Yes, but, Judge, the important thing is,
he's dealing with it from the perspective of
Section 42(1)(a)(ii)(IV) and that's why the McDowell
decision is very important in relation to this matter
because what it says is that all a planning authority
has to address is the precise questions that are raised
in the context of the application made under
Section 42. Because the mistake that was made in that
case - and I know something about it, Judge, because I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
165
mate the arguments on behalf of the Roscommon County
Council - but the mistakes that were made in that case
were precisely what Mr. Healy's urging on the Court in
relation to this case. The Planning Authority took the
view that there was non-compliance because of the
height of the building sitting on a slope with the
planning permission. Took the view that because there
was non-compliance there could be no application for an
extension, because there was non-compliance and deemed
to be unauthorised. Precisely the argument that was
made and in fact if one steps back from the nature of
it being unauthorised and simply deal with
non-compliance, and President Finnegan held that that
was a totally erroneous approach to adopt. What had to
be adopted in terms of Section 42 was whether or not
the strict terms of Section 42 were complied with.
Here it deals with the commencement of development. So
there's no question, Judge, that as of 7th March, or
6th March that development had commenced. And the
nature of that development, as a matter of fact, has
not been seriously challenged in this case in terms of
Section 42. That's a very, very important, matter,
Judge, and in fact when we come to look at the McDowell
case, which I might do in the next short while, Judge,
well I'll finish out this. If I could ask the Court to
look at the paragraph below the paragraph I just opened
on page 9.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: The Council is aware, though, it
has been suggested to me in the other proceedings, that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
166
the works actually commenced on 2nd December but it has
no view about that.
MR. BRADLEY: But, Judge, with respect, that has
absolutely no relevance to the question that's before
this Court on Section 42. Section 42 deals with an
assessment when a development commenced prior to its
decision on 7th March and development had commenced.
That's accepted by everybody in these proceedings.
What Mr. Healy has sought to do, Judge, what he has
sought to do is a couple of things. He hasn't really
sought - and in fact when we come to see what he has in
fact said, he accepts that if development has commenced
then the rest of Section 4 doesn't apply. And that's
precisely what happened. It's as simple and as
straightforward as that, Judge, in terms of the issue
under Section 42.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Not quite so simple though in the
previous case.
MR. BRADLEY: Well it is, with respect, Judge. I'm
obviously not a party to the enforcement action so I'm
going to say very little about that, Judge. But it has
absolutely no relevance, absolutely no relevance, in
fact the President of the High Court and this decision
has been endorsed by subsequent High Court decisions
and was not appealed, is that it would be wrong for the
Council, in dealing with the application for extension,
to entertain those matters. It would be entirely
wrong. It's exactly the opposite of what Mr. Healy is
pressing on the Court. That's what the President said,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
167
Mr. Justice Finnegan and, as I say, Judge, that matter
has been endorsed by Ms. Justice Irvine, but in other
cases dealing with the nature of a jurisdiction
exercise by planning authorities. We would have -- if
that decision had come in to me, Judge, and I would
have been asked what Mr. Healy has put forward I would
have to say I have to discount all of that, I can only
deal with the application that's made for the purposes
of this section. They would be falling into the error
that the President refers to in referring to some of
the Law Society cases, Judge, of bringing in an
improper purpose. You can only deal with Section 42.
And that's why, Judge, in many ways this case is a very
straightforward case in terms of the factors at play.
There has been attempt by my Friend to embellish it
both as of a matter of EU law and as national law, but
in my respectful submission, when one comes to look at
Section 42, and it's not just 42(1)(a) and all the
sub-roman numerals, it's 42(1)(b), (c) and (d). They
Planning Authority had no discretion in terms of the
matters that have been urged on the Court. They had to
deal with it in a way in which they dealt with it. In
my respectful submission they dealt with it
appropriately in that regard. In fact, it would have
been entirely wrong, had they had done what Mr. Healy
has asked the Court, or suggesting to the Court, they
would have acted erroneously, Judge.
This paragraph, Judge, and I'll close out this judgment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
168
just with this short quote:
"The particularity of the provisions of Section 4(1) of
the 1982 Act and the fact that they are included in a
section imposing a mandatory function precludes
consideration of any other matters. The subsection is
explicit on what it requires, and consequently the
exercise of the power to extend the appropriate period
as regards a particular permission or to not extend
that period must comply in all respects with the terms
of Section 4(1) and may not be exercised in any other
manner or upon any other considerations. A decision,
therefore, of the Planning Authority as to whether or
not to extend the appropriate period as regards a
particular permission which is arrived at without
considering all the matters set out in sub-paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), (i), (ii) and (iii) or upon
consideration of other matters not coming within these
sub-paragraphs would be ultra vires."
Now, Judge, could I just speak to Garden Village and
tell the Court that Garden Village and Littonvale are
referred to by the President in McDowell. You'll find
McDowell -v- Brennan case behind tab 5.
Now, Judge just a little bit background to it. The
Court will be familiar at that the Applicants bought a
plot in Rooskey, Roscommon, with planning permission on
it. The planning permission was near its end. They
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
169
engaged their own advisers to give effect to the
planning permission. You get a nice summary of the
issue, Judge, on internal page 4 where they say that:
"On 21st June 2004 the architects wrote to the
Respondent as follows:-
'I am writing to you in regard to the proposed house
with the above planning reference. A contour survey
was taken of the site and it indicates that the site is
steeper than what was shown on the planning drawings.
Therefore, we have taken the finished floor level
(which is 8.4 metres above the adjoining road level) to
correspond to the ground floor rather than the basement
floor. This results in the house being more cut into
the slope and requiring less fill than was originally
indicated on the planning cross section C-C. We hope
that this is to your satisfaction and please do not
hesitate to contact this office if you have any
queries'."
Then the President picks it up and says:
"The approach suggested by the architects is consistent
with the information given in the application for
planning permission but not with the section C-C in the
cross section lodged on 21st April 1999. There was no
reply to this letter. The Applicants continued with
the development in accordance with the letter - that is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
170
level 3 (the middle floor of the three levels) was
constructed at a level 8.4 metres above the adjoining
road level."
They effectively lost a level, Judge, when they gave
effect to the permission.
Then under the subtitle "The Application For an
Extension of the Permission", again, Judge, the facts
were important in light of the questions you've asked.
"On 12th August 2004 the Applicants sought an extension
of the planning permission. At that date ground works
had been completed and the basement slab and retaining
walls had been constructed. The dwelling itself is of
timber frame construction and at the time of the
application all preproduction and design tasks had been
completed, all materials procured and manufacture had
commenced. The prescribed form was duly completed.
The period of extension sought was three months from
30th August 2004. The application was assigned to
Frank Flanagan, Assistant Senior Planner, for attention
on 17th August 2004 with the request that he deal with
the matter prior to 1st October 2004. Mr. Flanagan
inspected the site on 18th August and thereafter he
requested that further information be obtained and a
letter dated 25th August 2004 was addressed to the
architects in the following terms..."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
171
That letter is set out.
At the bottom of the page, Judge:
"This letter was replied to on 27th August 2004: a copy
of the revised site layout plan was furnished with the
letter: the name of a contact in Griffner Coillte was
furnished. Having been furnished with the site layout
plan as requested the Respondent did not communicate to
the architects that it had a concern about compliance
with the planning permission or afford the Applicants
the opportunity to deal with those concerns and the
materiality of any non-compliance. By this time the
Applicants letter of 21st June 2004 was on the planning
file. By memorandum of 4th October 2004 Mr. Flanagan
reported as follows:-
'The developers in this instance are, by their own
admission, constructing a dwelling that is
significantly different than that for which permission
was granted."
You see the 2.2 metres lower, Judge.
"The question of extension to the duration of the
permission, therefore does not arise, as the dwelling
under construction does not have the benefit of
planning permission.
The matter was then passed to Mr. John Coughlan to whom
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
172
it fell to make a decision on the application for an
extension. In his affidavit he avers that considered
the following..."
He sets out the matters that he considered. Over the
page, Judge:
"He considered the dwelling as constructed to be
non-compliant with the planning permission having
formed the view that it was 2.6 metres lower than that
for which planning permission had been granted it being
set into the ground. In his affidavit he sets out the
basis of his decision."
Then he quotes the decision, Judge, as follows:
"I considered, that as the development was materially
different from that for which the permission was
granted, that the development under construction was
not the development to which the permission related,
and therefore an extension of time could not be
granted.'
On 5th October the Respondent communicated the refusal
of the extension sought and in a letter set out the
grounds of refusal as follows:-
'I enclose herewith decision to refuse permission for
extension to this permission as the development under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
173
construction is significantly different from that for
which planning permission reference PD/98/1221 refers.
The question of an extension to the duration of the
permission therefore does not arise as the dwelling
under construction does not have the benefit of
planning permission."
Then you have the notification with the letter giving
the reason.
"The dwelling under construction is significantly
different from that for which planning permission was
granted."
Then the President says, Judge:
"From the foregoing, it is quite clear that the reason
for the refusal was the perception by the
Respondent..."
That's the Planning Authority.
"...be that correct or incorrect, that the dwelling in
course of construction was not in compliance with the
planning permission the level 3 (the first floor level)
being at the level for which level 1 (the basement
floor level) ought to have been constructed."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
174
That's a very good synopsis, Judge, not just of the
legal issues but of the facts that were at issue in
McDowell -v- Brennan. It's striking, Judge, that it's
familiar because it's similar to the argument that
Mr. Healy is making here and of course he didn't refer
to the McDowell case in making that argument.
The statutory framework is important, Judge, because
you'll see in the statutory framework a continuum in
relation to the statutory purpose, both in Section 4 of
the 1982 Act, Section 42 (as it applies here), and the
more recent iteration of Section 42. Look at what the
President said about the statutory provision under
Section 42:
"On application a planning order shall, as regards a
particular permission, extend the appropriate period by
such additional period as the authority considers
requisite to enable the development to which the
permission relates to be completed..."
And that's the statutory purpose, Judge, in all of
these provisions. Then he sets out what the various
sections are, Judge.
Over the page on page 11, after the reference to the
legislation he says:
"The Planning and Development Regulations 2001 in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
175
Part 4 Chapter 3 in Regulations 40 to 47 inclusive deal
with the extension of duration of planning permission.
Regulation 42 sets out the particulars to be given on
an application for an extension. Regulation 46
requires the Planning Authority in the case of a
decision to refuse to extend to give the reasons for
such refusal. Both the application and the
notification of the decision to refuse in this case
comply with the Regulations."
That's something I'll be coming back to, Judge, because
again, here, the Minister has had the opportunity to
promulgate regulations and none of those regulations
provide for third party involvement or involvement in
the manner suggested by Mr. Healy.
Then there's a terribly important passage, Judge,
dealing with the construction of Section 42. I do want
to take the Court through this. The President begins:
"In the course of submissions I was referred to three
decisions on the Local Government (Planning and
Development) Act 1982 Section 4 which are of assistance
in construing the 2000 Act Section 42. Considering the
same, however, I have had regard to the differences
between the two sections which appear to me as
follows..."
As Mr. McDonald said this morning, Judge, the words
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
176
"and only if" disappear and it's "provided" the other
sections are complied with. Then 42(1)(d) sets out an
additional matter.
Over the page, Judge:
"The first relevant case is The State (McCoy) -v- Dun
Laoghaire Corporation. In relation to section 4(1) of
the 1982 Act Mr. Justice Gannon said:
'Section 4(1) of 1982 Act is expressed in mandatory
terms bearing both positive and negative aspects. It
confers on the Planning Authority not merely the power
but rather the obligation to extend the duration of a
planning permission in relation to uncompleted
development upon which a developer has embarked."
Can I just pause there, Judge. It's not a discretion,
an open-ended discretion that one can do X, Y and Z.
Once the facts have been submitted and approved it's an
obligation on the Planning Authority. And that speaks
to other matters, Judge, in terms of the nature of a
planning permission and the rights that are referred to
in relation to those matters in a general way. But
then the quote continues, Judge:
"This is equally true of Section 42. Again, in the
course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Gannon refers to
the mean of 'the particular permission': the effect of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:48
15:48
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
177
the phrase is that the Planning Authority must have
regard to the permission in question and not other
permissions whether relating to the same development or
other developments. In dealing with Section 4(1)(c) of
the 1982 Act he points out that there are set out
therein factual matters upon which the Planning
Authority is required to make an assessment or
evaluation and in relation to (iii) the Planning
Authority must be satisfied as to the probability that
the development will be completed within a reasonable
time. Section 4 of the 1982 Act precludes
consideration of any other matters and the power to
extend the permission or not may not be exercised in
any other manner or upon any other considerations. I
am satisfied that these considerations apply equally
where the application is made pursuant to Section 42 of
the Act of 2000."
Then reference is made to Littonvale, Judge.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: You are saying there ended the
judgments, basically.
MR. BRADLEY: Absolutely. But not only that, the
jurisprudence endorses this approach because when we
come to see what the President says about that and what
Ms. Justice Irvine says about it, it supports that
particular position, Judge. The President refers to it
in a number of places, Judge, in fact if you just look
over the page on the third paragraph he says it in
terms. First of all, I just speak to the Littonvale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:49
15:49
15:49
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
178
reference, you'll see there a reference to what
Ms. Justice Laffoy had to say and that was a reference
again to O'Keeffe and the threshold that would apply,
Judge. This is quintessentially that sort of issue.
It's a factual issue to be assessed by a planning
authority. It doesn't matter what any other expert
thinks in that regard. I don't mean that in an
O'Keeffe narrow sense that if you have a stamp before,
you can't ask a question. That's not what I'm saying.
It goes to the nature of the jurisdiction being
exercised by a planning authority and that's what
Ms. Justice Laffoy is saying there. Then, just to take
up what the Court is saying, what the President says
echoing the Court's last comment at the bottom of page
13:
"Thus, I am not concerned as to whether the conclusion
arrived at by the Respondent that the dwelling under
construction is significantly different from that for
which planning permission was granted is correct: that
is a matter which can only be determined, it seems to
me, in plenary proceedings or in proceedings under Part
VIII of the Act of 2000. My function is to review the
manner in which the decision was arrived at and
determine whether or not the same accords with the
requirements of Section 42."
He comes back to this later, Judge. The third case he
refers to then is the Supreme Court decision in Garden
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:50
15:51
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
179
Village Construction Company, Judge. You may recall
that was where Mr. Justice Geoghegan in the High Court
was reversed by the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blayney
giving the main decision. Nothing really arises in
relation to that decision in our case apart from the
reference to the 'particular permission'.
Then the last point, Judge, and this echos what the
President was saying this the previous paragraph.
This is at page 14.
"The Issue for Determination
The Planning Authority having concluded (the
correctness of that conclusion not being a matter for
my consideration) that the development being undertaken
was not in compliance with the particular planning
permission were they entitled to have regard to that
conclusion and on the basis of the same refuse to
extend the duration of the planning permission? The
Respondents argument is that they have notwithstanding
the wording of section 42 of the Act of 2000 and the
decisions to which I have referred a residual
discretion which they were entitled to exercise and
refuse the extension. They argue that it would be
illogical for them to extend the duration in the light
of their conclusion as a development when completed
would not be in compliance with the planning
permission. There are a number of factors which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:52
15:52
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
180
militate against my accepting this view:
1. The wording of section 42 is clear. It provides
that if the Planning Authority are satisfied on certain
matters the Planning Authority must grant an extension.
It is clear on the authorities that to take into
account any other matter, fact or circumstance is ultra
vires.
2. Where a development is being carried out but not in
compliance with the relevant permission a Planning
Authority has conferred upon it wide powers pursuant to
Part VIII of the Act of 2000. Section 42 is contained
within Part III of the Act. I am satisfied that in
refusing the extension of duration in this case the
Respondent was seeking to utilise Part III of the Act
of 2000 for the purposes of Part VIII of the Act of
2000."
I will just pause there, Judge. What then follows is
the reference to improper purpose. You're using one
section for the purposes of another. And that's why,
enforcement or compliance is absolutely irrelevant to
the question the Planning Authority has to consider
under Section 42 and the extension.
He refers to:
"In Re Thomas Crowley 1964 I.R. 106 the Solicitor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:53
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
181
applied for a practising certificate and this was
refused pursuant to the provisions of the Solicitors
Act 1954 Section 49(1) which permitted the Incorporated
Law Society of Ireland to refuse a practising
certificate in specified circumstances: one of the
circumstances listed is the failure to give a
sufficient and satisfactory explanation. In the
circumstances of that case the Supreme Court held that
the power under Section 49 was in fact being operated
in circumstances where the disciplinary provisions of
the Act (in that case the provisions of the Solicitors
(Amendment) Act 1960) were appropriate. In short the
provisions were being operated for an improper
purpose."
That's the reference to improper purpose that I refer
to.
"Again in Kennedy -v- Law Society of Ireland Supreme
Court 20th December 2001 the Court considered that the
Society had operated its powers to appoint an
investigating accountant where the dominant purpose of
so doing was outside the purpose for which those powers
were conferred - to ascertain whether the accounts
regulations had been complied with. In this case I am
satisfied that the primary object of Section 42 of the
Act of 2000 is to enable a development already
commenced to which a planning permission relates to be
completed."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:54
15:54
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
182
Judge, that's what I've said to you from the beginning
of this submission that time and time again, when you
look at Section 4, and all of the iterations of Section
42, as Mr. Justice Finnegan says in this case, the
primary object of Section 42 is to enable a development
already commenced, to which a planning permission
relates it is not permissible to use this section to
prevent the completion of a development to which the
planning permission relates to be completed.
"It is not permissible to use the section to prevent
the completion of a development to which the planning
permission relates which the Planning Authority has
concluded does not comply fully with that permission.
What the Planning Authority must consider is whether
the development relates to the permission and not
whether it is in full compliance with the same. It is
not permissible to use a statutory power conferred for
a particular purpose for some other purpose."
Then if I could ask the Court to go down to about ten
lines and beginning with "I am satisfied":
"I am satisfied from a perusal of the plans that the
development is that contemplated by the planning
permission. I am further satisfied that the true
effect of Section 42 is that the Planning Authority
must therefore consider the application in that light
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:56
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
183
having regard to the matters enumerated in the section
and those matters only. This it has failed to do by
taking into account a matter not specified in the
section that is compliance with the planning
permission."
Obviously that's something we say, Judge, that has been
urged upon the matter here which is not relevant.
He then refers to the case of White -v- Dublin
Corporation which Your Lordship will know was a
bifurcated decision; constitutional challenge combined
with an administrative law challenge. Effectively
Mr. Justice Fennelly held that the planning official,
Mr. Rose in that case, asked himself the wrong question
when a house was being developed beside another house
and whether or not it would look on in terms of
neighbours, et cetera. Mr. Justice Finnegan refers to
it here. Then over the page, Judge, he cites
Mr. Justice Fennelly's judgment which dealt with the
administrative law judgment in that case.
"Fennelly J. considered that the planning official had
asked himself the wrong question. That, I am satisfied
is what happened here. It is not the Planning
Authority's function pursuant to Section 42 of the Act
of 2000 to enquire as to whether the development
insofar as it had been completed was in compliance with
planning permission and on the basis of its conclusion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
184
on that enquiry to decide on the application: rather it
is confined to the matters specified in Section 42 in
reaching its decision. The Planning Authority having
reached a conclusion on compliance did not proceed to a
consideration of the matters on which Section 42
requires it to be satisfied and indeed determined that
its conclusion in relation to compliance precluded it
from considering the matter further."
That's why I say, Judge, that what Mr. Healy is urging
on the Court is completely incorrect, in my respectful
submission. When we come to look at
Section 42(1)(a)(ii)(IV), the factual matters that were
before the Planning Authority address the matter in
terms of the report I've just read out to the Court.
But also the legal interpretation is that as set out in
McDowell. So the Planning Authority had no choice,
Judge, in my respectful submission, both as a matter of
fact - which is not being seriously contested in these
proceedings - but also as a matter of law in terms of
the approach they had to take.
Then the conclusion, Judge:
"I am satisfied that the Planning Authority
misconstrued the scope of their function under Section
42 of the Act of 2002. They took into account their
conclusion that there was non-compliance with the
planning permission and relied upon such non-compliance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:58
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
185
simpliciter as the reason for their refusal. This they
were not entitled to do and the decision accordingly
was ultra vires. The decision to refuse accordingly
must be quashed."
Can I tell you that decision was not appealed and in
fact was given endorsement. We'll come to - it will be
in the morning now - what Ms. Justice Irvine had to say
about it. But if I could just ask you to look at tab 9
and I'll be very brief, Judge. Mr. Binman, this is a
decision of Mr. Justice Gilligan. Again, I just want
to refer to one aspect of that decision, Judge. You'll
find it at page 29 of the report under paragraph 48.
"Furthermore..."
And it's the short sentence I'm relying on:
"Furthermore, it appears that the Respondent is
attempting to use one statutory provision to circumvent
another and by virtue of this to circumvent the
fundamental principle of the European Community (the
freedom of goods). McDowell -v- Roscommon County
Council stated that: 'It is a clear principle of
administrative that a power may not be exercised for a
purpose other than that for which it was concerned'."
You'll see, again, Judge, in the Frank Harrington case
about a quarry, a case against An Bord Pleanála, again
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15:59
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
186
a very short reference to it but nonetheless important,
page 6:
"Section 34(2) does not include within the ambit of
matters to be considered, the issue of determining
whether development is authorised. In this regard the
Applicant cites the case of McDowell -v- Roscommon
County Council. This case was decided under a
different legislative provision (Section 42 of the
Planning and Development Act 2000). Nevertheless, it
is relevant insofar as it shows that matters which An
Bord Pleanála may consider are only those matters with
the Oireachtas prescribed in legislation."
Judge, I won't be terribly long in terms of the other
authorities, Judge, but I think it's 4:00 o'clock. I
don't know what the Court wants to sit in the morning.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: You tell me.
MR. HAYDEN: I was just going to suggest that, Judge.
We were getting concerned on our side of the fence over
here about the time. We have to finish tomorrow.
MR. BRADLEY: He has a concern about me going on too
much. I'll endeavour to be quick. Does 10:00 o'clock
suit the Court?
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Sure.
MR. HAYDEN: I don't mind the 10:00 bit it's when they
finish is what I'm more interested in.
MR. BRADLEY: I have only started. Mr. Hayden --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
187
MR. HAYDEN: I'm not trying to cut my Friend short, to
I get an idea what time Mr. Simons and myself would get
tomorrow.
MR. BRADLEY: Judge, I'll be finished by lunchtime.
MR. SIMONS: I'll be an hour.
MR. HAYDEN: About 45 minutes, half an hour/45 minutes.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Sounds like we are getting out
early then tomorrow.
MR. HAYDEN: Then there is the right of reply.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Oh yes, of course. All these
rights.
MR. BRADLEY: I missed that, Judge.
MR. HAYDEN: Given that Mr. Healy is complaining about
not being heard.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Just a right of reply. We can
start earlier.
MR. BRADLEY: I can start whatever time you want,
Judge.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: Shall we start at 9:00?
MR. HEALY: I'm in some difficulty at 9:00.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: If Mr. Collins is here, does that
work for you?
MR. HEALY: He can be here.
MR. JUSTICE BARRETT: 9:00 o'clock tomorrow.
THE HEARING WAS THEN ADJOURNED TO WEDNESDAY, 18TH
OCTOBER 2017 AT 9:00 A.M.
'
'acquisition [1] -
94:4
'affected [1] -
104:10
'any [1] - 32:23
'be [1] - 160:21
'bright [1] -
108:7
'consent' [4] -
32:3, 39:3, 39:12,
40:4
'have [5] - 148:5,
148:6, 148:14,
148:17, 155:3
'having [3] -
152:2, 152:6,
152:8
'it [1] - 185:24
'maybe [1] -
149:14
'particular [1] -
179:6
'precautionary
[1] - 73:22
'project' [5] -
32:4, 32:6, 33:4,
33:9, 33:19
'projects' [1] -
32:16
'scientific [1] -
73:23
'Section [1] -
176:11
'the [6] - 31:29,
50:26, 108:14,
108:22, 171:17,
176:29
'well [2] - 69:26,
161:5
'zone' [1] -
105:16
1
1 [33] - 6:25,
7:11, 7:12, 13:12,
14:5, 17:23,
17:29, 20:22,
25:4, 26:11,
26:12, 29:20,
29:22, 54:14,
77:24, 92:2,
93:21, 99:19,
100:2, 103:19,
104:9, 138:10,
139:6, 139:21,
141:2, 141:4,
141:16, 141:17,
158:13, 162:25,
163:3, 173:27,
180:3
1(2 [4] - 31:17,
31:24, 32:7,
33:19
1(2)(a [1] - 30:4
1(2)(g)(iv [1] -
64:14
1(2)(g)(iv).. [1] -
63:25
1) [1] - 139:19
10 [5] - 3:16,
3:22, 4:12, 68:17,
120:6
104 [2] - 52:22,
52:26
106 [1] - 180:29
10:00 [2] -
186:24, 186:27
11 [9] - 27:2,
27:9, 32:18,
63:16, 69:3,
120:8, 159:29,
160:2, 174:26
111 [1] - 104:9
113 [1] - 122:15
116 [1] - 109:11
116.. [1] - 109:9
118 [2] - 26:16,
26:22
12 [8] - 1:3, 24:1,
24:2, 63:21,
70:28, 71:6,
77:24, 99:20
12(h [1] - 164:16
123 [1] - 141:5
124 [3] - 55:11,
55:19, 146:26
126 [2] - 56:10,
63:10
127 [2] - 57:21,
121:17
128 [2] - 57:29,
58:21
12th [2] - 71:12,
170:12
13 [23] - 24:5,
26:12, 26:17,
27:17, 27:22,
27:29, 30:8,
30:12, 30:21,
31:12, 32:22,
32:29, 34:11,
34:23, 35:8,
35:20, 35:24,
36:14, 36:19,
57:23, 79:28,
178:15
13(a [2] - 30:2,
30:3
130 [1] - 59:8
132 [1] - 60:11
134 [1] - 61:14
136 [1] - 62:7
138 [1] - 58:19
14 [3] - 4:27,
24:9, 179:10
14km [1] - 71:28
15 [26] - 37:2,
37:4, 95:7,
117:21, 120:4,
126:28, 139:3,
139:4, 139:6,
141:1, 141:10,
141:13, 141:27,
142:1, 142:16,
142:23, 145:10,
145:25, 146:18,
146:21, 150:3,
150:4, 152:5,
161:25, 162:10
15th [3] - 164:4,
164:10, 164:19
16 [3] - 21:4,
21:5, 53:10
16th [8] - 122:1,
122:5, 123:14,
124:11, 162:18,
164:6, 164:10,
164:20
17 [4] - 37:2,
37:16, 68:18,
68:20
17TH [2] - 1:25,
3:2
17th [1] - 170:23
18TH [1] -
187:26
18th [1] - 170:25
19 [1] - 117:21
1930 [1] - 42:16
1947 [1] - 37:7
1954 [1] - 181:3
1960 [1] - 181:12
1964 [1] - 180:29
1980 [1] - 135:3
1982 [13] - 47:6,
156:3, 157:4,
159:17, 160:2,
160:16, 168:4,
174:11, 175:23,
176:9, 176:11,
177:5, 177:11
1991 [2] - 37:8,
38:24
1992 [1] - 104:9
1993 [2] - 41:22,
41:25
1994 [2] - 104:9,
104:25
1997 [1] - 37:19
1998 [6] - 20:26,
45:7, 45:8, 45:11,
46:18, 53:11
1999 [6] - 53:14,
54:25, 55:5,
55:25, 55:29,
169:27
19th [2] -
155:24, 156:18
1:00 [1] - 109:23
1st [2] - 54:17,
170:24
2
2 [18] - 4:26,
13:16, 14:4,
16:28, 18:2,
29:22, 47:1,
49:20, 92:23,
93:1, 99:19,
103:21, 104:25,
158:14, 159:14,
163:4, 180:10
2(1 [2] - 39:3,
56:26
2) [1] - 14:2
2.1 [1] - 28:26
2.2 [1] - 171:22
2.6 [1] - 172:10
20 [3] - 50:22,
104:26, 117:14
20(3 [1] - 73:1
2000 [17] -
20:28, 21:13,
22:16, 24:20,
68:4, 118:7,
121:17, 159:18,
175:24, 177:17,
178:23, 179:22,
180:13, 180:17,
180:18, 181:27,
183:27
2000) [1] -
186:10
2001 [4] - 60:15,
155:10, 174:29,
181:20
2002 [1] - 184:27
2004 [21] -
42:16, 43:4, 45:9,
45:26, 45:29,
46:20, 122:1,
122:5, 122:8,
123:14, 169:5,
170:12, 170:21,
170:23, 170:24,
170:27, 171:4,
171:13, 171:14
2005 [2] - 20:19,
21:11
2006 [2] - 54:26,
55:25
2007 [4] - 36:3,
60:17, 155:24,
156:18
2007/2008 [1] -
9:7
2008 [3] - 54:14,
54:20, 54:27
2010 [5] - 7:3,
8:18, 8:20,
155:22, 155:23
2011 [5] - 27:10,
63:18, 77:23,
78:5, 79:7
2011/92/EU [1] -
27:5
2013 [1] - 71:12
2014 [3] - 63:6,
71:10, 74:8
2015 [2] -
126:29, 141:24
2015" [1] - 141:8
2016 [4] -
143:28, 144:23,
144:25, 162:18
2017 [6] - 1:25,
3:2, 7:4, 144:6,
163:19, 187:27
2017/344JR [1] -
1:5
2018 [1] - 144:6
2020 [1] - 144:2
2050 [3] -
140:18, 140:25,
143:7
207 [1] - 96:4
20th [1] - 181:20
21 [1] - 26:20
216 [3] - 43:18,
44:6, 44:8
217 [1] - 44:15
21st [3] - 169:5,
169:27, 171:13
22 [1] - 54:20
22nd [2] - 71:9,
74:8
24 [6] - 26:15,
26:22, 27:4, 69:4,
71:1, 135:28
25 [2] - 37:19,
71:6
25th [5] - 122:1,
122:7, 123:14,
124:11, 170:27
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
1
26 [4] - 31:9,
31:13, 53:14,
71:22
27 [2] - 54:11,
71:26
27th [1] - 171:4
28 [7] - 7:1, 7:2,
7:3, 72:8, 104:26,
148:7, 156:11
28th [1] - 21:11
29 [4] - 72:16,
72:23, 104:26,
185:13
2:00 [1] - 111:3
2nd [2] - 163:19,
166:1
3
3 [25] - 7:9, 15:5,
18:17, 20:14,
20:17, 26:9,
26:10, 30:24,
40:29, 44:5,
49:19, 63:29,
64:15, 67:17,
67:18, 103:24,
104:9, 134:5,
139:17, 141:3,
141:4, 163:6,
170:1, 173:26,
175:1
3(1 [2] - 140:12,
140:24
3(1) [1] - 140:10
3) [2] - 14:29,
158:14
30 [1] - 47:18
30th [1] - 170:21
31 [1] - 60:17
316 [1] - 134:12
32 [4] - 35:21,
36:9, 36:16,
135:3
321 [1] - 102:11
323 [1] - 103:5
325 [1] - 104:3
327kg [1] -
89:14
328 [1] - 107:18
34(2 [1] - 186:4
34(4)(g [1] -
14:15
34(4)(g) [1] -
14:13
353 [1] - 104:9
364 [2] - 4:28,
4:29
369 [2] - 130:6,
130:9
37 [3] - 50:26,
92:24, 132:21
372 [1] - 131:15
38 [4] - 4:27, 5:1,
47:1, 47:2
39 [1] - 53:6
4
4 [19] - 6:25, 7:1,
16:11, 16:16,
19:25, 47:5,
103:25, 157:4,
157:8, 158:15,
160:4, 163:7,
166:13, 169:3,
174:10, 175:1,
175:23, 177:11,
182:4
4(1 [9] - 156:2,
157:19, 159:17,
160:16, 160:20,
168:3, 168:11,
176:8, 176:11
4(1)(c [1] - 177:4
4(2 [3] - 27:15,
27:18, 32:15
4) [1] - 16:10
4.. [1] - 139:27
4.3 [1] - 121:22
40 [10] - 17:11,
17:16, 17:17,
17:26, 17:29,
18:28, 19:3, 54:7,
127:7, 175:1
41 [1] - 18:23
42 [139] - 6:2,
6:8, 6:9, 6:12,
6:21, 6:23, 7:1,
7:4, 8:17, 11:16,
13:11, 18:19,
19:2, 19:3, 20:1,
20:13, 20:28,
20:29, 21:12,
21:20, 21:21,
22:16, 23:7,
23:13, 23:18,
23:26, 24:20,
25:4, 25:17,
25:19, 25:22,
26:6, 26:7, 33:29,
34:4, 34:19,
35:28, 36:7, 36:8,
39:26, 40:16,
41:10, 46:9,
47:29, 48:15,
49:13, 49:16,
56:20, 66:5, 66:6,
81:5, 82:15,
82:28, 84:12,
84:16, 84:26,
84:27, 84:29,
85:5, 85:26, 86:1,
86:6, 86:8, 86:11,
89:2, 89:22,
90:28, 91:9,
97:20, 101:21,
116:20, 119:27,
123:1, 125:17,
126:3, 126:14,
134:14, 136:20,
138:6, 145:11,
145:13, 145:17,
148:7, 149:22,
151:2, 151:3,
151:21, 152:13,
153:25, 153:27,
153:29, 154:8,
154:9, 154:13,
154:21, 156:1,
156:11, 157:2,
157:5, 157:8,
157:19, 157:20,
159:18, 159:23,
162:3, 164:13,
164:14, 164:28,
165:15, 165:16,
165:22, 166:5,
166:16, 167:12,
167:18, 174:11,
174:12, 174:14,
175:3, 175:18,
175:24, 176:27,
177:16, 178:26,
179:22, 180:3,
180:13, 180:25,
181:26, 182:5,
182:6, 182:28,
183:26, 184:2,
184:5, 184:27,
186:9
42(1 [1] - 89:2
42(1)(a [1] -
167:18
42(1)(a)(ii [1] -
154:10
42(1)(a)(ii)(I [1] -
156:12
42(1)(a)(ii)(IV [4]
- 154:18, 162:11,
164:23, 184:13
42(1)(a)(ii)(IV)
[1] - 157:28
42(1)(b [2] -
154:10, 167:19
42(1)(c)(iii [1] -
21:16
42(1)(d [1] -
176:2
42(a [1] - 127:9
43 [5] - 15:12,
41:3, 44:5, 44:8,
54:16
433 [1] - 102:11
44 [3] - 20:17,
38:19, 38:20
442 [1] - 103:5
445 [2] - 109:12
45 [2] - 39:1,
187:6
451 [1] - 104:3
456 [1] - 107:15
458 [1] - 107:15
46 [8] - 38:18,
39:6, 39:29, 41:7,
44:16, 44:18,
73:19, 175:4
460 [2] - 107:18,
111:24
461 [1] - 111:26
463 [1] - 112:27
466 [1] - 113:25
467 [1] - 114:14
47 [4] - 38:19,
39:17, 96:3,
175:1
471 [1] - 115:24
472 [1] - 116:13
48 [4] - 45:2,
96:3, 96:16,
185:13
49 [2] - 45:22,
181:9
49(1 [1] - 181:3
4:00 [1] - 186:16
4th [1] - 171:14
5
5 [5] - 7:21, 17:1,
139:23, 163:11,
168:24
5.2km [1] - 72:1
50 [2] - 12:20,
134:5
54 [1] - 37:24
55 [2] - 7:9,
121:20
57 [1] - 156:16
5th [1] - 172:24
6
6 [11] - 17:8,
19:2, 63:20,
63:21, 66:25,
68:1, 68:8,
129:24, 163:15,
186:2
6(3 [1] - 66:8
6.. [1] - 140:2
60 [1] - 36:29
61 [1] - 38:16
62 [3] - 122:25,
123:8, 123:10
63 [1] - 123:18
65 [1] - 128:13
66 [1] - 58:18
67 [2] - 49:20,
53:3
68 [3] - 49:20,
49:22, 155:9
69 [2] - 30:25,
158:29
6th [1] - 165:19
7
7 [3] - 19:14,
52:1, 95:6
7(1 [1] - 155:7
70 [1] - 47:18
730 [1] - 37:4
75 [1] - 72:22
78 [1] - 121:21
7th [2] - 165:18,
166:7
8
8 [11] - 1:25,
15:25, 42:17,
42:25, 43:4,
43:10, 45:25,
45:29, 46:20,
138:10, 159:27
8.4 [2] - 169:13,
170:2
81 [1] - 74:29
82 [1] - 122:25
84 [6] - 73:1,
92:29, 94:14,
96:19, 97:12,
159:1
85/337 [6] -
31:17, 32:7,
32:14, 33:5,
33:20, 39:4
85/337... [1] -
31:25
85/337/E.E.C [1]
- 46:16
87 [2] - 94:1,
159:1
8A [3] - 63:17,
63:18
9
9 [10] - 74:7,
82:7, 98:23,
98:26, 110:1,
110:7, 159:27,
161:17, 165:27,
185:9
90 [1] - 135:4
91 [1] - 135:5
9:00 [4] -
187:19, 187:20,
187:24, 187:27
A
a) [2] - 7:11, 8:15
A.M [1] - 187:27
AA [7] - 66:10,
66:13, 88:27,
90:29, 91:1,
156:21
ability [9] -
12:19, 14:22,
14:24, 39:26,
39:27, 65:21,
78:27, 101:18,
115:6
able [7] - 10:2,
20:4, 20:5, 21:15,
70:1, 75:26,
113:10
above-named
[1] - 1:29
abreast [1] -
149:25
absence [4] -
33:16, 35:5,
36:11, 135:24
absent [2] -
49:12, 49:13
absolute [1] -
127:10
absolutely [14] -
14:21, 27:6,
35:19, 43:22,
47:13, 76:8,
76:23, 99:14,
137:14, 166:4,
166:22, 177:22,
180:23
abstract [1] -
114:4
accept [6] -
25:22, 47:14,
49:8, 75:4, 144:9,
164:19
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
2
accepted [3] -
90:11, 112:18,
166:8
accepting [2] -
24:28, 180:1
accepts [1] -
166:12
access [1] - 3:28
accommodatio
n [2] - 134:18,
135:24
accompanied
[1] - 90:19
accord [2] -
105:14, 114:10
accordance [6] -
17:13, 23:21,
57:10, 65:22,
106:22, 169:29
Accordingly [2]
- 32:2, 39:19
accordingly [2] -
185:2, 185:3
accords [1] -
178:25
account [11] -
25:8, 60:3, 92:13,
93:26, 94:22,
110:12, 112:20,
145:22, 180:7,
183:3, 184:27
account.. [1] -
93:23
accountant [1] -
181:22
accounts [1] -
181:24
achieve [3] -
140:16, 143:18,
143:23
achieved [1] -
143:6
Achonry [3] -
122:6, 122:19,
123:20
acknowledge
[1] - 80:7
acknowledged
[1] - 77:28
acknowledges
[2] - 98:24, 107:5
acknowledging
[1] - 147:15
acquire [10] -
93:3, 93:9, 93:15,
93:22, 94:3,
94:15, 94:17,
99:27, 103:8,
103:15
acquisition [8] -
94:9, 102:16,
106:10, 112:21,
114:11, 114:28,
115:29, 116:6
Act [76] - 7:3,
20:28, 21:13,
22:16, 24:20,
38:23, 41:22,
41:25, 42:16,
43:4, 45:25,
45:29, 46:20,
47:6, 84:19,
85:21, 92:29,
93:6, 94:1, 96:19,
113:29, 117:29,
118:7, 121:17,
126:29, 138:11,
138:14, 139:3,
139:21, 140:18,
141:8, 141:10,
141:24, 141:27,
143:6, 146:29,
147:2, 147:7,
148:7, 151:16,
153:6, 155:2,
155:8, 155:10,
155:23, 156:3,
156:7, 157:4,
159:1, 159:17,
160:2, 160:16,
168:4, 174:11,
175:23, 175:24,
176:9, 176:11,
177:5, 177:11,
177:17, 178:23,
179:22, 180:13,
180:14, 180:16,
180:17, 181:3,
181:11, 181:12,
181:27, 183:26,
184:27, 186:10
Act.. [1] - 160:4
acted [6] -
12:26, 12:27,
12:29, 117:16,
121:24, 167:27
Action [2] -
126:29, 141:7
ACTION [1] -
1:24
action [11] -
1:29, 6:18,
114:26, 122:12,
140:6, 147:8,
147:9, 149:17,
150:1, 166:20
actions [1] -
151:26
actively [1] -
123:21
activities [2] -
45:14, 78:6
activity [9] -
50:27, 51:18,
52:10, 52:14,
77:17, 77:18,
78:8, 78:15,
78:16
activity.. [1] -
52:4
acts [1] - 133:12
Acts [5] - 42:6,
79:6, 107:5,
126:13
actual [3] - 3:11,
111:25, 135:11
adaptation [8] -
139:9, 139:10,
139:21, 139:29,
140:1, 140:22,
142:5, 142:6
adapting [1] -
139:14
add [2] - 14:8,
105:26
added [1] -
49:10
adding [1] -
117:8
addition [4] -
5:14, 29:14, 49:3,
113:16
additional [18] -
7:20, 22:18,
25:23, 34:5,
49:12, 75:28,
85:17, 92:5,
120:4, 120:7,
120:14, 120:16,
120:22, 120:25,
120:26, 124:7,
174:18, 176:3
additionally [1] -
94:26
address [9] -
26:5, 64:26, 70:1,
120:28, 147:7,
147:22, 161:15,
164:26, 184:14
addressed [8] -
3:19, 3:24, 45:20,
70:15, 70:22,
104:20, 155:5,
170:27
adduce [6] -
72:12, 73:19,
75:28, 76:5, 76:6,
76:11
adduced [3] -
83:27, 87:12,
128:20
adduces [1] -
52:9
adequate [4] -
14:6, 14:19,
56:14, 63:13
adherence [1] -
149:28
adjoining [3] -
163:16, 169:13,
170:2
ADJOURNED
[3] - 44:1, 111:5,
187:26
ADJOURNMEN
T [1] - 43:27
adjudicated [1] -
86:24
adjudication [3]
- 83:26, 91:11,
137:20
administration
[1] - 13:14
administrative
[7] - 61:21, 113:6,
133:12, 148:25,
183:13, 183:21,
185:25
admission [1] -
171:18
admits [1] -
121:28
admitted [1] -
85:28
adopt [6] -
49:12, 105:12,
105:16, 144:10,
152:26, 165:14
adopted [4] -
59:17, 100:7,
145:12, 165:15
adopting [1] -
142:19
adoption [4] -
39:12, 40:5,
44:24, 144:23
ADRIENNE [1] -
1:7
advance [1] -
81:15
advanced [8] -
83:7, 84:2,
111:20, 123:10,
128:15, 128:17,
131:18, 132:5
advancing [2] -
74:4, 133:14
advantage [1] -
120:19
adversarial [1] -
73:10
adverse [21] -
28:7, 32:26, 33:6,
66:10, 71:3, 71:4,
82:10, 97:26,
106:7, 108:19,
108:22, 108:25,
109:19, 109:24,
109:25, 110:10,
111:14, 113:24,
116:23, 126:7,
152:23
adversely [7] -
97:23, 97:24,
102:5, 105:2,
106:3, 116:18,
148:16
adverted [1] -
82:24
advice [1] -
132:6
advisers [1] -
169:1
Advisory [1] -
138:22
Advocate [9] -
37:1, 49:22,
50:21, 53:4, 55:8,
56:21, 61:5, 63:7,
64:6
aeroplane [1] -
150:16
aeroplane's [1] -
150:16
affect [11] -
82:10, 97:26,
98:1, 103:9,
105:2, 106:2,
107:9, 107:17,
108:1, 113:24,
114:9
affected [19] -
96:18, 96:23,
96:25, 97:24,
98:6, 98:10,
100:10, 100:18,
101:12, 101:14,
102:5, 102:16,
102:21, 102:25,
103:14, 105:15,
112:7, 116:18,
148:16
affected." [1] -
112:11
affecting [2] -
42:21, 107:7
affection [1] -
106:12
affects [1] -
98:12
affidavit [13] -
71:8, 74:6, 74:7,
75:7, 76:24, 77:1,
77:21, 161:26,
163:22, 163:25,
164:15, 172:2,
172:12
affidavits [2] -
66:21, 75:27
afford [2] -
99:29, 171:10
afforded [11] -
82:27, 83:13,
85:20, 92:1, 95:2,
101:21, 106:21,
107:12, 115:15,
124:5, 126:8
affords [2] -
101:27, 108:16
afoot [1] - 147:5
aforementione
d [1] - 54:13
afraid [1] - 26:24
AFTER [1] -
111:7
against..." [1] -
9:27
AGENT [1] -
2:15
ago [3] - 21:21,
44:18, 90:25
agreement [1] -
143:27
agreements [1] -
114:25
ahead [2] - 51:9,
51:12
aided [1] - 86:22
aimed [3] -
62:10, 140:4,
140:6
air [1] - 53:29
aircraft [2] -
150:22, 163:9
airline [1] -
143:22
Airport [11] -
5:9, 36:1, 38:12,
87:24, 98:19,
101:24, 107:8,
128:21, 129:1,
129:8, 151:13
airport [9] -
9:18, 9:21, 36:4,
38:8, 99:6, 106:1,
163:7, 163:12,
163:16
AIRPORT [2] -
1:17, 2:17
albeit [1] - 159:9
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
3
alia [5] - 32:13,
42:18, 43:3,
56:29, 117:6
alive [1] - 149:27
all.. [1] - 21:28
alleged [3] -
111:26, 126:25,
128:25
alleges [1] -
122:12
alleging [1] -
118:17
Allen [1] - 67:14
allow [10] - 3:22,
6:12, 31:4, 31:6,
31:20, 45:12,
46:14, 65:15,
67:11, 121:25
allowance [1] -
120:10
allowed [3] -
36:4, 100:19,
108:3
almost [2] -
80:9, 128:1
alone [1] - 45:12
alter [2] - 66:7,
150:4
alteram [2] -
105:24, 123:16
alterations [4] -
33:10, 33:17,
35:6, 36:12
alterations" [1] -
36:12
alternative [2] -
144:11, 150:20
ambit [1] - 186:4
amenable [1] -
110:8
amended [5] -
42:16, 46:17,
121:29, 157:19,
157:20
amendment [2] -
8:18, 8:19
Amendment [4]
- 42:15, 155:23,
156:7, 181:12
amendments [1]
- 159:18
amount [4] -
48:16, 104:28,
120:11, 145:16
amounting [1] -
106:24
analogy [1] -
106:9
analyse [1] -
110:10
analysed [2] -
103:15, 113:28
analysis [5] -
75:6, 92:26,
109:17, 109:28,
148:27
anchors [3] -
57:14, 58:14,
58:19
ancillary [2] -
36:5
AND [3] - 1:19,
1:20, 44:1
annex [1] -
27:14
Annex [26] - 4:8,
26:23, 26:29,
27:1, 27:17,
27:22, 28:5, 28:8,
28:25, 28:27,
29:3, 31:12,
32:14, 32:22,
32:24, 34:11,
34:23, 35:9,
35:20, 36:19,
48:17, 57:23,
79:28
anomalous [1] -
136:27
answer [5] -
33:27, 34:16,
36:17, 53:1,
102:24
anticipated [1] -
41:29
apart [5] - 105:7,
114:4, 120:20,
136:27, 179:5
apologies [4] -
26:27, 70:23,
129:15, 141:17
apologise [1] -
132:11
appalling [1] -
16:14
apparent [6] -
41:26, 55:19,
57:23, 59:12,
112:13, 157:26
appeal [13] -
37:18, 85:11,
97:19, 106:21,
117:19, 117:26,
121:17, 122:7,
122:27, 123:23,
123:29, 125:10,
125:22
appealed [2] -
166:25, 185:6
appealing [1] -
76:1
appear [5] -
58:17, 81:14,
81:23, 107:20,
175:26
APPEARANCE
S [1] - 2:2
appellant [2] -
2:32, 123:24
Appendix [3] -
162:21, 162:25,
162:27
applicable [5] -
55:20, 77:28,
88:29, 117:28,
132:23
applicant [23] -
8:29, 9:29, 20:28,
21:8, 21:11,
21:25, 22:24,
73:2, 76:10,
98:14, 118:12,
121:24, 122:9,
122:11, 122:12,
123:10, 123:19,
123:26, 124:2,
124:5, 125:1,
125:5
Applicant [23] -
9:26, 52:9, 62:18,
69:6, 69:7, 69:10,
71:8, 72:11,
72:26, 73:11,
73:15, 73:19,
73:26, 74:2, 74:4,
74:13, 74:16,
75:2, 110:23,
117:4, 160:17,
186:7
Applicant's [1] -
23:3
Applicant.. [1] -
74:10
applicants [8] -
41:13, 103:13,
114:11, 114:17,
114:24, 115:5,
115:27, 116:9
APPLICANTS
[2] - 1:12, 2:4
Applicants [52] -
4:18, 16:13, 17:6,
22:2, 23:15,
33:29, 36:18,
40:28, 41:12,
50:1, 72:19,
77:20, 81:14,
81:25, 82:5,
82:11, 82:19,
82:26, 84:16,
85:13, 86:15,
91:20, 95:29,
96:6, 96:13,
97:11, 98:3,
98:16, 98:28,
99:6, 99:25,
102:3, 102:14,
103:15, 104:10,
109:29, 110:16,
110:19, 111:1,
111:26, 115:18,
116:21, 116:26,
128:5, 131:28,
132:4, 158:12,
168:27, 169:28,
170:12, 171:10,
171:13
Applicants' [12]
- 81:21, 82:2,
82:16, 83:24,
84:22, 86:20,
97:29, 103:8,
110:19, 111:21,
116:16, 126:19
applicants’ [3] -
112:2, 112:6,
112:10
Application [1] -
170:8
application [54]
- 7:14, 11:27,
15:10, 15:13,
15:14, 15:24,
22:17, 47:5,
47:29, 48:11,
48:15, 53:10,
55:22, 67:22,
68:6, 72:25, 74:2,
74:23, 81:28,
84:29, 85:11,
85:29, 87:22,
89:12, 90:20,
91:12, 99:4,
105:12, 109:16,
117:13, 118:1,
121:29, 123:29,
125:22, 144:11,
161:21, 162:4,
164:9, 164:13,
164:27, 165:8,
166:26, 167:8,
169:25, 170:17,
170:21, 172:1,
174:16, 175:4,
175:7, 177:16,
182:29, 184:1
applications [4]
- 42:2, 124:15,
160:4, 160:13
applied [4] -
20:23, 101:3,
124:24, 181:1
applies [7] -
11:29, 19:16,
65:24, 107:27,
119:13, 160:7,
174:11
apply [13] -
22:12, 22:15,
48:29, 52:29,
62:9, 65:10,
65:21, 72:21,
78:5, 145:15,
166:13, 177:15,
178:3
appoint [1] -
181:21
appreciate [3] -
6:26, 41:10,
109:22
appreciation [1]
- 120:21
approach [11] -
47:22, 48:21,
65:13, 79:3,
143:14, 144:7,
144:10, 165:14,
169:24, 177:23,
184:21
approaches [4] -
131:14, 131:26,
132:1, 143:25
approaching [1]
- 3:15
Appropriate [1] -
119:7
appropriate [34]
- 7:20, 11:28,
12:5, 14:4, 16:19,
16:25, 18:3,
18:16, 18:19,
19:18, 22:18,
48:2, 62:14,
66:18, 68:8,
78:11, 81:6,
86:24, 88:22,
90:18, 90:19,
99:29, 106:5,
121:25, 136:2,
142:11, 143:17,
156:21, 162:14,
168:8, 168:14,
174:17, 181:12
appropriately
[2] - 22:10, 167:24
approval [4] -
42:4, 48:14,
138:14, 140:20
approvals [1] -
41:21
approve [1] -
109:8
approved [17] -
48:25, 49:4,
79:27, 109:13,
110:10, 139:8,
139:9, 139:10,
139:21, 139:22,
139:26, 139:29,
140:1, 142:3,
142:5, 142:6,
176:20
Approved [1] -
139:25
approves [1] -
109:11
approving [2] -
38:27, 39:20
April [1] - 169:27
archaeological
[3] - 41:20, 41:27,
42:11
architects [4] -
169:5, 169:24,
170:28, 171:9
area [20] - 10:26,
11:1, 11:14,
11:24, 11:28,
60:19, 69:17,
69:18, 71:14,
71:23, 71:29,
77:8, 78:9, 87:1,
87:5, 87:18,
87:28, 98:22,
117:8, 131:3
areas [7] - 60:2,
69:14, 71:5, 72:6,
77:14, 105:17
argue [3] -
24:23, 48:8,
179:25
argued [3] -
23:19, 72:11,
117:16
argues [1] -
122:18
argument [18] -
24:19, 27:26,
27:28, 43:17,
48:14, 75:3, 76:8,
76:18, 83:7,
122:26, 123:10,
123:18, 124:25,
165:10, 174:4,
174:6, 179:21
arguments [11] -
23:23, 41:11,
41:13, 62:18,
65:9, 66:15,
122:22, 136:25,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
4
156:14, 159:9,
165:1
arise [8] - 47:10,
66:18, 79:18,
80:20, 90:23,
120:12, 171:25,
173:4
arisen [2] -
52:13, 59:23
arises [11] -
11:19, 42:13,
46:4, 55:23,
64:27, 65:18,
66:5, 78:29,
112:19, 135:7,
179:4
arising [3] -
46:1, 52:28,
92:28
arm [1] - 137:12
arose [3] - 59:4,
60:28, 63:2
arrive [1] - 112:1
arrived [3] -
168:15, 178:18,
178:24
ARTHUR [1] -
2:20
article [2] - 64:1,
64:15
Article [27] -
27:14, 27:18,
29:20, 29:22,
30:4, 31:17,
31:24, 32:7,
32:15, 33:19,
39:3, 56:26,
63:17, 63:18,
63:25, 64:14,
66:8, 66:25, 68:1,
68:8, 121:22,
122:15, 127:7,
132:21, 134:14,
136:20
articles [1] -
127:7
articulated [5] -
79:11, 79:14,
79:18, 80:21,
81:23
AS [4] - 3:2, 3:8,
44:1, 111:7
asbestos [2] -
89:14, 162:1
ascertain [1] -
181:24
ascertaining [2]
- 129:27, 137:10
ascertainment
[1] - 130:8
ascribed [1] -
43:13
aside [4] - 66:17,
88:15, 96:27,
133:24
aspect [13] -
11:10, 33:10,
33:18, 35:6,
82:14, 90:27,
98:1, 116:14,
116:15, 116:17,
160:17, 160:18,
185:12
aspects [5] -
55:13, 98:18,
116:17, 160:12,
176:12
Asphalt [1] -
80:5
ass [1] - 60:4
assault [1] -
68:15
assert [1] -
127:3
asserting [1] -
133:3
assertion [5] -
66:23, 71:2, 74:6,
74:8
assertions [3] -
66:20, 75:14
assess [1] -
111:29
assessed [4] -
62:12, 67:25,
158:22, 178:5
assesses [2] -
112:27, 164:14
assessing [3] -
99:16, 100:2,
123:18
assessment [62]
- 12:5, 12:6, 48:2,
48:9, 52:13,
53:12, 55:28,
56:7, 56:8, 56:13,
56:18, 56:26,
57:2, 58:5, 58:24,
58:28, 59:1, 59:6,
59:10, 59:16,
59:26, 60:6,
60:16, 60:27,
61:17, 61:26,
62:9, 63:13,
66:18, 68:8,
73:24, 78:11,
78:17, 78:23,
78:26, 86:13,
87:23, 88:10,
88:22, 88:23,
90:18, 90:19,
90:23, 92:2,
98:20, 99:5,
152:17, 156:20,
156:21, 156:22,
158:3, 158:25,
160:26, 161:12,
162:14, 162:15,
166:6, 177:7
Assessment [4]
- 53:7, 119:6,
119:7, 122:3
assessments
[7] - 12:6, 81:6,
81:7, 88:23,
119:2, 158:10,
162:15
asset [11] - 93:3,
93:10, 93:23,
94:2, 94:9, 94:10,
94:12, 94:18,
94:25
assets [3] -
97:14, 99:27,
113:17
assets.. [1] -
93:17
assigned [2] -
140:10, 170:21
assist [1] -
155:16
assistance [2] -
41:1, 175:23
Assistant [1] -
170:22
associated [5] -
94:16, 96:7, 97:3,
163:12, 163:17
assume [1] -
149:2
assumed [2] -
60:15, 129:6
assumption [2] -
150:24, 150:26
assure [1] -
135:9
AT [1] - 187:27
attach [1] - 14:5
attached [1] -
112:17
attack [5] - 66:1,
68:27, 91:22,
97:1, 97:5
attempt [1] -
167:15
attempting [1] -
185:20
attention [25] -
6:27, 7:17, 7:26,
8:4, 8:19, 9:14,
19:14, 20:1, 21:3,
21:23, 24:9, 41:5,
46:28, 55:13,
57:9, 59:3, 65:11,
65:20, 66:28,
66:29, 68:18,
76:26, 117:26,
121:16, 170:22
ATTORNEY [2] -
1:19, 2:22
Attorney [2] -
128:13, 130:25
attractive [1] -
104:18
attribute [1] -
110:9
audi [2] -
105:23, 123:16
August [10] -
45:9, 71:12,
155:24, 156:18,
170:12, 170:21,
170:23, 170:25,
170:27, 171:4
authorisation
[2] - 34:25, 41:20
authorise [3] -
34:4, 34:5, 34:8
authorised [20] -
6:17, 20:8, 28:5,
29:4, 29:8, 29:9,
29:11, 30:14,
30:16, 30:17,
30:20, 32:25,
34:6, 35:10,
35:13, 35:23,
35:24, 35:29,
36:13, 186:6
authorities [34] -
20:11, 20:12,
25:7, 26:3, 26:8,
32:1, 40:20,
81:10, 81:16,
92:19, 105:15,
120:4, 120:6,
120:8, 120:11,
120:14, 120:17,
120:22, 120:25,
120:26, 134:27,
136:29, 138:11,
141:11, 141:28,
145:26, 149:25,
155:15, 155:18,
156:26, 159:2,
167:4, 180:6,
186:16
Authorities [7] -
6:25, 14:17,
20:15, 26:9,
26:11, 125:20,
155:14
Authority [88] -
5:9, 6:12, 7:15,
7:27, 10:12, 11:4,
11:5, 11:15,
11:25, 13:20,
15:7, 16:1, 16:3,
20:3, 23:8, 24:12,
25:5, 25:6, 36:1,
38:13, 50:13,
85:6, 86:21, 87:2,
87:11, 87:24,
87:26, 88:17,
88:19, 89:17,
89:23, 91:12,
91:14, 92:4,
92:15, 97:15,
98:19, 98:25,
101:17, 101:21,
101:23, 101:24,
107:8, 141:10,
141:27, 143:20,
143:27, 144:5,
144:18, 148:10,
151:13, 157:25,
158:2, 158:4,
158:5, 158:11,
158:18, 158:22,
159:5, 160:19,
160:21, 160:26,
161:2, 161:3,
161:13, 162:6,
165:4, 167:20,
168:13, 173:21,
175:5, 176:13,
176:21, 177:1,
177:7, 177:9,
179:14, 180:4,
180:5, 180:12,
180:24, 182:14,
182:16, 182:28,
184:3, 184:14,
184:17, 184:25
AUTHORITY [2]
- 1:17, 2:18
authority [53] -
6:7, 7:21, 9:19,
9:21, 10:27, 14:5,
15:11, 15:13,
15:17, 15:23,
16:24, 19:19,
22:8, 22:17,
22:22, 22:28,
23:1, 31:3, 31:4,
31:6, 31:20,
31:29, 36:4,
36:24, 38:9,
46:27, 61:7,
63:23, 78:15,
78:22, 83:7,
83:11, 89:18,
92:6, 116:25,
116:27, 129:16,
132:5, 134:2,
142:2, 142:26,
142:29, 145:12,
148:18, 148:19,
155:5, 156:25,
162:3, 164:25,
174:18, 178:6,
178:11
Authority's [4] -
50:10, 99:3,
164:12, 183:26
automatically
[1] - 27:19
available [5] -
77:9, 93:7, 114:3,
125:4, 125:18
availed [2] -
85:13, 119:28
avers [1] - 172:2
Aviation [1] -
143:16
aviation [14] -
128:23, 142:26,
143:1, 143:13,
143:19, 143:23,
144:2, 144:7,
144:20, 144:25,
147:3, 147:4,
147:6, 151:19
avoid [1] - 68:2
avoidance [1] -
93:15
aware [5] - 17:4,
65:1, 65:2,
123:27, 165:28
awareness [1] -
5:25
B
background [2]
- 55:9, 168:26
Baine [18] -
27:25, 28:16,
29:14, 30:10,
30:24, 34:3,
34:14, 36:24,
47:20, 47:21,
47:23, 48:23,
49:10, 57:29,
62:25, 62:26,
62:28, 79:23
balance [2] -
124:22, 137:23
balanced [2] -
61:21, 127:10
balancing [1] -
106:5
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
5
bald [2] - 66:20,
75:14
bank [18] - 93:3,
93:10, 93:17,
93:23, 94:2, 94:9,
94:10, 94:12,
94:18, 94:25,
95:9, 95:14,
95:23, 99:27,
113:12, 114:27
bank's [1] -
96:29
banking [1] -
113:12
banks [4] -
94:24, 95:19,
99:28, 114:20
bar [1] - 26:8
Barberstown [1]
- 163:5
BARRETT [64] -
1:24, 6:29, 7:5,
26:19, 26:24,
26:28, 27:2, 27:5,
27:8, 27:13,
34:12, 34:27,
43:20, 43:23,
69:21, 70:5,
70:11, 70:25,
77:11, 80:26,
89:6, 89:13,
95:23, 98:5,
101:10, 102:9,
111:2, 121:2,
121:8, 121:12,
126:22, 132:9,
132:12, 137:2,
141:15, 141:19,
141:22, 144:27,
146:13, 147:29,
149:2, 150:7,
150:14, 151:6,
151:29, 152:7,
153:7, 153:19,
161:18, 161:24,
164:3, 164:8,
164:18, 165:28,
166:17, 177:20,
186:18, 186:26,
187:7, 187:10,
187:15, 187:19,
187:21, 187:24
Barrow [4] -
69:17, 71:13,
71:17, 71:27
based [6] -
74:24, 85:29,
143:14, 143:24,
143:29, 151:4
basement [3] -
169:14, 170:14,
173:27
basis [17] - 3:16,
24:17, 69:24,
73:22, 77:3, 77:5,
77:20, 79:2, 79:8,
89:27, 107:24,
125:26, 133:13,
145:24, 172:13,
179:19, 183:29
bear [2] - 3:19,
62:29
bearing [2] -
124:28, 176:12
became [1] -
41:26
become [3] -
17:4, 55:19,
58:23
becomes [1] -
157:26
beg [2] - 26:29,
112:18
begin [1] -
159:29
beginning [9] -
15:27, 15:28,
18:26, 76:17,
115:9, 123:22,
153:23, 182:2,
182:23
begins [2] -
141:25, 175:19
behalf [7] - 5:9,
5:25, 7:14, 33:28,
81:25, 130:24,
165:1
behind [2] -
159:14, 168:24
Belgium [4] -
30:28, 30:29,
31:3
below [1] -
165:26
benefit [4] -
134:19, 153:8,
171:26, 173:5
bereft [1] - 84:18
beside [2] -
56:22, 183:16
best [1] - 81:8
between [30] -
1:6, 12:25, 13:2,
13:4, 34:2, 41:11,
45:18, 47:9,
49:27, 50:5,
50:12, 51:22,
55:4, 58:10, 61:2,
62:22, 70:17,
74:1, 95:18,
100:28, 104:20,
106:11, 108:8,
113:1, 124:22,
128:22, 129:2,
129:6, 137:23,
175:26
beyond [19] -
8:28, 9:26, 10:1,
34:6, 34:21,
34:22, 35:22,
36:2, 69:27,
79:21, 79:23,
79:27, 86:8,
86:14, 132:3,
132:4, 144:3,
147:13, 147:27
bifurcated [1] -
183:12
Binman [1] -
185:10
biomass [1] -
67:12
bit [9] - 16:12,
42:13, 65:5,
69:27, 154:2,
157:29, 168:26,
186:27
bitter [1] -
135:20
BL [7] - 2:5, 2:8,
2:13, 2:19, 2:23,
2:24, 2:27
Blackwater [1] -
71:15
blasting [1] -
37:10
Blayney [1] -
179:3
Board [5] -
117:25, 118:17,
118:21, 118:28,
119:1
bodies [7] -
78:6, 78:20,
104:22, 105:12,
139:5, 139:19,
151:20
bodily [8] -
127:4, 127:22,
130:26, 134:23,
135:4, 135:6,
135:11, 137:5
body [11] -
25:16, 78:7,
102:25, 105:29,
112:5, 112:9,
114:19, 137:11,
138:18, 139:6,
147:5
Bog [1] - 67:14
bogs [3] - 68:26,
69:15, 74:15
book [35] - 6:25,
14:16, 17:18,
17:20, 17:21,
17:23, 20:17,
25:23, 26:9,
26:10, 26:11,
26:12, 30:23,
30:24, 30:25,
36:29, 40:29,
41:4, 44:5, 47:1,
49:19, 58:18,
67:4, 94:15,
134:5, 138:10,
141:2, 141:4,
141:5, 141:16,
141:17, 159:28
Book [11] - 4:26,
7:9, 20:14, 26:9,
26:11, 49:20,
53:4, 77:24,
92:23, 155:14
booklet [1] -
63:5
books [5] - 5:1,
17:17, 26:17,
26:22, 134:4
Books [1] - 6:25
Bord [26] - 3:12,
3:15, 3:18, 4:14,
34:7, 38:10,
45:21, 51:3, 55:2,
67:1, 67:11,
72:14, 73:13,
73:14, 74:18,
78:14, 78:23,
78:24, 85:11,
116:28, 120:1,
135:3, 185:29,
186:12
borne [5] - 4:6,
4:7, 31:23, 50:20,
61:12
borrower [1] -
94:11
borrower's [1] -
102:19
borrowers [2] -
94:27, 114:9
bottom [5] -
130:9, 141:6,
162:9, 171:3,
178:14
bought [1] -
168:27
bound [1] -
68:22
Bows [1] -
127:25
Bows-Larkin [1]
- 127:25
box [2] - 157:23,
158:24
box-ticking [2] -
157:23, 158:24
Boyne [2] -
69:18, 71:15
BRADLEY [17] -
2:13, 153:14,
153:16, 153:20,
161:20, 161:25,
164:6, 164:11,
164:21, 166:3,
166:19, 177:22,
186:23, 186:29,
187:4, 187:12,
187:17
branchs [1] -
137:24
Breach [1] -
121:21
breach [7] -
23:25, 113:13,
117:17, 123:14,
123:15, 125:6,
128:24
breached [1] -
128:8
break [1] - 43:24
Brennan [2] -
168:24, 174:3
Brexit [2] -
148:1, 153:17
BRIAN [1] - 2:18
bridge [1] -
106:1
brief [3] - 75:21,
123:27, 185:10
BRIEFLY [1] -
44:1
briefly [10] - 5:3,
6:10, 7:10, 36:29,
64:25, 77:23,
79:10, 119:29,
128:3, 130:5
bring [4] - 65:19,
68:23, 117:25,
124:19
bringing [1] -
167:11
brings [1] -
125:29
broad [1] - 57:26
broader [1] -
150:28
brought [7] -
13:25, 67:8, 76:2,
81:25, 84:26,
155:23, 156:19
build [1] - 117:5
building [6] -
41:19, 42:7, 42:9,
91:29, 150:22,
165:6
buildings [2] -
163:8, 163:10
built [4] -
101:13, 101:15,
101:19, 127:24
bulletin [1] -
146:15
Bunbeg [1] -
20:26
bundle [1] -
103:24
burden [6] -
69:6, 70:29,
72:20, 73:16,
118:20, 119:17
business [12] -
112:2, 112:3,
112:6, 112:10,
112:27, 113:8,
113:20, 113:24,
114:21, 145:29,
148:21, 148:26
businesses [2] -
95:3, 115:15
BY [10] - 1:24,
2:6, 2:10, 2:15,
2:20, 2:25, 2:29,
3:8, 81:1, 153:14
Byrne [1] -
164:14
Byrne's [2] -
161:26, 163:22
C
C-C [1] - 169:17
cabling [1] -
163:12
cannot [18] -
11:15, 22:25,
33:16, 34:4, 35:5,
36:11, 56:7, 57:2,
59:28, 66:12,
86:7, 90:13, 91:4,
98:15, 104:28,
105:5, 114:4,
150:24
canvassed [1] -
81:10
capable [8] -
10:15, 11:25,
19:27, 83:26,
100:17, 102:15,
102:24, 109:4
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
6
capitals [1] -
12:2
capping [1] -
144:1
captures [1] -
30:21
car [1] - 117:7
Carbon [3] -
126:29, 141:8,
141:24
carbon [4] -
138:16, 140:12,
140:16, 140:26
carefully [1] -
79:14
Carrickmines
[1] - 41:16
carried [25] -
3:12, 5:24, 12:7,
14:26, 30:15,
32:4, 42:23,
46:14, 49:27,
51:24, 54:25,
55:5, 57:13, 58:6,
58:28, 59:23,
62:23, 78:22,
78:24, 78:25,
88:24, 89:3,
162:16, 163:23,
180:10
carries [1] -
73:15
carry [6] - 51:25,
53:24, 57:17,
66:13, 78:7,
78:10
carrying [10] -
9:1, 10:4, 10:11,
10:18, 34:5,
42:19, 50:12,
61:2, 73:23,
86:17
case [190] - 4:4,
6:6, 6:9, 7:9, 8:4,
11:17, 12:15,
18:8, 18:12,
18:22, 18:25,
19:15, 19:22,
19:24, 19:25,
19:26, 19:27,
20:2, 20:15,
20:23, 22:1,
23:11, 23:12,
23:17, 24:1, 24:3,
25:14, 25:15,
25:17, 26:7,
27:25, 30:10,
30:27, 31:20,
33:22, 33:29,
34:3, 36:18,
36:24, 36:25,
36:28, 37:3, 38:7,
39:25, 40:13,
40:15, 41:4, 41:8,
41:11, 41:14,
41:15, 41:16,
43:18, 45:5,
45:18, 45:19,
47:2, 47:4, 47:6,
47:8, 47:11,
48:29, 49:18,
49:25, 50:2,
50:19, 51:2,
54:29, 59:4, 60:9,
60:22, 60:23,
61:2, 62:4, 62:20,
63:8, 64:27, 66:4,
66:19, 67:16,
70:21, 71:3, 72:4,
72:20, 74:26,
75:7, 75:14,
75:24, 76:25,
77:29, 79:16,
80:5, 80:19,
80:24, 81:4, 82:5,
83:28, 84:27,
86:7, 88:29, 89:1,
90:1, 90:3, 91:26,
96:28, 99:8,
105:18, 107:15,
109:8, 113:1,
113:2, 117:3,
118:24, 119:19,
119:29, 121:10,
121:16, 121:24,
122:26, 123:19,
125:5, 125:8,
126:8, 128:1,
128:17, 129:18,
130:4, 131:6,
132:15, 132:16,
133:23, 134:5,
137:19, 138:1,
141:20, 144:28,
146:5, 150:7,
150:9, 150:10,
152:1, 152:29,
154:11, 155:2,
155:7, 155:19,
155:28, 156:2,
157:1, 157:13,
159:7, 159:8,
159:15, 160:7,
161:1, 162:7,
164:29, 165:2,
165:4, 165:21,
165:24, 166:18,
167:13, 167:14,
168:24, 174:6,
175:5, 175:8,
176:7, 178:28,
179:5, 180:15,
181:8, 181:11,
181:25, 182:5,
183:10, 183:15,
183:21, 185:28,
185:29, 186:7,
186:8
case-law [7] -
6:6, 6:9, 11:17,
20:2, 25:17, 26:7,
132:16
cases [15] - 6:5,
6:6, 44:12, 66:10,
69:22, 73:12,
79:22, 104:17,
107:11, 128:11,
134:24, 137:20,
157:3, 167:3,
167:11
Castle [1] -
41:16
caught [2] -
30:8, 52:23
caused [5] -
37:13, 42:4, 57:3,
91:27, 106:12
caution [2] - 8:7,
129:26
CC [1] - 169:26
cease [2] - 18:6,
19:5
ceased [1] -
38:28
central [3] -
106:20, 107:10,
114:16
centre [1] -
20:25
centuries [1] -
135:19
certain [11] -
22:20, 25:5, 72:6,
86:1, 133:4,
139:5, 146:18,
146:21, 148:22,
149:19, 180:4
certainly [16] -
3:22, 3:26, 7:4,
13:5, 23:20,
26:21, 27:4,
27:10, 27:28,
39:27, 64:21,
91:6, 120:21,
134:24, 137:8,
149:20
certainty [1] -
12:27
certificate [2] -
181:1, 181:5
certify [1] - 1:27
certiorari [1] -
67:20
cetera [4] -
92:14, 145:29,
148:28, 183:18
challenge [16] -
12:19, 17:5,
34:15, 62:4,
89:19, 90:14,
91:3, 91:5, 91:21,
99:2, 118:29,
158:13, 158:14,
158:15, 183:12,
183:13
challenged [3] -
23:15, 105:21,
165:21
change [42] -
11:12, 13:20,
14:23, 28:4, 28:7,
28:21, 28:25,
28:27, 29:3, 30:5,
30:7, 30:12,
30:19, 32:23,
33:2, 34:15,
34:18, 34:20,
37:27, 37:28,
48:16, 104:27,
110:1, 110:8,
115:4, 127:15,
128:19, 129:3,
129:5, 129:10,
138:2, 138:11,
138:15, 139:3,
139:14, 142:4,
142:20, 145:10,
147:10, 150:2,
150:27, 151:3
Change [5] -
138:22, 141:23,
147:7, 153:6,
155:2
changed [9] -
49:4, 49:14, 58:3,
59:15, 59:27,
87:13, 124:26,
145:12, 148:13
changes [13] -
10:23, 11:20,
29:16, 32:8,
52:11, 57:24,
57:25, 60:2,
61:27, 86:27,
105:2, 105:5,
110:18
changing [1] -
111:16
Chapter [1] -
175:1
characterise [1]
- 50:2
characterises
[1] - 37:26
Charter [2] -
81:16, 132:21
check [5] - 87:5,
87:10, 87:28,
88:6, 148:12
Chief [8] - 43:19,
44:7, 44:8, 44:16,
44:29, 45:2,
95:26, 101:8
CHIEF [1] - 2:25
child [1] -
129:20
choice [3] -
97:13, 100:7,
184:17
chooses [1] -
149:11
chose [2] -
89:26, 94:17
chosen [1] -
51:25
CHRISTIAN [1] -
2:23
Christian [1] -
130:22
chronology [1] -
123:28
CIARáN [1] -
2:23
circa [2] - 71:28,
72:1
Circuit [1] -
129:18
circulated [2] -
25:23, 122:10
circumscribed
[1] - 125:27
circumstance
[5] - 25:8, 28:2,
36:26, 52:12,
180:7
circumstances
[43] - 4:13, 8:11,
9:22, 12:13,
12:23, 12:25,
12:29, 13:3,
23:19, 25:20,
27:21, 34:8,
39:13, 44:25,
47:15, 51:26,
56:19, 58:9,
58:13, 60:8,
61:28, 62:21,
63:2, 75:17,
78:12, 78:13,
78:19, 78:21,
80:2, 80:19, 85:1,
90:2, 96:12,
101:4, 107:28,
124:1, 135:8,
143:12, 149:18,
181:5, 181:6,
181:8, 181:10
circumvent [2] -
185:20, 185:21
cite [1] - 131:24
cited [2] -
104:23, 157:1
cites [2] -
183:19, 186:7
citizen [3] -
129:28, 134:8,
134:28
citizen's [1] -
127:17
citizens [3] -
132:25, 134:19,
135:18
City [1] - 47:4
Civil [1] - 143:16
civil [2] - 118:1,
135:16
claim [12] -
81:24, 83:2, 83:3,
83:17, 84:10,
91:27, 103:13,
127:8, 127:9,
127:13, 131:19
claimant [2] -
106:13, 106:14
claimed [1] -
83:24
claims [4] -
81:13, 81:16,
81:21, 81:22
CLARKE [1] -
2:6
class [2] - 19:22,
82:6
classified [2] -
33:18, 35:7
clear [27] - 4:22,
4:24, 6:7, 13:19,
16:16, 25:4, 25:7,
30:5, 30:9, 33:22,
36:17, 36:21,
40:9, 45:5, 62:21,
74:21, 80:10,
83:28, 99:14,
130:1, 146:26,
151:29, 160:17,
173:17, 180:3,
180:6, 185:24
clearly [17] -
4:13, 5:24, 7:27,
8:23, 15:1, 15:6,
15:28, 16:28,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
7
57:10, 73:15,
79:24, 86:19,
97:25, 118:6,
130:15, 146:28,
162:2
cleverly [1] -
136:16
CLG [3] - 1:12,
2:8, 3:5
client's [1] -
98:23
clients [2] -
76:1, 131:19
climate [20] -
127:15, 128:19,
129:3, 129:5,
129:9, 138:2,
138:11, 138:15,
138:17, 139:3,
139:14, 140:5,
140:16, 140:26,
142:4, 142:19,
143:15, 147:10,
150:27, 151:3
Climate [7] -
126:28, 138:22,
141:7, 141:23,
147:7, 153:5,
155:2
close [1] -
167:29
closed [1] -
60:15
closely [2] -
104:21, 108:24
cloud [2] -
80:10, 80:13
Co [2] - 20:26,
23:14
code [2] - 79:7,
105:3
cogent [2] -
75:6, 75:13
cognisable [1] -
134:16
coherent [1] -
131:2
Coillte [3] - 78:7,
78:13, 171:6
COLGAN [1] -
1:7
Coll [4] - 20:15,
20:17, 159:4,
159:7
collaborative [1]
- 143:14
collateral [3] -
66:1, 68:26,
91:22
colleague [1] -
26:1
Collins [2] -
76:20, 187:21
COLLINS [1] -
2:5
combat [1] -
147:9
combined [1] -
183:12
coming [8] -
11:10, 19:20,
115:22, 148:14,
155:22, 156:8,
168:18, 175:11
commence [1] -
89:20
COMMENCED
[1] - 3:1
commenced
[37] - 12:4, 12:26,
13:1, 18:9, 18:12,
23:25, 41:19,
85:1, 88:21,
88:26, 89:5, 89:7,
89:10, 89:18,
89:24, 89:28,
119:14, 119:16,
158:19, 161:19,
161:20, 162:13,
162:18, 162:26,
163:1, 163:28,
164:5, 164:6,
164:19, 165:19,
166:1, 166:6,
166:7, 166:12,
170:19, 181:28,
182:7
commenceme
nt [11] - 9:1, 10:4,
10:10, 10:18,
86:16, 90:14,
91:3, 91:5, 91:13,
91:17, 165:17
comment [7] -
98:6, 98:14,
106:18, 107:4,
122:11, 123:13,
178:14
commentators
[2] - 136:9, 137:8
commenting [2]
- 98:4, 130:10
comments [1] -
121:26
commercial [9] -
8:27, 9:25, 86:14,
95:11, 95:13,
96:9, 98:19,
113:14, 114:20
Commercial [1]
- 76:11
Commissioner
s [2] - 104:2,
104:8
commissionin
g [1] - 148:27
common [1] -
100:22
communicate
[1] - 171:8
communicated
[1] - 172:24
community [1] -
90:22
Community [1] -
185:22
companies [3] -
94:16, 97:3,
97:23
company [2] -
53:10, 54:10
Company [1] -
179:1
compared [2] -
59:15, 60:5
compatible [3] -
55:23, 114:22,
126:15
compensation
[1] - 106:10
Compensation
[1] - 38:23
competence [4]
- 40:20, 87:11,
88:18, 147:14
competent [4] -
31:20, 31:29,
61:7, 63:23
competing [2] -
124:23, 127:11
complaining [1]
- 187:13
complaint [1] -
118:11
complete [5] -
33:27, 36:17,
49:3, 125:21,
153:2
completed [21] -
7:23, 8:12, 18:13,
21:16, 22:20,
22:23, 24:25,
50:11, 92:8,
92:12, 157:7,
157:12, 159:22,
170:14, 170:18,
170:19, 177:10,
179:27, 181:29,
182:10, 183:28
completed.. [1] -
174:20
completely [3] -
58:6, 147:13,
184:11
completeness
[7] - 17:25, 19:15,
52:21, 63:4,
64:27, 65:18,
65:26
completion [8] -
13:22, 13:25,
14:7, 14:19,
42:22, 65:17,
182:9, 182:13
complex [3] -
10:14, 117:5,
158:9
compliance [26]
- 5:14, 24:15,
24:26, 139:18,
160:15, 160:19,
162:5, 164:16,
165:5, 165:8,
165:9, 165:13,
171:9, 171:12,
173:25, 179:17,
179:28, 180:11,
180:23, 182:18,
183:4, 183:28,
184:4, 184:7,
184:28, 184:29
compliant [1] -
172:9
complied [10] -
7:24, 8:1, 8:3,
15:12, 21:14,
22:20, 59:19,
165:16, 176:2,
181:25
comply [4] -
43:11, 168:10,
175:9, 182:15
compound [1] -
163:3
comprehensiv
ely [1] - 79:15
comprised [1] -
162:24
compulsory [3]
- 64:18, 106:10,
106:15
conceded [1] -
130:24
concept [5] -
31:24, 32:6,
44:11, 57:25,
133:18
concern [4] -
49:28, 98:9,
171:9, 186:23
concerned [14] -
4:21, 16:12, 22:2,
42:3, 42:26, 50:1,
50:4, 105:10,
108:16, 108:26,
110:26, 129:18,
178:17, 186:21
concerned' [1] -
185:26
concerning [10]
- 50:27, 52:3,
81:5, 100:1,
103:3, 108:1,
116:8, 128:20,
128:22, 134:6
concerns [13] -
3:24, 3:26, 3:29,
4:17, 45:19,
61:12, 72:25,
82:15, 106:21,
116:16, 122:27,
125:9, 171:11
concession [1] -
158:17
conclude [3] -
124:2, 125:1,
125:2
concluded [4] -
24:12, 111:11,
179:14, 182:15
concludes [3] -
126:18, 138:7,
153:5
conclusion [20]
- 24:13, 24:17,
24:25, 47:8,
52:23, 63:24,
63:27, 64:13,
112:1, 115:27,
120:29, 178:17,
179:15, 179:19,
179:27, 183:29,
184:4, 184:7,
184:23, 184:28
Condition [5] -
82:7, 98:23,
98:26, 110:1,
110:7
condition [8] -
23:25, 49:15,
82:7, 86:12,
87:16, 98:24,
99:1, 110:8
conditioning [1]
- 31:3
conditions [27] -
6:13, 13:20, 14:6,
14:8, 14:18,
14:23, 20:4,
23:21, 37:24,
38:3, 38:11,
38:26, 38:27,
39:20, 39:21,
39:27, 39:28,
44:19, 49:14,
52:10, 58:2,
79:26, 85:24,
85:28, 86:4,
96:10, 160:15
conduct [1] -
68:8
conducted [4] -
53:11, 88:27,
91:1, 144:24
conferred [5] -
136:2, 136:4,
180:12, 181:24,
182:19
conferring [1] -
114:1
confers [1] -
176:13
confine [1] -
120:5
confined [2] -
86:5, 184:2
confirm [1] -
121:14
confirmed [1] -
163:28
confirms [1] -
162:29
conforming [1] -
65:4
congestion [2] -
117:9, 117:11
conjunction [2]
- 17:16, 19:3
CONLETH [1] -
2:13
connected [4] -
52:12, 104:21,
108:24, 138:23
connection [2] -
42:21, 70:8
conscious [6] -
53:5, 70:2,
135:29, 142:26,
143:1, 146:27
consensus [7] -
131:20, 131:21,
131:23, 132:6,
132:26, 132:28,
133:25
consent [59] -
6:3, 6:8, 12:17,
12:18, 28:14,
29:21, 31:7,
33:23, 33:26,
35:17, 36:28,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
8
38:1, 38:4, 39:15,
39:29, 40:11,
40:13, 40:24,
41:23, 42:18,
44:11, 44:24,
44:27, 45:6,
45:15, 45:27,
46:18, 48:1, 48:9,
48:19, 49:15,
50:3, 50:4, 50:6,
50:15, 54:18,
54:28, 55:5,
56:17, 56:21,
57:7, 57:12,
57:15, 57:16,
58:12, 58:16,
58:27, 60:9, 61:3,
62:24, 62:26,
63:1, 64:2, 66:9,
79:4, 79:5, 79:25,
156:17
consent" [2] -
57:10, 58:20
consent'... [1] -
39:23
consent.. [1] -
40:6
consent... [1] -
43:15
consents [1] -
41:21
consequence
[7] - 11:9, 11:11,
11:21, 60:18,
95:1, 108:15,
114:28
consequences
[4] - 3:28, 4:15,
74:14, 111:1
consequential
[2] - 81:7, 128:25
consequently
[4] - 52:28, 58:23,
59:28, 168:7
conservation
[14] - 69:13,
69:14, 69:18,
69:19, 71:5,
71:14, 71:24,
71:29, 72:6, 77:8,
77:14, 77:15,
77:16, 78:9
Conservation
[2] - 71:16, 74:18
consider [26] -
13:10, 19:7, 23:3,
89:14, 89:16,
96:16, 99:26,
102:13, 102:27,
105:26, 120:13,
120:28, 130:29,
144:6, 145:9,
145:29, 146:11,
148:10, 148:15,
151:16, 151:20,
152:20, 180:24,
182:16, 182:29,
186:12
considerable [3]
- 87:9, 94:16,
94:19
consideration
[28] - 24:14,
59:11, 89:1, 89:4,
92:17, 96:27,
102:18, 111:23,
119:24, 122:24,
126:27, 142:11,
147:2, 147:10,
147:11, 147:25,
149:18, 150:19,
152:16, 153:1,
153:3, 157:22,
162:6, 168:6,
168:18, 177:12,
179:16, 184:5
considerations
[18] - 4:10, 8:27,
9:25, 10:9, 10:15,
10:16, 12:14,
86:13, 90:28,
92:27, 97:7,
116:8, 141:3,
145:21, 149:26,
168:12, 177:14,
177:15
considered [35]
- 5:10, 6:3, 12:15,
32:9, 39:22,
44:12, 48:13,
48:16, 53:29,
84:20, 88:11,
90:11, 90:13,
91:4, 103:27,
111:24, 113:25,
114:7, 119:3,
123:3, 124:9,
125:12, 125:13,
125:17, 129:13,
145:10, 146:19,
146:21, 172:2,
172:5, 172:8,
172:17, 181:20,
183:23, 186:5
considering [12]
- 10:13, 42:24,
61:12, 84:21,
92:6, 112:20,
116:10, 123:3,
147:27, 168:16,
175:24, 184:8
considers [12] -
7:21, 22:19,
82:25, 89:2, 93:4,
93:28, 94:18,
104:1, 107:15,
110:3, 146:27,
174:18
consistent [15] -
10:28, 11:13,
13:23, 19:9, 23:6,
25:11, 25:13,
47:21, 49:10,
65:3, 65:12,
65:15, 82:28,
87:3, 169:24
constitute [4] -
33:4, 38:1, 39:22,
45:27
constituted [2] -
31:7, 43:14
constitutes [1] -
31:16
Constitution
[24] - 81:14,
81:22, 82:26,
83:4, 83:15,
83:20, 106:26,
126:16, 127:8,
127:9, 129:22,
129:29, 130:16,
131:27, 132:3,
132:8, 133:27,
134:14, 135:16,
135:26, 136:4,
136:8, 136:13,
136:18
Constitution..
[1] - 43:5
constitutional
[26] - 65:7, 65:25,
81:21, 81:24,
81:26, 83:2, 83:8,
83:10, 83:12,
83:17, 84:3,
103:13, 106:23,
126:3, 126:25,
127:4, 131:17,
134:10, 134:21,
134:23, 135:1,
135:6, 135:10,
135:26, 138:3,
183:12
constitutionalit
y [1] - 136:3
constitutionall
y [4] - 103:20,
103:22, 104:29,
105:6
constructed [9]
- 3:23, 6:15, 20:6,
23:15, 23:20,
170:2, 170:15,
172:8, 173:28
constructing [1]
- 171:18
construction
[23] - 3:26, 3:27,
4:11, 4:19, 4:21,
5:21, 9:10, 23:14,
29:24, 30:6,
30:14, 54:21,
105:29, 162:17,
170:16, 171:26,
172:19, 173:1,
173:5, 173:11,
173:25, 175:18,
178:19
Construction [4]
- 24:6, 162:19,
162:24, 179:1
construe [1] -
91:4
construed [1] -
17:12
construing [1] -
175:24
consultant [1] -
71:9
consultation [5]
- 22:10, 106:4,
124:4, 124:19,
144:24
consultative [1]
- 124:8
consulted [1] -
22:24
contact [2] -
169:19, 171:6
contained [1] -
180:13
contains [2] -
63:19, 128:21
contemplated
[5] - 75:29,
100:25, 106:23,
107:21, 182:26
contemplation
[1] - 130:15
contend [1] -
91:21
contends [2] -
73:28, 76:6
content [6] -
52:13, 56:14,
63:14, 88:12,
100:29, 108:9
contention [2] -
72:12, 73:20
contentious [1]
- 124:14
contents [1] -
84:12
contested [2] -
147:20, 184:19
context [40] -
4:9, 13:18, 14:21,
28:24, 53:29,
57:28, 59:5,
60:28, 61:4,
62:17, 63:1, 65:5,
65:25, 75:25,
85:9, 92:28, 97:7,
107:13, 114:5,
115:19, 115:20,
116:2, 123:11,
125:18, 142:12,
145:26, 145:28,
147:8, 148:9,
150:28, 152:5,
152:6, 152:7,
152:10, 152:18,
154:5, 164:27
continue [4] -
31:5, 31:7, 31:21,
34:2
CONTINUED [1]
- 111:7
continued [3] -
45:22, 60:16,
169:28
continues [2] -
45:3, 176:25
continuing [2] -
42:7, 144:19
continuous [1] -
157:6
continuum [1] -
174:9
contour [1] -
169:9
contours [4] -
128:7, 133:18,
137:13, 137:18
contract [1] -
95:18
contractors' [1]
- 163:3
contracts [1] -
96:8
contractual [1] -
103:24
contrary [4] -
57:5, 90:20,
90:25, 136:29
contrast [1] -
39:25
contravention
[1] - 43:5
contribution [2]
- 142:27, 158:8
control [10] -
8:28, 9:26, 86:15,
95:2, 143:13,
144:7, 144:20,
151:18, 151:21,
160:25
controls [1] -
147:5
controversial
[1] - 41:15
Convention [1] -
81:15
conversation [1]
- 68:2
convince [1] -
47:26
Conygar [3] -
37:7, 38:22,
39:22
copies [2] -
67:5, 159:26
copy [4] - 121:7,
121:9, 121:15,
171:4
COPYRIGHT [1]
- 2:30
core [3] - 95:11,
101:7, 113:14
corner [1] -
26:15
corporate [1] -
149:13
Corporation [5]
- 157:1, 157:16,
157:17, 176:8,
183:11
correct [10] -
4:3, 56:20,
101:22, 102:18,
126:4, 135:28,
151:7, 161:12,
173:24, 178:20
correctly [1] -
58:25
correctness [2]
- 24:13, 179:15
correlation [1] -
128:22
correspond [1] -
169:14
corresponding
[1] - 55:21
Costello [2] -
104:24, 105:19
Coughlan [1] -
171:29
Council [45] -
1:15, 2:13, 3:6,
7:8, 14:23, 14:25,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
9
19:10, 23:12,
23:16, 23:17,
23:20, 24:5, 24:7,
35:29, 41:17,
42:21, 46:16,
47:4, 81:28,
82:13, 85:18,
90:11, 111:10,
119:12, 125:19,
126:27, 138:22,
139:2, 140:29,
141:4, 145:20,
147:14, 147:25,
148:2, 149:4,
154:4, 154:22,
161:18, 161:20,
165:2, 165:28,
166:26, 185:24,
186:8
Council's [3] -
82:15, 119:12,
149:10
counter [1] -
118:5
countries [1] -
133:4
country [3] -
8:21, 9:6, 70:9
County [31] -
3:5, 7:8, 23:12,
23:16, 24:4, 24:7,
34:16, 41:17,
42:20, 67:13,
81:28, 82:13,
82:14, 90:11,
111:9, 119:11,
119:12, 125:19,
126:27, 139:2,
140:29, 141:4,
145:20, 147:14,
147:25, 149:10,
154:4, 165:1,
185:23, 186:8
COUNTY [2] -
1:15, 2:13
couple [2] -
159:26, 166:10
course [43] -
3:24, 4:1, 8:18,
11:8, 16:12,
28:11, 29:11,
34:17, 35:13,
37:28, 41:26,
43:22, 57:28,
61:24, 70:14,
70:16, 70:20,
77:26, 79:5, 80:6,
80:21, 103:2,
105:10, 112:13,
116:2, 119:8,
119:11, 129:13,
131:26, 132:15,
132:17, 132:22,
148:15, 148:20,
148:21, 156:3,
158:26, 164:17,
173:25, 174:5,
175:21, 176:28,
187:10
courses [2] -
54:1, 54:3
court [19] -
31:11, 35:2,
38:20, 40:9, 44:7,
45:5, 45:7, 45:24,
55:27, 69:29,
80:10, 80:13,
111:29, 112:1,
112:4, 112:16,
119:19, 121:6,
130:1
Court [165] -
3:10, 4:26, 5:29,
7:10, 12:15,
13:18, 16:14,
20:2, 20:13,
20:18, 21:21,
24:6, 25:12,
25:18, 25:19,
25:21, 25:28,
25:29, 26:10,
26:18, 27:21,
27:23, 29:19,
30:10, 30:25,
31:8, 31:9, 33:8,
33:22, 36:20,
36:25, 37:26,
37:29, 41:1, 41:2,
41:4, 41:9, 41:13,
44:4, 44:6, 44:17,
45:22, 46:24,
47:17, 47:22,
48:22, 49:1,
49:11, 49:21,
50:22, 52:22,
53:6, 62:29, 65:1,
65:2, 65:8, 66:3,
66:4, 66:25,
68:22, 68:24,
69:21, 69:25,
70:27, 72:25,
75:6, 75:27, 76:4,
76:11, 76:16,
77:4, 77:6, 77:18,
79:17, 79:19,
79:22, 80:4,
80:11, 82:25,
86:6, 95:6, 99:10,
99:12, 99:16,
99:19, 99:24,
102:10, 103:29,
104:4, 104:7,
104:23, 108:11,
108:14, 109:8,
109:12, 110:7,
115:16, 120:5,
120:13, 120:27,
120:28, 122:24,
125:24, 126:20,
128:14, 129:14,
129:17, 129:19,
129:23, 130:5,
132:29, 133:2,
133:16, 133:25,
134:11, 137:17,
138:10, 139:4,
141:2, 141:3,
141:18, 153:6,
154:29, 155:5,
155:12, 155:14,
155:16, 156:9,
156:10, 156:14,
157:3, 159:12,
159:14, 159:27,
159:28, 161:22,
165:3, 165:25,
166:5, 166:23,
166:24, 166:29,
167:21, 167:26,
168:22, 168:27,
175:19, 178:13,
178:29, 179:2,
179:3, 181:8,
181:20, 182:22,
184:11, 184:15,
186:17, 186:25
COURT [2] - 1:1,
1:3
court's [1] -
49:21
Court's [11] -
17:20, 21:3,
46:28, 65:20,
80:23, 81:17,
92:27, 97:7,
99:21, 121:16,
178:14
courts [8] -
70:18, 107:25,
130:8, 133:28,
134:16, 136:18,
137:20, 137:25
Courts [4] -
73:2, 74:26,
101:2, 133:23
courts.ie [1] -
70:7
covenants [1] -
113:14
covered [2] -
29:12, 122:2
covers [2] -
29:7, 57:24
COX [1] - 2:20
cracking [1] -
37:13
created [1] -
117:7
creates [1] -
98:12
creating [1] -
140:7
creation [1] -
150:25
credible [2] -
112:5, 112:9
credit [2] -
95:14, 99:28
criteria [11] -
55:16, 86:1, 92:2,
94:20, 99:4,
100:2, 100:8,
101:25, 110:25,
151:5, 152:12
criterion [1] -
130:21
critical [4] -
33:13, 34:26,
35:25, 152:22
critically [1] -
22:7
criticised [1] -
158:1
criticism [2] -
9:15, 12:10
cross [2] -
169:17, 169:27
Crowley [1] -
180:29
crucial [3] -
6:11, 35:19,
109:7
crucially [1] -
43:7
crushing [1] -
37:12
crux [2] - 115:10
culminating [1] -
159:3
culture [1] -
150:2
cumbersome [1]
- 61:23
cumulative [2] -
60:5, 60:13
curious [2] -
50:24, 52:18
current [3] - 7:4,
96:10, 137:16
cut [4] - 118:21,
119:18, 169:15,
187:1
cutting [1] -
118:18
D
d) [2] - 154:11,
167:19
DAA [2] -
162:17, 162:29
DAA's [2] -
81:28, 152:17
DAC [2] - 1:22,
2:27
daily [1] - 149:26
DAMIEN [1] -
2:27
date [13] - 10:27,
18:26, 52:24,
61:27, 64:1,
76:12, 76:15,
87:2, 87:20,
90:13, 142:2,
155:24, 170:13
dated [2] -
121:29, 170:27
David [2] - 71:8,
74:7
DAY [2] - 1:25,
3:2
days [5] - 54:17,
89:11, 128:13,
131:28
De [1] - 136:16
deal [19] - 32:18,
43:25, 60:25,
62:24, 64:24,
76:14, 77:23,
80:23, 96:7,
126:25, 147:12,
147:16, 165:12,
167:8, 167:12,
167:22, 170:23,
171:11, 175:1
dealing [23] -
11:20, 19:10,
19:11, 35:2, 51:1,
56:16, 56:18,
58:9, 65:20,
81:13, 121:22,
124:23, 135:14,
154:14, 156:16,
157:2, 162:3,
164:12, 164:22,
166:26, 167:3,
175:18, 177:4
deals [8] - 8:11,
17:26, 27:17,
72:17, 156:12,
164:13, 165:17,
166:5
dealt [14] -
62:25, 65:29,
68:19, 76:26,
79:14, 81:3, 81:4,
81:5, 156:17,
161:25, 164:15,
167:22, 167:23,
183:20
dearth [1] -
128:16
debate [1] -
86:23
decade [1] -
8:21
December [8] -
20:26, 53:10,
162:18, 164:4,
164:7, 164:20,
166:1, 181:20
decide [7] -
13:19, 31:4,
46:25, 61:7,
101:18, 112:16,
184:1
decided [7] -
64:8, 76:1, 91:15,
101:23, 102:3,
102:13, 186:8
deciding [2] -
78:25, 93:22
decision [220] -
6:2, 6:21, 6:24,
9:16, 15:7, 15:14,
15:18, 15:24,
16:2, 16:4, 16:19,
17:2, 17:4, 17:5,
17:10, 17:12,
17:14, 19:18,
20:18, 20:29,
21:1, 21:8, 22:25,
22:26, 22:29,
23:8, 23:16,
23:26, 24:5,
25:25, 25:27,
26:1, 28:16,
29:14, 30:10,
30:24, 30:26,
31:6, 31:11,
31:16, 31:19,
31:29, 34:6,
34:14, 34:19,
34:28, 36:25,
36:27, 37:20,
37:29, 38:5,
38:10, 39:19,
39:20, 41:2, 41:5,
41:8, 44:3, 45:10,
45:21, 47:20,
49:13, 49:22,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
10
50:10, 54:11,
55:2, 55:17,
55:24, 56:20,
58:11, 59:17,
60:26, 62:5,
62:15, 62:27,
64:2, 66:28, 67:1,
67:2, 67:5, 67:11,
84:16, 84:17,
84:20, 85:27,
86:3, 86:21,
88:15, 89:16,
89:19, 89:23,
89:27, 92:15,
96:18, 96:23,
97:24, 98:2,
99:14, 99:16,
99:21, 99:27,
100:2, 100:4,
100:6, 100:7,
100:11, 100:18,
100:20, 100:21,
100:26, 102:1,
102:5, 102:10,
102:16, 102:25,
102:28, 102:29,
103:6, 103:8,
103:14, 104:1,
104:10, 105:14,
105:29, 106:8,
106:24, 107:7,
107:22, 107:29,
108:19, 108:22,
108:25, 109:19,
110:10, 110:14,
110:15, 110:17,
110:26, 111:16,
112:21, 114:12,
115:10, 115:11,
115:19, 115:23,
115:29, 116:6,
116:10, 116:15,
117:9, 118:2,
121:28, 123:5,
124:14, 124:18,
124:20, 124:21,
124:29, 125:15,
125:19, 126:7,
130:6, 130:8,
136:1, 138:5,
139:1, 142:12,
145:11, 145:15,
145:17, 145:24,
146:10, 148:16,
148:17, 148:20,
148:24, 148:25,
148:26, 149:6,
149:7, 151:16,
151:17, 151:24,
152:11, 152:15,
152:26, 153:24,
153:26, 154:3,
154:19, 155:29,
160:18, 161:28,
162:2, 164:24,
166:7, 166:23,
167:5, 168:12,
172:1, 172:13,
172:15, 172:28,
175:6, 175:8,
178:24, 178:29,
179:4, 179:5,
183:12, 184:3,
185:2, 185:3,
185:6, 185:11,
185:12
Decision [7] -
82:3, 83:21, 85:8,
97:16, 98:26,
102:6, 151:4
decision-
maker [6] - 86:3,
100:7, 102:29,
105:14, 151:16,
151:17
decision-
making [2] -
148:20, 152:26
decision... [1] -
114:29
decisions [34] -
24:21, 25:18,
25:21, 25:28,
38:26, 39:1,
39:12, 39:19,
40:5, 40:29,
44:24, 45:8,
45:11, 45:12,
62:29, 63:29,
64:14, 78:28,
79:24, 104:20,
104:22, 105:12,
105:18, 123:5,
145:20, 145:28,
149:22, 150:6,
152:23, 153:29,
166:24, 175:22,
179:23
Decisions [1] -
105:21
DECLAN [1] -
1:9
declaration [4] -
67:22, 67:28,
68:6, 99:24
declarations [1]
- 43:3
declaring [3] -
129:27, 130:1,
130:17
DEEGAN [1] -
1:8
deemed [2] -
94:12, 165:9
default [1] -
114:24
defeat [1] -
13:26
defendant [7] -
41:22, 42:5,
42:19, 42:29,
43:9, 45:28,
46:12
define [1] -
128:7
defined [6] -
18:16, 30:13,
31:24, 137:19,
143:6, 151:4
definitely [2] -
9:21, 137:26
definition [2] -
30:1, 32:6
definitively [1] -
114:6
degradation [1]
- 127:23
degree [5] - 8:7,
10:8, 70:19,
107:12, 131:7
DEIGHEN [1] -
1:8
delay [2] - 5:22,
5:27
delays [2] - 4:24,
5:11
deliberation [1]
- 124:13
deliberations [1]
- 151:27
delivered [3] -
44:7, 47:19,
99:13
delivering [1] -
43:19
Dellway [17] -
92:20, 92:24,
92:28, 92:29,
97:7, 99:12,
110:29, 111:12,
111:22, 113:1,
115:11, 154:14,
154:15, 154:27,
158:27, 158:28
democratic [1] -
130:22
demolition [3] -
163:7, 163:11,
163:15
demonstrate [1]
- 132:5
demonstrated
[1] - 114:1
demur [2] -
146:5, 146:9
denial [1] -
125:11
denied [3] -
118:19, 123:12
DENIS [1] - 2:22
depart [3] - 26:1,
146:6, 146:8
departure [3] -
146:11, 152:28,
153:1
depended [1] -
101:4
dependent [2] -
100:26, 127:5
deprived [2] -
95:29, 96:6
derive [2] - 83:9,
137:12
derived [2] -
118:1, 127:5
Derries [2] -
71:23, 71:29
describe [1] -
40:10
description [1] -
135:25
deserving [1] -
134:20
design [1] -
170:17
designate [1] -
105:16
designated [1] -
74:15
desirable [2] -
93:5, 94:19
desire [2] -
13:23, 80:9
DESMOND [1] -
1:10
desperately [1] -
14:11
detail [11] -
79:12, 79:19,
84:13, 85:6,
103:28, 127:26,
131:1, 142:21,
147:28, 152:3,
154:2
detailed [2] -
136:13, 147:2
details [1] - 5:8
detained [1] -
134:26
deterioration [1]
- 68:3
Determination
[1] - 179:12
determination
[1] - 24:8
determinative
[1] - 56:27
determine [8] -
40:20, 53:18,
53:22, 54:9,
61:17, 62:13,
68:28, 178:25
determined [2] -
178:21, 184:6
determining [6]
- 38:26, 39:20,
58:29, 101:2,
107:26, 186:5
develop [1] -
149:11
developed [3] -
11:7, 52:15,
183:16
developer [8] -
32:1, 85:3, 86:20,
91:12, 91:13,
124:7, 160:25,
176:16
developers [1] -
171:17
Developer’s [1]
- 122:7
developing [1] -
131:2
development
[148] - 6:3, 6:8,
7:22, 8:11, 9:1,
10:3, 10:11,
10:24, 10:25,
10:28, 10:29,
11:12, 11:14,
11:22, 11:23,
12:4, 12:16,
12:18, 12:26,
13:22, 13:24,
13:25, 14:8,
14:19, 18:8,
18:10, 18:12,
18:13, 21:16,
22:14, 22:19,
22:23, 23:4,
23:19, 23:24,
24:14, 24:25,
28:14, 29:21,
31:6, 31:7, 33:23,
33:25, 35:17,
36:27, 38:1, 38:4,
40:24, 41:26,
43:15, 44:11,
45:6, 45:12,
45:27, 46:7,
46:10, 46:17,
48:1, 48:9, 48:19,
48:25, 49:15,
49:28, 50:3, 50:4,
50:6, 50:14,
54:28, 55:5,
56:17, 56:21,
57:12, 58:11,
59:27, 60:9, 61:3,
62:23, 62:26,
63:1, 64:2, 66:8,
67:11, 68:11,
68:29, 79:4, 79:5,
79:25, 85:2,
85:10, 86:17,
86:28, 86:29,
87:3, 87:4, 87:6,
87:12, 87:17,
87:18, 87:27,
88:2, 88:3, 88:7,
88:21, 88:26,
89:6, 90:21,
91:28, 92:7,
92:12, 98:22,
105:16, 148:13,
157:7, 157:11,
158:19, 159:21,
160:24, 162:13,
163:28, 165:17,
165:19, 165:20,
166:6, 166:7,
166:12, 169:29,
172:17, 172:19,
172:20, 172:29,
174:19, 176:16,
177:3, 177:10,
179:16, 179:27,
180:10, 181:27,
182:6, 182:9,
182:13, 182:17,
182:26, 183:27,
186:6
Development
[16] - 11:6, 21:13,
84:19, 118:7,
122:6, 122:19,
123:20, 126:13,
126:29, 141:8,
141:24, 156:7,
158:8, 174:29,
175:23, 186:10
development..
[1] - 46:2
developments
[2] - 13:28, 177:4
dialogue [1] -
143:20
dicta [2] - 73:12,
74:24
differ [1] - 98:11
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
11
differed [1] -
99:15
difference [3] -
70:17, 95:18,
113:1
differences [1] -
175:25
different [37] -
7:6, 17:20, 23:29,
27:7, 45:10,
56:19, 58:12,
60:22, 69:7,
78:19, 78:26,
78:28, 79:3,
88:12, 89:21,
89:29, 97:11,
97:12, 107:9,
114:18, 115:17,
118:15, 125:9,
133:8, 133:9,
133:10, 135:18,
143:21, 143:23,
145:19, 155:28,
171:19, 172:18,
173:1, 173:12,
178:19, 186:9
differentiate [1]
- 13:4
differentiated
[1] - 74:1
difficult [7] -
10:14, 77:19,
104:18, 106:20,
107:24, 120:2,
124:2
difficulty [3] -
40:10, 120:26,
187:20
dignity [1] -
135:9
diminution [6] -
100:23, 105:8,
105:27, 107:1,
110:2, 110:4
direct [13] -
47:9, 47:12, 48:7,
49:5, 97:4, 98:3,
107:17, 109:2,
113:24, 115:12,
129:5, 136:7,
150:1
directed [1] -
96:18
directions [10] -
42:23, 42:25,
42:28, 43:9,
43:14, 45:9,
45:13, 45:25,
46:19, 139:17
directive [2] -
40:3, 44:23
Directive [60] -
4:8, 6:4, 26:12,
26:14, 26:19,
27:3, 27:5, 27:7,
29:19, 31:17,
31:25, 31:27,
32:3, 32:7, 32:14,
32:16, 33:5,
33:20, 34:10,
39:4, 39:9, 41:24,
43:13, 46:16,
47:9, 48:2, 48:3,
48:18, 52:24,
52:29, 55:20,
55:22, 55:24,
56:1, 56:8, 56:12,
56:27, 57:11,
57:24, 59:17,
59:19, 63:6,
63:12, 63:16,
63:19, 64:25,
65:10, 65:11,
65:28, 66:6,
67:25, 68:1, 68:9,
69:10, 72:21,
75:8, 75:18,
79:28, 90:21
Directive.. [1] -
69:8
directive... [1] -
39:7
Directive....and
[1] - 43:11
Directives [2] -
48:7, 49:5
directly [13] -
68:10, 96:22,
96:24, 97:25,
100:18, 108:23,
116:18, 122:27,
127:16, 129:9,
137:24, 147:1,
149:21
disadvantageo
us [1] - 96:12
disagree [1] -
161:6
disagreeing [1] -
3:17
disappear [1] -
176:1
discern [3] -
84:3, 99:13,
107:24
discernment [1]
- 83:29
discharge [4] -
72:20, 73:26,
118:20, 118:25
discharged [1] -
119:17
disciplinary [1] -
181:10
discloses [1] -
123:29
disconnect [2] -
51:21
discount [1] -
167:7
discreet [1] -
111:18
discretion [40] -
22:8, 22:27,
22:28, 23:1,
24:22, 82:13,
82:15, 85:5, 86:3,
86:4, 86:11,
88:16, 92:10,
92:11, 92:13,
94:16, 94:19,
97:11, 97:15,
98:14, 101:20,
110:22, 112:20,
112:24, 112:25,
115:20, 123:4,
124:29, 125:14,
125:18, 126:8,
126:11, 157:24,
158:26, 158:28,
159:6, 167:20,
176:18, 176:19,
179:24
discretion" [1] -
157:23
discretionary
[4] - 89:4, 98:2,
102:2, 116:19
discuss [1] -
153:25
discussed [2] -
84:7, 122:22
discussion [4] -
86:23, 130:13,
130:24, 131:15
dismissive [1] -
145:5
dispute [3] -
114:5, 148:6,
164:8
distinct [2] -
41:23, 79:7
distinction [9] -
12:25, 13:2, 13:4,
33:22, 34:26,
100:28, 104:20,
106:11, 108:8
distinctly [1] -
98:20
distinguish [1] -
79:7
distinguishing
[1] - 41:7
distributed [1] -
137:25
disturbance [1]
- 68:3
divining [1] -
133:1
doctrine [2] -
82:27, 129:12
document [1] -
38:9
documentation
[1] - 85:17
documents [3] -
74:3, 74:15,
74:19
dominant [1] -
181:22
done [17] - 17:6,
18:5, 36:18,
38:28, 47:7,
66:13, 71:19,
96:13, 106:12,
118:27, 119:15,
128:8, 130:4,
142:14, 151:18,
151:24, 167:25
Donegal [4] -
20:26, 65:6,
65:13, 82:25
double [1] -
120:10
doubt [8] - 10:1,
73:9, 79:19,
79:20, 80:14,
80:15, 80:18,
93:15
doubt' [1] -
73:23
down [17] - 8:16,
13:16, 14:29,
15:19, 32:19,
42:8, 45:1, 54:16,
56:26, 70:10,
93:26, 101:2,
107:25, 130:9,
133:13, 135:22,
182:22
downstream [1]
- 74:13
draw [18] - 6:27,
7:17, 7:26, 8:18,
9:14, 19:14,
19:29, 21:3,
21:22, 24:9,
46:28, 55:13,
57:9, 65:11,
66:28, 76:26,
108:6, 121:16
drawing [3] -
41:5, 68:18,
121:13
drawings [1] -
169:11
drawn [2] - 40:8,
66:29
draws [1] - 59:3
dread [1] - 95:25
drew [1] - 8:4
Dublin [11] -
34:16, 36:1,
38:12, 87:23,
98:19, 101:23,
107:8, 129:1,
129:8, 151:13,
183:10
DUBLIN [3] -
1:2, 1:17, 2:17
due [3] - 137:7,
156:3, 164:17
duly [2] - 15:10,
170:19
Dun [8] - 7:8,
41:17, 42:20,
156:29, 157:16,
159:13, 176:7
Dunne [3] - 41:2,
41:13, 44:4
duration [25] -
12:17, 17:27,
17:28, 18:29,
19:11, 21:10,
22:9, 24:18,
24:24, 28:13,
33:23, 33:25,
34:1, 35:17,
40:17, 62:25,
64:20, 66:14,
171:24, 173:3,
175:2, 176:14,
179:20, 179:26,
180:15
Duration [1] -
5:4
during [6] - 3:24,
16:12, 18:9,
18:12, 51:17,
85:19
During [1] -
41:25
Duties [1] -
139:5
duty [10] - 9:19,
15:17, 16:3, 65:3,
65:11, 73:28,
78:10, 119:12,
129:27, 130:16
dwelling [8] -
170:15, 171:18,
171:25, 172:8,
173:4, 173:11,
173:24, 178:18
E
e.g [1] - 143:21
early [2] -
144:25, 187:8
earn [2] - 97:2,
103:23
earth's [1] -
140:5
east [1] - 72:1
East [3] - 65:6,
65:13, 82:25
Eating [2] -
144:29, 145:2
echoes [1] -
48:21
echoing [1] -
178:14
echos [1] -
179:8
ECHR [1] -
132:16
ecological [1] -
73:24
economic [17] -
8:28, 9:5, 9:22,
9:25, 86:14, 87:1,
99:5, 133:28,
134:19, 135:17,
136:12, 136:16,
136:19, 136:27,
137:10, 149:29,
158:9
economics [1] -
10:8
economy [3] -
138:18, 138:27,
140:17
economy" [1] -
140:27
Education [2] -
134:3, 134:15
education [5] -
134:7, 135:15,
136:14, 136:20,
136:28
EEA [2] - 144:9,
144:16
effect [28] -
17:13, 18:6, 19:5,
24:4, 38:29, 47:9,
47:12, 48:7,
48:15, 49:6, 60:4,
64:12, 65:7,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
12
76:13, 81:17,
98:15, 100:28,
101:1, 104:27,
108:8, 108:9,
111:13, 116:23,
120:10, 169:1,
170:6, 176:29,
182:28
effective [2] -
61:20, 126:7
effectively [12] -
83:3, 84:17,
110:13, 115:2,
138:29, 147:13,
155:16, 157:29,
158:14, 158:20,
170:5, 183:13
effectiveness
[3] - 39:6, 40:3,
44:22
effects [34] - 9:9,
28:7, 32:26, 33:6,
56:29, 57:3, 57:6,
58:3, 58:25,
59:14, 59:29,
60:5, 60:13,
62:11, 67:23,
69:16, 102:29,
103:16, 103:19,
103:21, 103:24,
103:25, 105:13,
106:7, 106:15,
109:5, 109:25,
111:25, 112:2,
114:4, 116:5,
116:9, 139:14,
142:19
efficient [1] -
150:22
efforts [1] -
143:20
EIA [57] - 3:11,
4:4, 4:9, 5:24,
6:4, 26:12, 26:14,
27:19, 27:20,
28:1, 29:1, 39:9,
41:23, 43:11,
45:20, 47:8, 48:1,
48:18, 49:27,
50:6, 50:11,
50:13, 51:22,
51:24, 51:26,
52:6, 53:23,
53:25, 54:25,
55:1, 55:4, 55:19,
55:29, 56:12,
56:17, 56:27,
57:11, 57:12,
57:18, 57:24,
58:6, 58:10,
59:23, 61:2,
62:22, 62:23,
63:12, 63:27,
64:10, 64:20,
65:10, 66:4,
66:16, 78:21,
88:26, 90:20,
90:29
EIA/AA [1] -
98:29
eight [1] - 16:2
either [7] - 8:29,
79:26, 86:3,
86:16, 114:27,
126:4, 127:29
elapse [1] - 88:4
element [5] -
92:10, 98:2,
98:13, 120:23,
131:11
elements [7] -
84:18, 98:6, 98:8,
98:9, 116:19,
142:16, 147:15
elevate [1] -
136:6
eligible [9] -
93:3, 93:10,
93:17, 94:2,
94:10, 94:12,
94:18, 94:25,
99:27
elimination [1] -
73:22
ELIZABETH [2] -
1:7, 1:9
Elliott [2] - 80:5
elsewhere [1] -
97:22
embark [2] -
45:29, 105:29
embarked [1] -
176:16
embellish [1] -
167:15
emerge [1] -
106:16
emerging [2] -
131:20, 131:22
emission [1] -
143:23
emissions [33] -
127:14, 129:2,
129:3, 139:14,
140:6, 142:19,
142:24, 142:27,
143:1, 143:13,
143:19, 144:1,
144:7, 144:8,
144:13, 144:15,
144:20, 146:25,
147:7, 147:13,
147:17, 147:19,
147:22, 149:8,
149:12, 150:8,
150:9, 150:17,
150:21, 150:24,
150:26, 151:19
Emissions [1] -
150:23
emphasise [2] -
20:3, 65:17
emphasised [3]
- 44:29, 74:12,
116:4
emphasises [1]
- 159:16
empowers [2] -
14:16, 160:2
enable [10] -
7:22, 22:19, 92:6,
130:4, 157:6,
157:10, 159:21,
174:19, 181:27,
182:6
enabling [1] -
140:15
enacted [3] -
8:22, 126:3,
135:27
enclose [1] -
172:28
encountered [1]
- 131:2
Encyclical [2] -
153:18, 153:21
encyclical [1] -
131:24
end [10] - 19:5,
45:2, 76:2,
121:12, 124:8,
124:19, 140:18,
143:6, 155:18,
168:29
endeavour [1] -
186:24
ended [2] -
176:19, 177:20
endless [1] -
16:15
endorse [1] -
108:10
endorsed [2] -
166:24, 167:2
endorsement
[2] - 130:21, 185:7
endorses [1] -
177:23
ends [2] -
109:13, 109:14
enforce [1] -
38:7
enforceable [4] -
128:2, 132:20,
132:24, 137:18
enforced [1] -
137:15
enforcement [6]
- 6:18, 38:5,
135:7, 162:4,
166:20, 180:23
engage [8] -
66:25, 82:4,
146:14, 146:16,
146:17, 148:26,
157:25, 159:5
engaged [20] -
34:24, 66:26,
82:2, 82:22,
84:22, 85:3, 99:8,
103:3, 118:25,
119:25, 125:24,
125:25, 126:5,
126:6, 126:9,
153:25, 155:1,
158:10, 158:22,
169:1
engagement [7]
- 119:22, 146:26,
150:10, 150:11,
151:9, 154:21,
161:29
engages [4] -
147:3, 154:18,
154:27, 159:8
English [1] -
132:17
enhance [2] -
113:17, 113:21
enhancing [1] -
140:7
enjoy [6] -
81:26, 82:6,
82:19, 85:13,
97:6, 99:6
enjoyed [2] -
83:19, 96:28
enjoyment [6] -
101:1, 108:10,
109:6, 109:26,
110:2, 110:18
enjoys [2] -
21:25, 125:15
enquire [1] -
183:27
enquiry [1] -
184:1
ensure [2] -
15:23, 67:4
entails [1] -
109:28
entered [2] -
17:2, 95:19
entertain [2] -
133:25, 166:27
entertaining [1]
- 124:25
entire [4] - 18:9,
20:20, 54:29,
117:3
entirely [9] -
47:21, 49:9,
56:22, 89:21,
89:29, 126:15,
137:17, 166:27,
167:25
entirety [2] -
84:21, 114:8
entitle [1] -
103:10
entitled [19] -
12:23, 12:24,
13:4, 23:18,
24:16, 24:22,
81:27, 91:9,
99:25, 102:26,
103:6, 108:26,
124:11, 124:13,
124:27, 129:20,
179:18, 179:24,
185:2
entitlement [1] -
22:24
entitles [1] -
32:1
enumerated [1]
- 183:1
enumerates [1] -
160:12
enumeration [1]
- 131:17
ENVIRONMEN
T [2] - 1:12, 2:8
Environment
[19] - 3:5, 41:3,
41:14, 44:5,
53:11, 54:12,
54:20, 67:10,
71:12, 83:3,
83:18, 84:2, 84:7,
104:25, 126:24,
127:3, 127:20,
127:27, 128:17
environment
[27] - 28:7, 33:6,
45:20, 56:29,
58:4, 58:26,
59:15, 62:11,
83:19, 84:5,
126:26, 127:2,
127:6, 127:18,
127:29, 131:29,
132:19, 133:1,
133:5, 133:6,
133:17, 133:26,
137:11, 137:15,
137:29, 138:4,
138:8
environment...'
[1] - 32:27
Environmental
[3] - 48:12, 53:7,
119:6
environmental
[38] - 12:5, 41:29,
45:15, 46:1, 47:7,
48:10, 48:26,
51:1, 53:12,
53:13, 54:13,
55:17, 55:25,
56:25, 57:2, 58:2,
58:5, 58:24,
58:29, 59:10,
59:16, 59:18,
59:26, 59:29,
60:16, 60:27,
61:26, 71:9,
75:28, 81:6,
88:22, 90:17,
127:22, 131:19,
151:10, 156:19,
156:20, 162:14
environmentall
y [3] - 138:17,
140:17, 140:26
envisaged [2] -
4:25, 54:4
envisages [1] -
57:11
equally [5] -
48:29, 72:21,
127:21, 176:27,
177:15
equivalent [1] -
20:27
erect [1] - 22:13
erection [1] -
20:24
erroneous [2] -
162:5, 165:14
erroneously [2]
- 155:27, 167:27
error [1] - 167:9
erudition [1] -
153:8
escaped [1] -
136:19
especially [2] -
61:23, 143:4
essential [2] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
13
87:5, 142:9
essentially [8] -
9:20, 87:29,
88:12, 114:23,
130:7, 135:5,
148:11, 159:5
establish [7] -
68:2, 73:27,
100:24, 105:28,
128:18, 129:5,
138:18
established [13]
- 10:17, 33:8,
82:27, 99:7,
107:20, 128:5,
128:10, 128:12,
128:25, 131:5,
134:22, 138:3,
150:13
establishes [3] -
6:6, 73:15,
134:25
establishing [3]
- 73:16, 100:26,
107:22
establishment
[3] - 133:26,
143:29, 163:3
estimated [1] -
5:21
et [4] - 92:14,
145:29, 148:28,
183:18
ETS.. [1] -
144:11
EU [17] - 11:10,
81:7, 81:15,
90:25, 132:16,
132:21, 143:22,
144:6, 144:8,
144:11, 144:18,
147:8, 150:23,
154:22, 159:9,
167:16
EU's [1] - 144:19
Europe [2] -
64:4, 80:8
European [23] -
5:15, 11:17,
13:18, 14:22,
20:2, 20:11, 26:5,
31:8, 36:20,
37:29, 40:22,
41:9, 47:22,
48:22, 52:25,
65:5, 65:15,
65:22, 79:22,
147:6, 148:2,
151:28, 185:22
evaluation [2] -
160:27, 177:8
evening [1] -
120:28
event [7] - 9:5,
36:27, 56:1,
70:12, 70:22,
77:29, 108:18
events [1] -
123:28
eventualities [1]
- 29:12
evidence [35] -
5:29, 52:10,
66:24, 72:12,
73:19, 75:13,
75:26, 75:28,
76:4, 76:6, 76:12,
76:15, 76:27,
77:3, 77:5, 77:17,
83:27, 87:12,
111:20, 112:5,
112:9, 112:17,
112:24, 115:23,
128:14, 128:15,
128:16, 128:18,
128:20, 129:7,
133:2, 133:14,
150:13
evidenced [1] -
110:20
evidential [4] -
69:6, 70:29,
72:20, 150:29
exact [1] - 34:2
exactly [2] -
27:16, 166:28
examination [1]
- 134:24
examine [3] -
31:15, 58:23,
61:25
example [8] -
9:11, 36:1, 78:7,
105:3, 131:6,
143:15, 149:8,
149:10
Excavation [1] -
46:18
exceeded [1] -
52:25
exceeding [2] -
7:21, 92:5
exception [2] -
134:14, 135:14
exchange [1] -
153:16
exclude [2] -
92:16, 108:5
excluded [2] -
77:21, 102:19
excluding [1] -
120:13
exclusion [1] -
121:18
excuse [1] -
75:5
executed [12] -
28:5, 28:6, 29:4,
29:5, 29:9, 30:16,
30:18, 32:25,
32:26, 35:10,
35:12, 35:14
execution [3] -
29:11, 29:24,
34:8
Executive [1] -
163:27
exempted [1] -
68:29
exercise [13] -
22:8, 24:22,
101:1, 104:17,
108:10, 109:5,
109:26, 115:5,
157:23, 158:24,
167:4, 168:8,
179:24
exercised [13] -
22:10, 22:29,
37:18, 82:13,
97:12, 112:25,
129:26, 158:26,
158:29, 168:11,
177:13, 178:11,
185:25
exercising [2] -
96:14, 102:26
exhaustive [2] -
94:20, 125:20
exhibit [1] - 77:6
exhibits [1] -
71:10
exist [7] - 61:1,
105:7, 133:7,
133:8, 147:16,
151:21
existed [1] -
130:15
existence [5] -
50:5, 76:26,
134:22, 134:27,
136:26
existing [24] -
30:27, 31:2, 32:8,
33:15, 34:1, 35:4,
35:8, 35:9, 36:10,
39:11, 40:4,
40:11, 40:17,
44:23, 49:15,
50:5, 58:10,
60:14, 84:27,
113:4, 150:4,
163:11, 163:13,
163:15
exists [7] -
84:17, 86:12,
88:9, 102:6,
133:9, 133:17,
151:22
expansion [1] -
128:22
expect [2] -
67:19, 75:3
expectation [4] -
95:13, 95:24,
100:9, 113:4
expected [2] -
95:10, 113:18
expeditiously
[4] - 15:8, 15:15,
15:18, 16:4
expended [1] -
85:3
expenses [1] -
149:11
experienced [1]
- 8:21
expert [5] - 9:17,
75:6, 77:10,
158:1, 178:6
expertise [2] -
161:6
expiration [3] -
8:13, 18:3, 18:5
expire [2] -
12:18, 12:19
expired [4] -
12:21, 35:12,
95:14, 113:5
expiry [2] -
95:15, 113:11
explain [1] -
133:16
explained [2] -
102:13, 136:14
explaining [1] -
133:18
explains [1] -
37:5
explanation [2] -
120:12, 181:7
explicit [3] -
130:2, 130:20,
168:7
exploration [1] -
134:21
express [5] -
94:11, 134:15,
134:17, 135:24,
143:9
expressed [5] -
3:27, 25:12,
25:13, 102:23,
176:11
expressly [4] -
56:12, 63:12,
146:26, 158:5
expropriation
[2] - 97:4, 115:13
extant [1] - 8:8
extend [30] -
6:14, 7:19, 7:28,
14:25, 16:19,
16:25, 17:10,
19:18, 20:5, 22:8,
22:17, 24:18,
24:24, 28:13,
34:29, 47:6,
66:14, 85:29,
92:4, 115:19,
116:7, 168:8,
168:9, 168:14,
174:17, 175:6,
176:14, 177:13,
179:20, 179:26
extended [9] -
19:6, 20:27, 21:9,
35:16, 35:17,
52:8, 54:25,
101:13, 159:20
extending [2] -
14:4, 35:22
Extension [8] -
82:3, 83:21, 85:8,
97:16, 98:26,
102:6, 151:4,
170:9
extension [53] -
13:29, 16:29,
19:26, 19:27,
22:13, 22:15,
24:23, 25:6, 28:4,
28:8, 28:12,
28:13, 28:21,
28:25, 28:28,
29:3, 29:16, 30:6,
30:7, 30:13,
32:23, 33:3,
33:23, 33:24,
33:25, 36:1,
40:17, 48:17,
81:29, 85:27,
89:12, 90:19,
91:29, 123:5,
138:5, 145:24,
164:9, 165:9,
166:26, 170:12,
170:20, 171:24,
172:2, 172:21,
172:25, 172:29,
173:3, 175:2,
175:4, 179:25,
180:5, 180:15,
180:25
extensions [4] -
16:15, 19:23,
32:8
extensive [3] -
85:16, 85:20,
97:18
extent [11] -
6:14, 8:5, 14:26,
20:6, 41:27,
62:14, 114:10,
117:23, 119:4,
120:17, 123:7
external [4] -
5:12, 5:22, 5:27,
92:13
extra [3] -
120:27, 150:15,
150:16
extracting [1] -
67:23
extraction [6] -
29:27, 68:9,
68:26, 68:29,
69:15, 74:14
extraordinarily
[1] - 101:22
F
face [2] - 88:1,
135:19
facilities [2] -
99:28, 113:5
facility [2] -
36:5, 95:14
fact [50] - 8:19,
13:1, 20:3, 23:7,
25:8, 35:22,
41:22, 50:19,
52:24, 60:14,
62:26, 66:26,
76:27, 80:14,
88:25, 88:27,
88:28, 89:5,
89:25, 89:28,
90:4, 91:18,
97:19, 102:15,
105:26, 107:1,
113:11, 124:9,
150:15, 155:6,
157:26, 158:3,
158:18, 158:23,
161:4, 161:15,
165:11, 165:20,
165:23, 166:11,
166:12, 166:23,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
14
167:24, 168:4,
177:27, 180:7,
181:9, 184:19,
185:7
factor [3] -
92:13, 148:15,
154:3
factors [13] -
5:12, 24:27, 59:4,
93:25, 123:2,
125:12, 125:16,
126:28, 148:22,
157:24, 158:21,
167:14, 179:29
facts [15] - 37:3,
47:3, 52:23,
60:21, 60:22,
60:29, 62:21,
66:19, 70:21,
81:4, 89:9, 92:29,
170:9, 174:2,
176:20
factual [6] -
157:21, 159:5,
160:23, 177:6,
178:5, 184:13
failed [7] -
47:26, 67:29,
72:11, 73:19,
73:26, 73:27,
183:2
failing [2] -
117:17, 121:25
failure [6] -
43:10, 72:19,
75:5, 135:27,
146:14, 181:6
fair [30] - 81:26,
82:1, 82:4, 82:19,
83:10, 83:12,
84:22, 99:7,
99:21, 100:3,
101:3, 106:21,
107:27, 108:2,
108:16, 108:26,
109:27, 117:17,
121:21, 122:18,
123:11, 123:15,
124:21, 124:22,
125:2, 125:6,
125:10, 125:23,
125:25, 126:20
fairly [3] - 56:4,
150:11, 151:12
fairness [3] -
76:19, 101:5,
107:29
fall [3] - 29:16,
75:18, 82:6
falling [1] -
167:9
falls [2] - 75:2,
84:5
familiar [11] -
11:5, 69:28, 70:1,
70:13, 70:24,
92:24, 132:18,
132:26, 168:27,
174:4
far [4] - 77:4,
89:4, 112:4,
115:12
farm [2] - 69:22,
163:15
FARRELL [1] -
1:9
fashion [1] -
124:25
favour [1] -
137:14
fear [2] - 132:9,
132:12
feature [1] -
75:24
features [7] -
6:28, 20:1, 27:24,
41:28, 42:11,
147:19, 147:21
February [7] -
54:14, 54:17,
122:1, 122:5,
123:14, 124:11,
163:19
feelings [1] -
124:16
fell [1] - 172:1
felling [1] -
163:4
fellow [1] -
97:10
fence [1] -
186:21
fencing [1] -
163:6
Fennelly [13] -
99:12, 101:9,
102:11, 103:29,
104:13, 106:29,
108:29, 110:6,
111:24, 113:26,
115:2, 183:14,
183:23
Fennelly's [3] -
103:6, 115:24,
183:20
FERGUS [1] -
1:8
few [3] - 44:17,
54:17, 156:26
FIE [1] - 141:17
fifth [1] - 84:4
file [1] - 171:14
filing [1] - 76:12
fill [2] - 53:25,
169:16
filling [1] - 20:25
filth [1] - 137:4
final [6] - 50:27,
51:1, 51:16, 52:3,
53:13, 126:23
finalised [1] -
142:7
Finally [1] -
133:21
finally [2] -
125:29, 137:28
financial [2] -
114:3, 158:9
financially [1] -
75:4
Fingal [21] - 3:5,
9:16, 9:19, 39:26,
81:27, 82:13,
82:14, 90:10,
111:9, 119:11,
119:12, 125:19,
126:27, 139:1,
140:29, 141:4,
145:20, 147:14,
147:25, 149:10,
154:4
FINGAL [2] -
1:15, 2:13
Fingal's [1] -
9:15
finish [3] -
165:25, 186:22,
186:28
finished [2] -
169:12, 187:4
Finnegan [7] -
23:29, 96:11,
113:28, 165:13,
167:1, 182:5,
183:18
FINTAN [1] -
2:19
fire [3] - 163:7,
163:12, 163:16
firm [1] - 16:22
firmly [2] -
133:27, 133:29
First [4] - 67:28,
68:7, 72:10, 74:2
FIRST [1] - 1:17
first [52] - 3:14,
8:24, 20:22, 25:1,
27:24, 28:19,
40:29, 41:1,
41:21, 42:5,
42:18, 42:29,
43:9, 45:28,
46:12, 49:21,
50:17, 55:28,
70:3, 70:4, 74:23,
77:26, 79:12,
82:1, 84:13,
84:25, 86:12,
97:11, 102:17,
108:11, 110:3,
110:12, 117:27,
119:12, 122:15,
126:24, 128:6,
142:3, 142:4,
143:18, 144:6,
153:28, 156:6,
156:25, 156:26,
157:9, 158:13,
159:12, 173:26,
176:7, 177:29
firstly [15] -
7:10, 21:25,
36:28, 45:28,
81:24, 83:24,
84:10, 86:12,
125:22, 127:28,
130:10, 133:7,
146:27, 150:12,
150:29
Firstly [2] -
21:27, 111:20
fit [1] - 96:8
five [2] - 18:25,
92:5
Flanagan [3] -
170:22, 170:24,
171:14
flicking [1] -
70:7
flights [2] -
144:8, 144:15
flood [4] - 87:23,
88:10, 99:4,
152:17
floor [6] -
169:12, 169:14,
169:15, 170:1,
173:26, 173:28
flora [1] - 69:14
flow [1] - 130:22
flowing [1] -
106:7
focusing [1] -
92:22
follow [2] - 8:24,
25:21
followed [1] -
159:19
following [16] -
1:28, 7:24, 8:2,
31:9, 41:5, 41:20,
42:2, 45:24, 48:9,
61:27, 94:6,
104:24, 108:21,
135:5, 162:29,
170:28
following.. [1] -
172:3
FOLLOWS [4] -
3:2, 3:8, 44:1,
111:7
follows [12] -
9:5, 14:11, 33:2,
81:24, 82:1,
108:12, 160:14,
169:6, 171:15,
172:15, 172:26,
180:20
follows.. [1] -
175:27
foot [1] - 12:29
FOR [7] - 2:4,
2:8, 2:13, 2:17,
2:22, 2:27, 111:5
force [1] -
155:24
forced [1] -
37:13
foregoing [4] -
73:12, 113:29,
116:2, 173:17
foreign [2] -
133:2, 133:14
form [17] - 6:24,
7:4, 10:8, 17:20,
21:15, 59:11,
78:17, 88:12,
91:6, 92:1,
100:21, 108:4,
130:26, 134:19,
147:21, 164:9,
170:19
formed [1] -
172:10
former [4] -
33:25, 163:7,
163:12, 163:16
forming [2] -
10:15, 11:25
forms [1] - 151:3
forra [1] - 143:21
forum [1] -
143:17
forward [5] -
64:28, 100:19,
108:3, 120:25,
167:6
four [3] - 8:24,
103:16, 141:1
FOURTH [1] -
1:22
fourth [8] - 84:1,
85:23, 90:8, 91:2,
93:19, 98:28,
99:1, 146:24
fourthly [2] -
88:21, 133:13
FP [1] - 2:10
frame [1] -
170:16
framed [1] -
125:17
framers [1] -
130:15
framework [10] -
135:10, 139:10,
139:22, 140:22,
142:5, 147:16,
154:12, 174:8,
174:9
Frances [1] -
137:3
Frank [2] -
170:22, 185:28
freedom [2] -
135:9, 185:23
freestanding [1]
- 83:8
fresh [2] - 57:17,
117:25
Friday [14] -
3:10, 3:19, 17:19,
25:23, 25:24,
27:27, 30:26,
40:19, 63:5,
68:19, 77:26,
87:8, 120:25,
162:18
Friend [15] -
75:22, 76:19,
84:7, 86:7, 87:7,
89:10, 92:21,
120:14, 127:20,
129:15, 131:14,
146:5, 147:20,
167:15, 187:1
Friend's [1] -
76:21
FRIENDS [2] -
1:12, 2:8
Friends [27] -
3:5, 67:9, 67:15,
67:17, 69:11,
70:2, 70:15,
70:23, 70:29,
71:11, 72:28,
83:2, 83:17, 84:1,
84:6, 85:29,
87:11, 116:29,
126:24, 127:2,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
15
127:20, 127:27,
128:17, 132:20,
138:29, 146:12,
150:19
Friends' [1] -
152:27
front [1] - 111:23
fuel [2] - 67:23,
163:10
fulfil [2] - 45:26,
67:29
fulfilled [1] -
101:24
fulfilment [1] -
152:17
full [2] - 126:5,
182:18
fully [7] - 49:8,
85:14, 108:10,
123:21, 123:27,
124:3, 182:15
function [5] -
130:18, 168:5,
178:23, 183:26,
184:26
functions [8] -
139:7, 141:13,
142:1, 145:22,
146:2, 148:18,
148:21, 152:19
functions,will
[1] - 149:9
fundamental [7]
- 37:27, 37:28,
95:18, 101:5,
107:28, 130:19,
185:22
Fundamental [1]
- 132:22
Fundamentally
[1] - 118:11
fundamentally
[7] - 91:8, 98:11,
101:19, 114:18,
115:9, 115:11,
137:21
furnished [4] -
122:20, 171:5,
171:7
furtherance [2] -
139:11, 142:17
furthermore [2]
- 59:26, 185:19
furthermore.. [1]
- 185:15
future [9] - 4:3,
4:15, 19:27, 38:8,
51:4, 51:5, 130:8,
137:20, 144:6
G
Galway [1] -
47:4
Gannon [5] -
7:7, 8:6, 25:15,
176:9, 176:28
gap [9] - 49:26,
50:5, 50:12, 55:3,
55:4, 58:10, 61:1,
62:22, 64:5
Garden [6] -
24:6, 25:12,
159:3, 168:21,
168:22, 178:29
GARRET [1] -
2:18
gas [13] -
127:14, 129:2,
129:3, 139:13,
142:19, 142:24,
142:28, 143:2,
146:25, 147:17,
147:19, 147:22,
149:8
gases [1] -
128:23
gateway [2] -
132:10, 132:13
general [12] -
11:27, 83:27,
103:2, 104:23,
105:12, 109:16,
120:20, 125:29,
134:8, 134:28,
151:12, 176:24
GENERAL [2] -
1:19, 2:22
General [9] -
37:1, 50:21, 53:4,
55:8, 56:21, 61:5,
63:7, 64:6,
128:13
General's [1] -
49:23
generalised [1] -
128:21
generality [2] -
15:21, 93:21
generally [5] -
127:29, 141:12,
141:29, 152:6,
152:7
generated [2] -
51:6, 74:15
genius [1] -
153:9
genuflected [1] -
136:16
Geoghegan [1] -
179:2
Gerard [1] -
136:14
Gillespie [1] -
20:23
Gilligan [1] -
185:11
GILLIGAN [1] -
1:8
Given [1] - 125:3
given [33] - 5:10,
12:17, 14:18,
36:3, 45:9, 45:16,
45:21, 48:9,
57:16, 66:9, 88:4,
94:17, 94:19,
94:26, 94:27,
107:16, 118:5,
120:27, 121:6,
121:9, 122:20,
124:17, 124:29,
125:1, 130:14,
139:17, 158:4,
158:5, 159:21,
169:25, 175:3,
185:7, 187:13
glad [2] - 70:8,
155:15
Glencar [2] -
155:5, 155:7
goods [1] -
37:11
goods) [1] -
185:23
govern [2] -
56:12, 63:12
governed [2] -
19:25, 79:5
government [4]
- 105:11, 137:24,
138:26, 150:1
Government [8]
- 138:15, 139:23,
139:26, 140:1,
140:20, 155:8,
155:10, 175:22
grant [6] - 18:26,
25:6, 58:11, 64:2,
75:10, 180:5
granted [29] -
12:8, 12:28,
13:25, 14:1,
16:29, 18:2, 19:5,
19:23, 19:26,
34:7, 35:29, 37:8,
38:8, 55:5, 68:25,
69:24, 73:17,
83:15, 87:21,
88:25, 90:24,
123:4, 162:17,
171:20, 172:11,
172:19, 172:22,
173:13, 178:20
granting [3] -
14:17, 68:23,
99:24
gravity [1] -
116:22
great [2] -
147:24, 152:2
greater [2] -
41:28, 142:20
greenhouse [14]
- 127:14, 128:23,
129:1, 129:3,
139:13, 142:18,
142:24, 142:28,
143:2, 146:25,
147:17, 147:19,
147:22, 149:7
GREG [1] - 1:9
Greystones [1] -
144:28
Griffner [1] -
171:6
ground [11] -
30:19, 117:6,
137:22, 145:13,
158:13, 163:8,
163:13, 163:17,
169:14, 170:13,
172:12
grounded [1] -
131:29
grounds [8] -
47:7, 48:8, 73:16,
93:11, 105:22,
117:10, 158:11,
172:26
grounds.. [1] -
73:3
Group [6] -
122:6, 122:19,
123:20, 123:24,
123:27, 124:2
guaranteed [2] -
106:25, 129:22
Guideline [1] -
88:9
guidelines [6] -
10:26, 11:7,
11:21, 87:19,
88:5, 152:14
Guidelines [8] -
87:29, 88:1,
145:1, 145:2,
148:9, 148:11,
152:13, 152:16
GWEN [1] - 1:31
H
habitat [1] -
73:21
habitats [2] -
68:3, 69:13
Habitats [11] -
64:24, 65:11,
65:28, 66:6,
67:25, 68:1, 68:9,
69:10, 72:21,
75:7, 75:18
Habitat’s [1] -
48:3
half [1] - 187:6
halt [1] - 124:12
halted [1] - 42:1
Hamilton [1] -
5:8
HAND [1] - 1:9
hand [11] -
26:15, 26:25,
38:9, 38:10,
53:25, 67:2, 67:3,
67:9, 70:17,
116:25, 155:13
HANDED [2] -
67:2, 155:17
handed [9] -
17:18, 25:24,
63:5, 116:29,
117:1, 120:3,
120:7, 132:10,
132:13
Handed) [1] -
129:17
hang [1] - 26:28
hard [4] - 99:13,
120:18, 136:19,
163:13
harm [1] - 17:25
harmful [1] -
140:5
harmonious [1]
- 132:1
Harrington [6] -
12:15, 66:3,
72:14, 73:5, 73:6,
185:28
Haughey [1] -
107:17
HAYDEN [7] -
2:27, 186:20,
186:27, 187:1,
187:6, 187:9,
187:13
Hayden [2] -
17:21, 186:29
heading [7] -
5:4, 21:26, 53:7,
55:14, 134:15,
141:7, 141:23
headings [2] -
103:16, 160:22
headnote [11] -
41:10, 41:17,
92:25, 93:1, 94:6,
95:6, 99:17,
99:20, 110:13,
129:23
Healey [3] -
71:9, 74:7, 74:20
health [2] -
128:15, 134:26
Healthy [2] -
144:29, 145:1
healy [1] - 23:23
HEALY [6] - 2:4,
75:22, 76:19,
120:16, 187:20,
187:23
Healy [28] - 3:18,
6:27, 8:3, 9:16,
34:13, 46:29,
55:12, 91:20,
92:21, 98:22,
100:14, 153:20,
154:1, 154:20,
156:15, 157:27,
157:29, 158:15,
160:10, 161:5,
166:9, 166:28,
167:6, 167:25,
174:5, 175:15,
184:10, 187:13
Healy's [3] -
3:14, 154:14,
165:3
hear [3] - 70:6,
132:11, 155:15
heard [17] -
22:26, 67:7,
100:3, 100:25,
102:28, 103:10,
105:28, 107:21,
108:5, 108:6,
110:5, 110:23,
110:24, 115:28,
124:3, 187:14
HEARD [1] -
1:24
HEARING [5] -
3:1, 44:1, 111:5,
111:7, 187:26
hearing [10] -
3:4, 76:15, 81:23,
105:15, 107:11,
111:9, 114:10,
116:13, 125:2,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
16
129:19
Heathrow [1] -
128:20
heavily [1] -
158:23
heavy [1] - 37:11
hedgerow [1] -
163:4
height [1] -
165:6
held [6] - 99:24,
104:9, 135:10,
165:13, 181:8,
183:14
HELEN [2] - 1:8,
2:15
HELENA [1] -
1:7
help [2] -
142:27, 143:2
helpful [1] -
99:15
Hempenstall [1]
- 104:25
Henchy [1] -
135:3
herewith [1] -
172:28
hesitate [1] -
169:19
HIGH [1] - 1:1
High [14] -
25:18, 25:28,
25:29, 75:27,
76:4, 104:4,
104:7, 104:23,
108:11, 109:8,
128:14, 166:23,
166:24, 179:2
high [5] - 83:28,
97:28, 124:16,
148:27, 163:11
higher [1] -
64:22
himself [2] -
183:15, 183:24
historical [1] -
132:1
historically [1] -
143:15
history [1] -
136:21
honest [1] -
145:6
hope [4] - 75:26,
80:10, 92:20,
169:17
hopefully [1] -
70:15
hour [2] -
153:28, 187:5
hour/45 [1] -
187:6
hours [1] - 77:13
house [8] -
23:14, 37:12,
37:13, 163:9,
169:8, 169:15,
183:16
housing [2] -
9:11
hugely [2] -
13:12, 15:28
human [1] -
140:4
hypothesis [1] -
102:20
I
I" [1] - 28:26
I) [1] - 28:8
i.e [2] - 103:19,
103:22
I.R [5] - 104:9,
104:26, 135:3,
180:29
ICAO [5] -
143:22, 143:28,
144:21, 144:22,
144:23
ICAO's [1] -
144:10
idea [2] - 16:5,
187:2
identifiable [3] -
100:27, 104:21,
107:23
identified [4] -
51:3, 94:2, 135:4,
135:15
identifies [11] -
15:1, 24:2, 24:7,
36:26, 50:23,
59:8, 59:22,
61:11, 61:20,
62:1, 67:18
identify [4] -
19:9, 49:24,
67:14, 80:17
identifying [2] -
62:10, 131:8
identity [1] -
129:20
IDO [1] - 37:8
if" [1] - 8:5
II [19] - 10:21,
10:23, 26:23,
26:29, 27:1,
27:17, 27:23,
31:12, 32:14,
32:24, 34:11,
34:24, 35:9,
35:20, 36:19,
48:17, 57:23,
79:28
ii [3] - 8:16,
67:20, 168:17
III [3] - 11:19,
180:14, 180:16
iii [3] - 67:28,
168:17, 177:8
illogical [2] -
24:24, 179:26
illustrating [1] -
162:26
imagine [1] -
97:3
immaterial [1] -
117:13
immediately [3]
- 8:13, 21:2, 55:1
immense [1] -
137:3
immune [1] -
135:11
Impact [4] -
48:12, 53:7,
119:6, 122:3
impact [34] -
12:5, 42:1, 48:10,
53:12, 53:13,
54:2, 54:13,
55:17, 55:25,
56:26, 58:5,
58:24, 59:1,
59:10, 59:16,
59:18, 59:26,
60:16, 60:18,
60:27, 61:26,
66:11, 66:22,
71:4, 81:6, 88:22,
90:17, 92:14,
128:29, 149:7,
149:8, 156:19,
156:20, 162:14
impacting [2] -
106:3, 129:9
impacts [5] -
4:16, 51:2, 53:27,
90:22, 116:21
impairment [1] -
113:23
impermissible
[1] - 145:23
impinge [1] -
127:16
impinges [1] -
137:4
implemented [1]
- 41:25
implications [1]
- 148:1
importance [4] -
17:1, 100:5,
110:15, 110:26
important [31] -
11:3, 13:17,
14:11, 16:11,
19:29, 29:13,
37:2, 95:21,
116:14, 119:24,
124:16, 131:11,
135:17, 137:7,
137:8, 154:3,
154:11, 154:13,
155:25, 156:14,
157:21, 158:27,
162:1, 164:11,
164:21, 164:24,
165:22, 170:10,
174:8, 175:17,
186:1
importantly [2] -
46:6, 142:12
impose [6] -
14:17, 39:26,
39:27, 78:19,
105:14, 134:17
imposed [2] -
16:3, 160:18
imposed.. [1] -
37:20
imposes [1] -
15:6
imposing [2] -
15:17, 168:5
impossible [1] -
53:24
impressive [1] -
136:28
improper [4] -
167:12, 180:21,
181:13, 181:16
improve [1] -
149:28
impugn [2] -
68:25, 158:12
impugned [1] -
105:6
inadequate [2] -
56:7, 145:4
inaudible [2] -
149:1, 149:16
include [5] -
12:24, 57:5,
104:16, 125:14,
186:4
included [6] -
25:24, 28:8, 63:6,
100:4, 162:27,
168:4
includes [2] -
32:22, 154:10
including [11] -
28:28, 29:27,
44:12, 85:9,
109:5, 109:25,
140:6, 143:24,
144:9, 163:4,
163:9
inclusive [1] -
175:1
income [1] -
103:21
incompatible [2]
- 113:19, 146:29
inconsistent [6]
- 11:22, 16:5,
16:6, 65:23,
87:17, 88:2
Incorporated [1]
- 181:3
incorrect [5] -
28:18, 118:28,
119:2, 173:24,
184:11
increase [6] -
127:14, 127:15,
128:19, 138:1,
138:6, 150:27
increased [3] -
51:7, 60:19,
128:23
increases [1] -
144:3
incumbent [2] -
64:17, 129:29
indeed [9] -
4:17, 9:8, 14:24,
65:10, 78:8,
94:21, 97:16,
135:17, 184:6
independent [1]
- 73:24
independently
[1] - 115:7
index [1] - 120:4
Indian [1] -
136:8
indicated [3] -
40:19, 160:15,
169:17
indicates [1] -
169:10
indicating [1] -
22:14
indirect [1] -
108:15
indirectly [1] -
68:10
individual [7] -
104:22, 105:28,
106:4, 107:6,
107:7, 107:18,
135:9
individuals [2] -
105:13, 152:23
industry [3] -
9:10, 143:14,
143:22
inevitable [1] -
124:18
inferring [1] -
136:26
influence [2] -
110:21, 117:24
influenced [1] -
31:11
influences [1] -
140:5
information [4] -
54:5, 125:4,
169:25, 170:26
informative [1] -
64:21
informed [1] -
99:25
informs [1] -
130:7
infringed [3] -
84:23, 104:16,
126:9
infringement [7]
- 91:26, 91:27,
104:29, 111:21,
115:23, 128:6,
128:10
infringes [1] -
83:21
inherent [2] -
126:12, 127:7
initial [4] -
41:29, 90:24,
123:28, 129:18
initiated [1] -
51:18
initiative [2] -
144:21, 144:23
injunctive [1] -
42:2
injurious [1] -
106:12
injury [1] -
135:12
insert [1] -
136:17
inserted [4] -
8:17, 156:11,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
17
156:13, 156:15
inserts [1] - 7:3
insofar [8] -
4:21, 22:1, 83:9,
90:27, 106:15,
110:25, 183:28,
186:11
inspected [2] -
163:19, 170:25
inspection [2] -
163:23, 163:28
inspector [3] -
5:3, 5:5, 5:17
inspector's [3] -
71:11, 71:26,
74:16
Inspector's [4] -
4:22, 4:24, 5:2,
71:22
Inspectorate [1]
- 54:20
installations [3]
- 29:25, 30:6,
32:13
instance [4] -
5:8, 79:13,
143:18, 171:17
instances [1] -
105:1
instant [1] -
113:1
instead [2] -
91:23, 132:3
institution [5] -
93:4, 93:10,
93:16, 94:3, 94:8
institutions [2] -
114:3, 132:24
INSTRUCTED
[6] - 2:6, 2:10,
2:15, 2:20, 2:25,
2:29
insufficient [1] -
139:1
integrated [3] -
54:21, 59:12,
59:20
integrity [6] -
127:4, 127:22,
130:27, 135:4,
135:6, 137:5
integrity" [1] -
134:23
intend [1] -
154:23
intended [3] -
4:2, 130:16,
143:5
intensified [1] -
60:13
intensify [1] -
60:5
intention [4] -
22:12, 22:15,
99:26, 102:27
inter [6] - 32:13,
42:18, 43:3,
56:29, 117:6,
144:8
inter-EU [1] -
144:8
interest [14] -
42:27, 82:2, 82:6,
83:13, 98:3,
98:16, 98:24,
101:26, 102:4,
102:19, 104:23,
111:21, 116:22
interested [3] -
116:18, 126:6,
186:28
interesting [1] -
141:22
interests [21] -
61:20, 82:16,
91:16, 96:17,
96:24, 96:29,
97:22, 98:19,
100:17, 100:22,
101:14, 102:15,
102:20, 102:24,
103:9, 106:6,
108:2, 110:8,
116:7, 116:16,
124:23
interfere [7] -
6:13, 20:4, 42:26,
77:18, 108:23,
109:19, 110:11
interfered [3] -
108:18, 109:18,
109:29
interference [10]
- 42:3, 42:6,
100:27, 106:24,
107:22, 108:24,
109:3, 109:24,
111:14, 115:14
interferes [1] -
40:22
interfering [1] -
137:23
interminable [1]
- 124:4
internal [5] - 5:1,
134:12, 141:5,
159:27, 169:3
international
[17] - 131:22,
132:5, 132:26,
132:28, 133:19,
133:24, 143:13,
143:19, 143:21,
144:1, 147:5,
147:9, 151:13,
151:19, 151:20,
151:22, 151:27
International [1]
- 143:16
internet [3] -
70:8, 70:10, 77:9
interpret [3] -
65:6, 65:14,
65:22
interpretation
[13] - 25:17, 65:4,
65:12, 82:28,
84:3, 108:21,
117:24, 131:17,
131:27, 156:10,
156:23, 184:16
interpreting [1] -
130:10
interpretive [1] -
132:6
intervention [1]
- 140:4
interventions
[6] - 29:26, 30:7,
33:9, 33:17, 35:5,
36:11
intoxicating [1] -
105:5
introduce [2] -
9:8, 64:19
introduced [3] -
31:1, 42:17, 64:6
intrusion" [1] -
135:12
invalid [4] -
43:4, 43:10,
105:6, 122:13
invalidity [1] -
105:7
invest [1] -
113:20
invested [1] -
113:17
investigating [1]
- 181:22
invite [1] - 61:8
invoke [2] -
102:7, 108:26
invoked [1] -
47:13
invoking [1] -
100:6
involve [4] -
45:13, 62:15,
79:26, 137:19
involved [3] -
144:19, 151:9,
158:9
involvement [2]
- 175:14
involving [7] -
29:27, 33:9,
33:17, 35:6,
36:12, 110:22,
144:28
IPPC [3] - 68:25,
127:25, 128:21
Ireland [6] -
89:8, 89:13,
144:19, 144:24,
181:4, 181:19
IRELAND [2] -
1:19, 2:22
Irelands [1] -
144:21
IRISH [2] - 1:12,
2:8
Irish [17] - 3:5,
26:7, 40:28,
46:27, 67:9,
71:12, 80:5, 83:4,
83:18, 84:2, 84:6,
104:2, 126:24,
127:3, 127:20,
127:27, 128:17
Irish.. [1] -
138:18
irrelevant [6] -
56:22, 76:5,
76:21, 80:1,
117:12, 180:23
irrevocably [1] -
127:16
Irvine [9] - 47:8,
47:14, 47:23,
49:9, 155:26,
155:29, 167:2,
177:25, 185:8
issue [46] -
11:19, 11:24,
11:26, 11:27,
19:15, 23:17,
24:7, 33:3, 41:8,
42:24, 46:4,
47:10, 49:25,
50:14, 59:22,
60:25, 60:29,
61:3, 62:24,
64:26, 66:1, 66:5,
66:7, 66:16,
66:17, 68:19,
68:29, 70:28,
72:17, 75:18,
79:10, 79:19,
80:19, 105:4,
121:15, 130:19,
133:22, 147:23,
154:19, 155:4,
166:15, 169:3,
174:2, 178:4,
178:5, 186:5
Issue [1] -
179:12
issue' [1] - 50:28
issued [15] -
11:21, 37:19,
41:21, 42:28,
43:14, 53:13,
54:18, 54:21,
54:28, 55:25,
55:28, 60:9, 64:7,
87:19, 87:20
issues [14] -
13:18, 45:15,
46:1, 46:24,
77:22, 80:24,
90:23, 98:15,
111:18, 117:10,
145:9, 146:16,
162:1, 174:2
issuing [1] -
145:28
iteration [4] -
157:9, 157:10,
174:12
iterations [1] -
182:4
itself [21] - 6:9,
47:22, 48:22,
61:8, 85:21, 97:4,
98:17, 99:17,
104:28, 109:27,
110:4, 110:7,
111:29, 119:27,
123:24, 129:1,
132:3, 138:11,
148:7, 154:9,
170:15
IV [4] - 4:8, 12:2,
154:10, 156:12
iv [1] - 68:6
J
J. [1] - 130:20
J.'s [1] - 130:21
JAMES [1] - 1:8
James [2] -
80:4, 80:5
January [4] -
54:20, 54:27,
71:10, 74:8
JERRY [1] - 2:4
JIMMY [1] - 1:9
John [1] -
171:29
JOHN [1] - 2:8
join [1] - 78:8
journal [2] -
27:9, 27:11
judge [2] - 96:8,
99:14
Judge [140] -
3:11, 25:29,
26:26, 27:12,
38:9, 38:15,
49:20, 70:14,
75:12, 76:19,
81:3, 90:6, 92:19,
92:23, 98:8,
101:22, 109:22,
111:11, 111:22,
120:2, 120:16,
121:5, 121:6,
121:14, 122:26,
125:8, 125:29,
128:12, 129:13,
132:11, 134:3,
134:5, 141:6,
141:21, 146:26,
147:19, 148:6,
150:12, 150:19,
150:28, 152:9,
153:5, 153:10,
153:16, 153:20,
153:23, 153:27,
154:8, 154:11,
154:17, 154:26,
154:29, 155:12,
155:18, 155:22,
155:25, 155:28,
156:2, 156:13,
156:25, 157:15,
157:28, 158:6,
158:27, 159:2,
159:6, 159:15,
159:28, 160:6,
160:29, 161:7,
161:17, 161:21,
161:28, 162:9,
162:21, 163:22,
164:6, 164:11,
164:21, 164:29,
165:18, 165:23,
165:24, 166:3,
166:9, 166:15,
166:19, 166:21,
167:1, 167:5,
167:11, 167:13,
167:27, 167:29,
168:21, 168:26,
169:3, 170:5,
170:9, 171:3,
171:22, 172:6,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
18
172:15, 173:15,
174:1, 174:3,
174:8, 174:22,
174:24, 175:11,
175:17, 175:29,
176:5, 176:18,
176:22, 176:25,
177:19, 177:26,
177:27, 178:4,
178:28, 179:1,
179:8, 180:20,
182:2, 183:7,
183:19, 184:10,
184:18, 184:23,
185:10, 185:12,
185:28, 186:15,
186:16, 186:20,
187:4, 187:12,
187:18
judged [1] -
114:4
judgment [56] -
20:20, 20:22,
21:4, 24:2, 24:3,
31:10, 35:21,
36:10, 36:17,
36:20, 38:15,
38:17, 38:18,
41:7, 44:7, 44:18,
47:18, 47:19,
50:17, 50:22,
52:22, 53:21,
67:17, 69:29,
72:13, 72:16,
72:22, 80:7, 96:3,
96:22, 99:11,
99:13, 103:12,
104:4, 104:24,
110:6, 111:12,
113:28, 114:6,
115:25, 129:16,
130:13, 130:20,
130:29, 131:11,
132:10, 132:13,
134:11, 144:27,
145:4, 159:28,
167:29, 176:28,
183:20, 183:21
judgments [3] -
101:7, 104:7,
177:21
judicial [21] -
17:5, 22:29,
23:16, 62:5,
67:22, 68:6,
68:23, 73:2, 73:9,
73:17, 73:25,
74:4, 83:29,
105:21, 106:4,
131:7, 131:12,
135:7, 145:14,
150:5, 150:15
judicially [2] -
85:23, 89:27
judiciary [1] -
130:18
July [3] - 20:19,
53:14, 54:25
jumping [1] -
155:16
June [3] - 37:19,
169:5, 171:13
jurisdiction [6] -
40:16, 47:28,
68:24, 68:28,
167:3, 178:10
jurisdictions [1]
- 132:17
jurisprudence
[3] - 131:3, 157:2,
177:23
jurisprudential
[1] - 131:21
justice [59] - 7:7,
8:6, 22:4, 24:3,
25:14, 25:15,
47:7, 47:14,
47:23, 49:9, 67:8,
67:18, 68:23,
72:13, 73:6, 73:7,
74:24, 76:9,
76:20, 80:6,
99:11, 100:13,
101:8, 101:9,
102:11, 103:6,
103:29, 106:23,
106:29, 108:29,
110:6, 110:13,
111:24, 113:26,
115:24, 117:23,
123:2, 125:2,
125:13, 125:26,
134:11, 137:25,
155:26, 155:29,
161:8, 167:1,
167:2, 176:9,
176:28, 177:25,
178:2, 178:12,
179:2, 179:3,
183:14, 183:18,
183:20, 185:8,
185:11
JUSTICE [64] -
1:24, 6:29, 7:5,
26:19, 26:24,
26:28, 27:2, 27:5,
27:8, 27:13,
34:12, 34:27,
43:20, 43:23,
69:21, 70:5,
70:11, 70:25,
77:11, 80:26,
89:6, 89:13,
95:23, 98:5,
101:10, 102:9,
111:2, 121:2,
121:8, 121:12,
126:22, 132:9,
132:12, 137:2,
141:15, 141:19,
141:22, 144:27,
146:13, 147:29,
149:2, 150:7,
150:14, 151:6,
151:29, 152:7,
153:7, 153:19,
161:18, 161:24,
164:3, 164:8,
164:18, 165:28,
166:17, 177:20,
186:18, 186:26,
187:7, 187:10,
187:15, 187:19,
187:21, 187:24
Justice [24] -
20:18, 21:5,
21:23, 23:29,
31:9, 43:19, 44:7,
44:9, 44:16,
44:29, 45:3,
68:18, 69:4,
72:17, 76:25,
77:2, 79:17, 80:4,
95:27, 101:8,
104:13, 115:2,
130:6, 182:5
justifiable [1] -
100:22
justified [1] -
5:10
K
Keane [1] -
130:6
KEANEY [1] -
2:27
Keegan [1] -
161:10
KEELING [1] -
2:23
keep [2] - 37:14,
149:25
Kelly [1] -
106:18
KENNEDY [1] -
2:18
Kennedy [2] -
154:25, 181:19
KENNY [3] - 2:8,
120:2, 121:5
Kenny [15] -
27:27, 27:29,
28:11, 28:18,
30:26, 77:25,
77:27, 77:29,
120:24, 130:20,
130:21, 131:18,
131:21, 155:15,
157:10
Kenny's [1] -
155:2
key [3] - 14:21,
40:1, 153:29
kids [1] - 121:13
kilometres [4] -
28:27, 36:2,
66:22, 72:5
kind [10] - 4:8,
10:9, 12:14,
12:24, 28:29,
57:18, 66:24,
76:11, 78:20,
78:28
KINGSTON [1] -
2:24
Klohn [2] -
119:29, 121:7
knowing [2] -
53:26, 53:27
knowledge [1] -
86:19
known [4] -
77:11, 118:4,
131:16, 138:18
knows [1] -
76:16
Kokott [1] -
56:22
Krizan [7] -
40:26, 40:27,
49:18, 50:8, 63:2,
63:8, 64:7
L
L0092 [1] -
27:11
L26 [1] - 27:9
lack [1] - 75:12
Lackagh [5] -
47:2, 155:26,
155:27, 155:28,
159:8
Laffoy [5] - 24:4,
25:14, 161:8,
178:2, 178:12
laid [3] - 56:26,
101:2, 107:25
Lancefort [1] -
73:14
land [6] - 52:11,
78:8, 105:17,
106:12, 106:13,
106:16
Landfill [1] -
59:16
landfill [16] -
30:28, 31:2,
31:20, 33:3,
33:16, 35:4,
49:25, 53:12,
53:26, 53:28,
54:2, 54:22,
55:20, 60:1, 60:4,
60:14
landing [1] -
51:7
landscape [1] -
29:26
Lane [1] - 163:5
lane [1] - 37:11
language [21] -
8:1, 8:3, 9:14,
28:10, 28:15,
28:19, 30:2, 30:4,
35:3, 35:8, 35:20,
35:21, 35:24,
36:8, 36:9, 36:14,
63:9, 79:27, 91:7,
100:13, 118:16
Laoghaire [6] -
7:8, 41:17, 42:20,
157:17, 159:13,
176:8
Laoghaire/
Rathdown [2] -
156:29, 157:16
large [4] - 93:25,
98:17, 101:26,
105:16
largely [1] -
134:6
Larkin [1] -
127:25
last [9] - 8:21,
17:19, 23:23,
27:22, 63:5,
79:10, 157:10,
178:14, 179:8
lastly [1] -
154:29
latest [1] - 157:9
latitude [3] -
120:7, 121:3
latter [1] - 33:26
law [46] - 6:6,
6:9, 11:10, 11:17,
14:22, 20:2,
25:17, 25:22,
26:5, 26:7, 38:12,
40:16, 40:22,
50:23, 50:24,
50:26, 51:27,
52:19, 55:21,
65:14, 65:15,
65:20, 65:22,
80:10, 80:13,
81:4, 81:5, 83:28,
84:27, 88:29,
89:1, 90:25,
104:27, 106:8,
107:16, 118:1,
132:16, 133:2,
133:14, 154:22,
157:13, 167:16,
183:13, 183:21,
184:20
Law [3] - 167:11,
181:4, 181:19
LAW [1] - 2:15
lawmakers [1] -
149:2
lay [4] - 69:23,
69:24, 70:17,
70:19
layout [2] -
171:5, 171:7
lead [6] - 34:15,
34:18, 34:20,
83:25, 127:13,
127:15
least [9] - 5:26,
86:24, 108:23,
114:2, 114:9,
114:27, 116:21,
120:13, 147:15
leave [6] - 64:9,
68:23, 69:1,
69:23, 69:27,
73:17
leaves [1] -
75:22
leaving [4] -
66:17, 88:15,
96:27, 133:24
LEE [1] - 2:29
leeway [1] -
70:19
left [7] - 13:26,
13:28, 46:12,
53:25, 62:3,
62:13, 97:15
left-hand [1] -
53:25
legal [20] -
12:27, 73:28,
74:9, 92:26,
95:15, 96:27,
96:28, 100:29,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
19
104:16, 105:1,
106:25, 107:23,
108:9, 109:3,
113:11, 133:9,
133:10, 133:15,
174:2, 184:16
legality [1] -
68:27
legally [3] -
70:18, 132:19,
137:28
legislation [12] -
30:29, 31:1,
51:19, 105:4,
105:19, 133:12,
136:2, 137:16,
147:8, 148:13,
174:27, 186:13
legislative [2] -
105:10, 186:9
legislature [12] -
9:7, 12:13, 12:22,
13:3, 13:6, 15:1,
64:4, 64:8, 64:17,
78:18, 79:2, 84:5
legitimate [1] -
100:9
legitimately [1] -
125:27
lending [2] -
113:8, 113:12
length [1] -
40:21
less [4] - 104:18,
137:2, 169:16
letter [10] -
37:20, 169:28,
169:29, 170:27,
171:1, 171:4,
171:6, 171:13,
172:25, 173:8
level [22] - 3:12,
11:8, 125:3,
125:4, 125:14,
148:27, 148:29,
151:9, 151:12,
151:23, 152:26,
169:12, 169:13,
170:1, 170:2,
170:3, 170:5,
173:26, 173:27,
173:28
levels [2] -
144:2, 170:1
levies [1] - 158:8
liable [2] -
103:14, 108:1
Liam [1] - 20:23
licences [3] -
68:25, 68:27,
105:5
lie [1] - 135:16
lifespan [2] -
95:10, 113:18
light [8] - 24:24,
56:5, 124:21,
161:11, 161:21,
170:10, 179:26,
182:29
lighting [1] -
163:11
likelihood [1] -
144:5
likely [11] -
48:10, 56:28,
57:6, 69:16,
95:15, 112:2,
112:6, 112:10,
113:10, 114:25,
116:6
limit [6] - 16:28,
17:28, 18:28,
19:10, 76:2,
92:10
limited [22] - 4:5,
23:8, 64:19,
82:12, 82:21,
85:4, 86:4, 87:10,
88:17, 97:16,
101:22, 110:27,
115:20, 117:23,
123:4, 123:6,
125:18, 126:8,
126:11, 150:11,
158:25, 159:6
limits [1] - 15:7
line [2] - 108:7,
133:29
line' [1] - 108:7
lines [1] - 182:23
link [4] - 112:13,
129:2, 129:4,
129:5
liquor [1] - 105:5
list [2] - 32:22,
159:2
listed [7] - 28:4,
28:25, 29:3,
32:14, 32:24,
162:25, 181:6
listened [1] -
153:16
literal [1] - 132:1
litigant [4] -
69:23, 69:24,
70:17, 70:18
litigants [1] -
70:20
litigate [1] -
110:24
Littondale [2] -
24:4, 25:14
Littonvale [4] -
161:9, 168:22,
177:19, 177:29
live [1] - 137:3
livelihood [2] -
97:2, 103:23
load [1] - 145:6
loan [5] - 94:12,
94:15, 96:8,
113:13, 114:25
loan-to-value [1]
- 113:13
loaned [1] - 2:31
loans [10] -
95:13, 95:16,
96:29, 103:8,
103:15, 113:14,
113:16, 113:18,
114:8, 115:29
local [2] - 20:29,
124:16
Local [3] -
155:8, 155:9,
175:22
located [2] -
71:28, 72:1
location [7] -
51:17, 51:23,
51:25, 53:22,
54:10, 54:26,
57:1
location.. [1] -
53:19
locations [1] -
162:26
locus [1] - 21:25
lodged [2] -
123:23, 169:27
logic [1] -
136:21
LOGUE [1] -
2:10
long-standing
[1] - 144:21
look [100] - 4:6,
4:7, 4:9, 4:14,
4:23, 6:5, 6:8,
6:9, 7:10, 8:10,
8:23, 9:17, 10:21,
11:17, 14:1,
16:10, 16:11,
20:2, 25:27, 26:8,
26:10, 27:21,
28:10, 28:17,
28:18, 28:23,
28:24, 29:13,
29:20, 30:2, 31:8,
31:13, 36:28,
37:4, 37:16,
38:15, 38:16,
40:26, 41:9,
41:16, 44:15,
47:17, 47:23,
49:21, 50:17,
50:21, 53:6,
55:11, 58:13,
63:20, 64:7, 71:5,
77:16, 79:20,
79:21, 79:23,
87:26, 102:2,
111:25, 117:14,
120:18, 123:27,
124:27, 153:28,
153:29, 154:2,
154:4, 154:8,
154:12, 154:20,
154:26, 155:10,
155:25, 156:9,
156:22, 157:3,
157:15, 157:17,
158:7, 158:19,
158:21, 158:27,
159:2, 159:7,
159:12, 159:27,
160:7, 162:7,
165:23, 165:26,
167:17, 174:12,
177:27, 182:4,
183:17, 184:12,
185:9
looked [11] - 7:7,
26:5, 26:6, 30:1,
30:23, 31:12,
51:9, 51:12,
57:28, 132:2,
132:3
looking [20] -
3:11, 4:28, 4:29,
6:4, 8:4, 20:12,
26:15, 26:16,
26:17, 27:13,
38:5, 39:29, 44:3,
49:22, 51:4, 54:7,
57:10, 88:16,
94:14, 132:4
looks [15] - 3:23,
15:5, 18:29,
28:15, 28:16,
35:3, 35:19,
35:20, 40:15,
50:20, 66:20,
156:14, 157:27,
158:11, 159:25
loose [1] - 67:3
Lordship [6] -
154:20, 155:6,
159:25, 159:29,
161:29, 183:11
loss [1] - 117:6
lost [3] - 8:3,
124:3, 170:5
low [5] - 9:28,
138:16, 140:12,
140:16, 140:26
Low [3] -
126:29, 141:7,
141:24
lower [3] - 98:1,
171:22, 172:10
Ltd [1] - 73:14
lunch [2] -
111:1, 111:11
LUNCH [2] -
111:5, 111:7
lunchtime [1] -
187:4
M
Macken [3] -
100:14, 101:9,
110:13
MacPharthalai
n [2] - 104:2,
104:8
main [8] - 3:24,
4:17, 33:4, 38:22,
39:13, 44:25,
62:19, 179:4
maintain [2] -
51:16, 149:26
maintained [1] -
47:28
maker [12] -
86:3, 100:7,
102:29, 105:14,
118:2, 123:5,
124:19, 124:29,
125:15, 125:19,
151:16, 151:17
Malone [3] -
1:27, 2:30, 2:32
MALONE [1] -
1:31
man [1] - 137:2
manage [1] -
115:6
management [1]
- 163:10
Manager [1] -
149:11
mandatory [4] -
61:6, 160:19,
168:5, 176:11
manifestly [1] -
30:9
manner [11] -
2:31, 22:29,
45:10, 46:13,
109:18, 126:4,
160:10, 168:12,
175:15, 177:14,
178:24
manufacture [1]
- 170:18
map [1] - 162:25
March [8] -
54:11, 122:1,
122:7, 123:14,
124:11, 165:18,
165:19, 166:7
MARGARET [1]
- 1:8
marginal [2] -
17:1, 17:28
mark [1] -
137:13
market [4] -
96:9, 96:10,
143:24, 143:29
MARTIN [1] -
2:27
mast [1] -
163:11
mate [1] - 165:1
material [15] -
9:18, 52:12, 75:6,
82:9, 83:13,
91:16, 97:29,
98:3, 98:16,
100:18, 102:4,
108:2, 109:5,
116:22, 119:2
materiality [1] -
171:12
materially [5] -
97:24, 101:11,
101:14, 126:6,
172:17
materials [2] -
3:19, 170:18
matter [52] -
10:1, 22:27,
24:13, 25:8,
38:12, 46:17,
46:19, 82:8,
86:19, 86:20,
88:25, 89:18,
89:21, 89:22,
89:29, 91:11,
93:28, 101:4,
101:19, 102:14,
105:11, 107:12,
107:13, 107:28,
122:13, 122:18,
133:3, 133:16,
135:27, 154:29,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
20
155:22, 158:18,
160:3, 161:15,
164:24, 165:20,
165:22, 167:1,
167:16, 170:24,
171:29, 176:3,
178:6, 178:21,
179:15, 180:7,
183:3, 183:8,
184:8, 184:14,
184:18, 184:20
matter.. [1] -
113:6
matters [50] -
5:13, 13:13, 25:6,
38:27, 39:21,
43:25, 75:29,
86:6, 88:6, 88:27,
98:20, 102:2,
126:23, 137:20,
138:23, 141:12,
141:29, 146:18,
154:22, 154:23,
156:18, 157:21,
158:6, 159:4,
159:6, 160:22,
160:23, 161:1,
161:4, 161:14,
162:6, 166:27,
167:21, 168:6,
168:16, 168:18,
172:5, 176:22,
176:24, 177:6,
177:12, 180:5,
183:1, 183:2,
184:2, 184:5,
184:13, 186:5,
186:11, 186:12
maximum [1] -
40:23
MBM [2] -
143:29, 144:10
McCoy [10] -
7:8, 8:4, 8:6,
24:2, 25:15,
156:29, 157:16,
159:3, 159:13,
176:7
McDonald [37] -
2:22, 3:8, 3:10,
7:2, 7:6, 26:21,
26:25, 27:1, 27:4,
27:6, 27:10,
27:16, 34:18,
35:1, 43:22, 44:3,
69:28, 70:8,
70:12, 70:27,
76:7, 76:23,
77:12, 81:3,
81:20, 82:24,
84:11, 84:25,
85:14, 87:7, 88:8,
88:29, 97:14,
153:12, 154:1,
154:24, 175:29
McDonald's [2] -
81:9, 144:28
MCDONELL [1]
- 1:9
MCDONNELL
[2] - 1:7, 1:7
McDowell [19] -
20:15, 23:11,
86:7, 155:19,
159:3, 159:7,
161:1, 161:28,
162:2, 162:7,
164:23, 165:23,
168:23, 168:24,
174:3, 174:6,
184:17, 185:23,
186:7
McGee [2] -
128:15, 130:11
McGovern [2] -
76:9, 76:20
McKillen [8] -
94:15, 95:19,
97:2, 97:5, 97:23,
113:24, 114:17,
115:15
McKillen's [3] -
95:3, 102:20,
113:20
McMahon [3] -
123:2, 125:13,
125:26
Meadows [1] -
161:11
mean [16] - 9:29,
11:12, 35:2,
82:28, 104:15,
121:2, 125:22,
145:4, 149:10,
152:5, 155:3,
155:4, 161:9,
164:19, 176:29,
178:7
mean.. [1] -
104:11
meaning [13] -
29:15, 31:16,
32:3, 32:16, 33:5,
33:19, 34:10,
39:3, 43:13, 48:1,
56:8, 140:9
means [9] -
18:20, 29:21,
29:24, 106:5,
139:25, 139:29,
140:4, 145:2,
145:8
means...a [1] -
139:22
meant [1] -
28:23
meantime [3] -
42:15, 58:2,
61:28
measures [5] -
68:2, 147:12,
149:29, 156:19,
157:18
mechanical [1] -
117:29
mechanism [2] -
105:20, 143:29
medical [5] -
128:15, 134:9,
134:18, 134:29,
135:25
meet [2] -
118:17, 145:20
meeting [1] -
148:2
member [3] -
99:12, 123:20,
123:26
Member [8] -
27:19, 28:1,
62:13, 64:9,
64:12, 64:18,
64:19, 144:18
members [1] -
83:20
membership [1]
- 144:22
memorandum
[1] - 171:14
mention [2] -
65:17, 132:21
mentioned [3] -
105:19, 142:23,
146:5
mere [14] -
33:15, 35:3,
36:10, 39:11,
40:4, 40:10,
44:23, 66:23,
100:23, 105:26,
106:7, 107:1,
108:14, 110:4
merely [10] -
45:13, 91:23,
98:16, 102:6,
104:18, 119:27,
132:23, 145:27,
150:1, 176:13
MERRIMAN [1] -
1:7
Merriman [12] -
4:27, 22:2, 81:25,
82:16, 82:19,
82:26, 84:10,
97:10, 115:18,
126:19, 141:2,
141:16
method [2] -
84:2, 131:17
methods [2] -
150:5, 150:21
metres [4] -
169:13, 170:2,
171:22, 172:10
MICHAEL [1] -
1:7
middle [2] -
70:6, 170:1
might [17] -
36:27, 43:23,
60:13, 100:8,
107:8, 108:15,
109:18, 110:11,
112:13, 114:28,
128:12, 130:22,
130:23, 137:14,
150:20, 159:25,
165:24
militate [2] -
24:28, 180:1
militated [5] -
8:29, 9:27, 10:10,
10:18, 86:16
militates [1] -
10:3
mind [14] -
12:14, 15:2, 15:3,
31:23, 50:20,
57:13, 61:12,
62:29, 109:23,
124:28, 148:14,
148:22, 151:29,
186:27
mindful [1] -
124:22
minds [3] -
137:26, 149:24,
149:27
mine [2] - 27:4,
95:25
mineral [1] -
29:27
minimal [1] -
110:22
minimum [2] -
25:29, 40:23
mining [3] -
38:25, 39:15,
44:27
Minister [15] -
11:21, 41:3,
41:14, 42:24,
42:25, 43:14,
44:4, 87:19, 93:7,
104:25, 134:3,
139:18, 140:19,
160:2, 175:12
Ministerial [7] -
87:29, 88:1, 88:9,
148:8, 148:10,
152:13, 152:16
ministerial [2] -
45:25, 46:19
Ministry [2] -
53:11, 54:11
minutes [4] -
43:24, 99:11,
187:6
mischaracteris
ed [1] - 40:27
misconstrue [2]
- 36:19
misconstrued
[1] - 184:26
mispronouncin
g [1] - 116:28
missed [1] -
187:12
mistake [1] -
164:28
mistaken [1] -
45:8
mistakes [1] -
165:2
mitigating [4] -
139:13, 142:18,
142:24, 147:18
mitigation [9] -
139:8, 139:25,
139:26, 140:4,
140:21, 142:4,
142:28, 143:3,
146:25
mix [1] - 137:9
model [2] -
113:20, 114:21
modification [4]
- 39:11, 40:4,
40:11, 44:23
Modifications
[1] - 42:9
modified [1] -
100:29
modifies [1] -
108:8
modify [2] -
46:6, 46:10
moment [7] -
7:26, 11:11,
21:21, 28:17,
28:24, 40:26,
64:24
moments [2] -
44:18, 156:26
monies [1] -
85:4
month [1] -
12:20
months [1] -
170:20
monument [3] -
42:4, 42:6, 42:21
Monuments [3] -
42:5, 42:15,
42:16
monuments [1]
- 42:27
morning [4] -
51:3, 175:29,
185:8, 186:17
MORRIS [1] -
1:9
mortgagor [1] -
96:14
most [9] - 83:27,
106:20, 131:10,
132:18, 132:25,
133:11, 139:8,
139:9, 145:27
motorway [1] -
106:1
move [1] -
124:13
movements [1] -
37:11
moves [2] -
136:9, 147:4
Moving [1] -
135:22
moving [1] -
136:23
MR [159] - 1:24,
2:4, 2:5, 2:8,
2:13, 2:13, 2:18,
2:18, 2:19, 2:22,
2:23, 2:23, 2:27,
2:27, 3:8, 3:10,
6:29, 7:2, 7:5,
7:6, 26:19, 26:21,
26:24, 26:25,
26:28, 27:1, 27:2,
27:4, 27:5, 27:6,
27:8, 27:10,
27:13, 27:16,
34:12, 34:18,
34:27, 35:1,
43:20, 43:22,
43:23, 44:3,
69:21, 69:28,
70:5, 70:8, 70:11,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
21
70:12, 70:25,
70:27, 75:22,
76:7, 76:19,
76:23, 77:11,
77:12, 80:26,
81:1, 81:3, 89:6,
89:8, 89:13,
89:16, 95:23,
95:25, 98:5, 98:8,
101:10, 101:16,
102:9, 102:10,
111:2, 111:11,
120:2, 120:16,
120:24, 121:2,
121:5, 121:6,
121:8, 121:11,
121:12, 121:14,
126:22, 126:23,
132:9, 132:11,
132:12, 132:14,
137:2, 137:6,
141:15, 141:17,
141:19, 141:20,
141:22, 141:23,
144:27, 145:8,
146:13, 146:18,
147:29, 148:5,
149:2, 149:6,
150:7, 150:12,
150:14, 150:18,
151:6, 151:15,
151:29, 152:5,
152:7, 152:9,
153:7, 153:10,
153:14, 153:16,
153:19, 153:20,
161:18, 161:20,
161:24, 161:25,
164:3, 164:6,
164:8, 164:11,
164:18, 164:21,
165:28, 166:3,
166:17, 166:19,
177:20, 177:22,
186:18, 186:20,
186:23, 186:26,
186:27, 186:29,
187:1, 187:4,
187:5, 187:6,
187:7, 187:9,
187:10, 187:12,
187:13, 187:15,
187:17, 187:19,
187:20, 187:21,
187:23, 187:24
MS [2] - 2:15,
2:24
multilateral [1] -
143:14
Murphy [1] -
134:11
Murray [4] -
44:7, 44:16,
95:27, 101:8
must [66] - 2:31,
4:9, 8:6, 17:2,
25:6, 30:12,
37:28, 38:11,
39:22, 55:9,
56:27, 57:5,
57:25, 58:5,
58:28, 59:10,
61:16, 61:21,
62:9, 66:9, 66:24,
83:29, 84:20,
97:7, 108:17,
108:22, 108:24,
109:23, 109:28,
111:13, 116:15,
116:17, 116:26,
118:2, 118:4,
118:13, 118:14,
118:18, 118:25,
124:7, 124:19,
124:22, 126:2,
127:10, 128:7,
141:15, 145:9,
145:20, 145:21,
146:9, 148:10,
148:22, 152:12,
152:18, 152:20,
152:28, 168:10,
177:1, 177:9,
180:5, 182:16,
182:29, 185:4
muster [1] -
161:9
N
NAMA [45] -
92:29, 93:3, 93:4,
93:9, 93:15,
93:22, 93:26,
93:28, 94:1, 94:3,
94:14, 94:17,
94:18, 94:21,
95:2, 95:9, 95:15,
96:12, 96:18,
96:20, 96:23,
97:13, 97:17,
99:26, 100:1,
102:16, 102:17,
103:10, 103:14,
112:3, 112:19,
112:28, 113:10,
113:14, 114:1,
114:2, 114:8,
114:10, 114:17,
114:18, 114:23,
115:10, 115:28,
116:9, 159:1
NAMA's [1] -
114:22
name [1] - 171:6
named [3] -
1:29, 104:21,
133:5
Named [1] - 68:7
namely [1] -
22:21
narrow [4] -
87:25, 109:4,
110:25, 178:8
national [34] -
40:20, 42:4, 42:6,
42:21, 42:26,
51:8, 52:19,
55:21, 55:27,
65:14, 95:21,
139:8, 139:9,
139:11, 139:21,
139:25, 140:9,
140:19, 140:21,
140:22, 140:24,
142:4, 142:5,
142:17, 142:25,
142:29, 143:3,
143:5, 147:21,
149:24, 149:29,
151:23, 167:16
National [7] -
42:5, 42:15,
42:16, 71:16,
74:17, 146:23,
147:18
Natura [1] - 68:4
natural [10] -
29:26, 30:8, 68:3,
69:13, 106:22,
117:23, 127:3,
129:20, 129:21,
137:21
naturally [1] -
70:3
nature [32] -
8:28, 9:26, 41:27,
57:1, 67:12, 74:1,
82:4, 86:14,
100:4, 100:5,
101:29, 110:14,
110:17, 110:21,
111:16, 119:26,
126:11, 130:22,
131:8, 153:26,
154:19, 157:22,
158:1, 158:8,
158:28, 165:11,
165:20, 167:3,
176:22, 178:10
NCRP1) [1] -
162:19
near [1] - 168:29
nearly [1] -
90:24
necessarily [1] -
93:5
necessary [21] -
4:6, 4:23, 20:19,
22:11, 22:13,
23:5, 25:26, 26:2,
31:15, 45:26,
46:14, 53:1,
58:23, 59:1,
61:18, 61:25,
68:2, 86:25,
94:18, 112:3,
128:26
necessity [1] -
131:11
need [17] - 10:7,
29:17, 37:29,
60:1, 64:22, 77:9,
77:25, 80:1,
101:3, 107:26,
120:17, 125:2,
126:1, 129:7,
131:16, 133:13,
133:15
needs [4] -
29:20, 38:7, 65:1,
129:12
needy [1] -
134:20
negative [4] -
102:5, 135:5,
160:17, 176:12
negatively [1] -
129:9
neighbouring
[1] - 60:2
neighbours [1] -
183:18
never [5] - 76:7,
76:8, 101:2,
104:1, 107:25
nevertheless [3]
- 56:25, 137:6,
186:10
new [42] - 30:29,
31:1, 34:9, 34:24,
34:25, 35:25,
35:28, 36:4,
36:27, 38:1, 38:3,
38:4, 38:26, 39:1,
39:20, 39:21,
39:23, 39:26,
39:27, 40:13,
49:14, 52:12,
52:13, 57:17,
63:6, 63:16,
63:17, 63:19,
79:26, 105:3,
105:4, 106:1,
124:10, 129:14,
131:8, 155:15,
155:17, 156:11,
156:16
news [1] -
146:15
next [18] - 5:17,
10:21, 21:22,
22:3, 23:11,
32:19, 36:24,
38:16, 51:14,
58:14, 59:22,
62:1, 64:7, 69:3,
121:4, 148:3,
161:17, 165:24
nice [1] - 169:2
nine [1] - 89:11
NO [1] - 1:3
NOEL [2] - 1:8,
1:8
noise [1] - 51:6
Nomarchiaki [1]
- 58:18
non [10] - 93:16,
94:20, 165:5,
165:8, 165:9,
165:13, 171:12,
172:9, 184:28,
184:29
non-
compliance [7] -
165:5, 165:8,
165:9, 165:13,
171:12, 184:28,
184:29
non-compliant
[1] - 172:9
non-
exhaustive [1] -
94:20
non-
performing [1] -
93:16
none [2] -
132:18, 175:13
nonetheless [2]
- 105:11, 186:1
Nore [4] - 69:17,
71:14, 71:17,
71:27
normal [4] -
113:8, 113:11,
146:1, 148:21
normally [3] -
100:24, 105:27,
145:15
North [4] -
34:15, 87:9,
162:18, 162:24
north [5] - 72:1,
127:13, 127:23,
128:18, 128:26
note [5] - 8:1,
17:28, 138:25,
152:19, 156:10
noted [4] -
34:12, 61:16,
98:22, 142:7
notes [11] - 1:29,
71:27, 141:10,
141:27, 142:2,
143:20, 143:27,
144:5, 144:18,
144:21, 144:22
nothing [12] -
34:29, 35:14,
36:6, 36:7, 40:21,
110:18, 121:12,
124:10, 149:5,
151:12, 151:24,
179:4
NOTICE [3] -
1:17, 1:20, 1:22
Notice [2] -
20:23, 72:11
notice [9] -
15:23, 21:10,
22:12, 22:14,
102:27, 121:27,
122:8, 123:23,
150:15
notices [1] -
107:16
notification [2] -
173:8, 175:8
notify [1] -
117:17
noting [1] -
142:14
notion [2] - 80:3,
118:1
notwithstandin
g [6] - 13:29,
24:19, 87:20,
88:13, 154:21,
179:21
NPWS [1] - 77:7
NRCP1 [1] -
162:25
number [21] -
17:21, 17:22,
24:27, 44:12,
51:6, 59:3, 61:11,
72:5, 93:25, 95:6,
107:10, 113:29,
133:4, 133:6,
133:29, 150:12,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
22
152:11, 156:18,
158:6, 177:27,
179:29
numerals [1] -
167:19
O
O'Carroll [1] -
106:18
O'Carroll-Kelly
[1] - 106:18
o'clock [5] -
109:23, 111:3,
186:16, 186:24,
187:24
O'CONNELL [2]
- 1:9, 2:6
O'CONNOR [1] -
1:10
O'Donnell [2] -
5:9, 80:6
O'Keeffe [5] -
73:13, 161:10,
161:11, 178:3,
178:8
O'NEILL [1] -
2:15
O'Neill [4] -
72:13, 73:6, 73:7,
74:24
O'SULLIVAN [1]
- 2:13
O'T [1] - 129:17
obiter [6] -
47:15, 48:5, 49:8,
130:7, 156:4,
159:10
object [5] -
13:27, 94:8,
94:24, 181:26,
182:6
objected [3] -
20:29, 21:1,
74:23
objection [5] -
94:11, 94:27,
105:21, 120:16,
142:25
objections [1] -
22:26
Objective [2] -
146:24, 147:18
objective [19] -
11:7, 15:22, 16:1,
56:25, 58:28,
95:11, 113:15,
113:19, 139:12,
139:13, 140:9,
140:19, 140:25,
142:18, 142:23,
142:29, 143:4,
143:5
objectives [21] -
10:24, 10:25,
74:18, 77:7,
77:15, 77:16,
77:19, 86:28,
86:29, 87:6, 87:8,
87:13, 114:19,
114:27, 139:2,
143:10, 146:1,
146:8, 146:27,
146:28, 151:25
objector [1] -
124:26
objectors [1] -
124:17
Objects [1] -
71:17
obligation [19] -
57:17, 65:19,
105:14, 134:9,
134:10, 134:17,
134:25, 134:29,
135:1, 138:26,
148:8, 149:17,
152:20, 152:21,
152:22, 152:25,
176:14, 176:21
obligations [4] -
52:28, 67:29,
140:29, 147:27
obliged [8] -
38:23, 68:7, 93:9,
114:25, 117:25,
121:6, 149:23,
153:10
observance [1] -
105:23
observation [5]
- 49:8, 56:4, 78:2,
80:6, 124:12
observations
[16] - 3:13, 8:5,
41:8, 48:29,
50:20, 58:19,
63:7, 66:3, 70:16,
72:4, 72:18,
117:18, 117:27,
122:9, 123:25,
159:14
observe [2] -
101:3, 107:26
observed [1] -
38:12
observer [1] -
123:26
observes [1] -
5:17
observing [1] -
77:3
obtained [1] -
170:26
obvious [2] -
9:4, 38:2
Obviously [1] -
50:8
obviously [30] -
9:4, 11:24, 11:26,
12:16, 12:19,
13:22, 17:3, 19:8,
19:24, 21:19,
22:1, 25:11,
40:12, 46:4,
47:10, 47:12,
48:21, 61:7, 62:3,
62:17, 64:4,
65:21, 81:7,
95:20, 109:16,
120:6, 125:8,
151:20, 166:20,
183:7
occasion [2] -
61:25, 124:15
occasions [4] -
110:25, 133:22,
133:29, 150:13
occur [2] -
68:10, 127:23
occurred [3] -
11:20, 61:28,
119:8
occurring [1] -
151:27
October [8] -
21:11, 45:6,
60:17, 143:28,
144:23, 170:24,
171:14, 172:24
OCTOBER [3] -
1:25, 3:2, 187:27
oddity [1] -
51:13
OF [3] - 1:12,
2:8, 3:2
off-setting [1] -
144:2
Offaly [1] - 67:13
offended [1] -
125:3
OFFICE [1] -
2:25
office [1] -
169:19
official [4] -
27:8, 27:11,
183:14, 183:23
often [1] -
135:19
Oireachtas [11] -
82:20, 84:20,
86:24, 92:16,
123:4, 123:6,
125:16, 126:2,
130:18, 156:17,
186:13
OISIN [1] - 2:5
old [5] - 21:19,
38:25, 39:15,
44:27, 90:20
older [1] - 60:27
omission [1] -
135:28
omissions [1] -
83:22
ON [2] - 1:25,
3:1
once [6] - 4:16,
16:20, 57:16,
129:4, 176:20
one [102] - 3:23,
8:20, 8:21, 11:3,
11:16, 12:29,
13:20, 13:27,
15:4, 15:5, 16:16,
16:27, 18:29,
20:21, 21:20,
22:9, 22:21,
23:22, 25:25,
25:26, 25:27,
26:8, 26:25,
28:15, 28:16,
28:23, 29:7, 29:8,
29:10, 29:13,
29:19, 33:3, 35:2,
35:12, 35:19,
35:20, 37:29,
38:17, 40:15,
44:19, 46:27,
48:2, 50:20,
61:25, 65:6,
65:13, 66:20,
66:24, 67:9,
67:19, 69:22,
70:15, 70:17,
70:22, 75:24,
77:9, 77:15,
77:23, 78:2,
79:23, 80:2,
83:14, 85:13,
88:17, 91:20,
92:22, 97:3, 97:5,
97:28, 99:7,
102:1, 102:24,
110:22, 124:22,
124:27, 124:29,
125:2, 132:18,
133:28, 137:18,
137:19, 144:10,
146:8, 150:14,
150:15, 150:16,
155:17, 155:22,
157:2, 157:27,
158:11, 159:25,
160:8, 165:11,
167:17, 176:19,
180:21, 181:5,
185:12, 185:20
One [2] - 124:23,
136:18
ones [1] - 150:1
only.. [1] - 16:20
onus [5] - 73:10,
73:26, 118:17,
118:25, 160:16
open [20] - 6:10,
23:5, 26:3, 27:26,
44:20, 49:23,
58:17, 77:25,
95:26, 111:22,
117:3, 119:29,
123:8, 126:1,
128:27, 131:16,
132:24, 141:2,
176:19
open-ended [1]
- 176:19
opened [16] -
6:26, 20:13,
30:26, 44:17,
46:29, 53:5,
55:12, 71:1, 86:7,
88:29, 98:28,
132:9, 132:12,
154:1, 159:13,
165:26
opening [4] -
21:20, 92:19,
120:19, 134:5
opens [2] -
120:3, 134:11
operate [2] -
33:16, 35:4
operated [5] -
95:21, 126:3,
181:9, 181:13,
181:21
operation [10] -
4:1, 4:11, 4:18,
19:20, 30:28,
31:5, 51:5, 54:22,
95:3
operations [2] -
37:10, 37:12
operators [2] -
31:2, 37:18
opinion [17] -
36:29, 49:23,
50:21, 50:27,
51:1, 51:16, 52:3,
52:6, 53:4, 53:13,
54:13, 55:11,
57:19, 58:18,
64:6, 94:9, 94:24
opportunities
[1] - 85:23
opportunity [18]
- 16:7, 82:11,
90:4, 91:24,
97:18, 99:29,
110:24, 115:16,
118:5, 119:4,
120:20, 122:21,
123:13, 124:3,
124:5, 125:15,
171:11, 175:12
opposed [2] -
63:1, 152:3
opposite [3] -
4:29, 54:29,
166:28
opposition [1] -
135:20
oral [4] - 81:23,
83:6, 85:16,
116:13
Order [1] - 73:1
order [10] - 10:8,
11:15, 23:13,
30:12, 37:3,
67:19, 106:15,
128:27, 135:8,
174:16
orders [5] -
68:22, 69:1,
132:25, 133:9,
133:15
ordinarily [1] -
102:26
ordinary [2] -
96:8, 148:20
Organisation [1]
- 143:17
original [13] -
6:19, 34:19,
34:22, 34:23,
38:6, 45:21, 60:6,
86:8, 89:2, 90:10,
102:7, 121:28,
122:2
originally [3] -
119:5, 119:9,
169:16
otherwise [1] -
80:10
ought [5] -
101:18, 107:16,
122:10, 122:19,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
23
173:28
out" [1] - 10:19
out.. [1] - 74:27
outbuildings [1]
- 163:15
outcome [3] -
98:7, 98:10,
109:7
outlined [3] -
97:15, 126:28,
153:11
outside [4] -
69:1, 117:11,
118:6, 181:23
overall [5] -
84:25, 99:16,
119:27, 124:28,
142:28
own [8] - 99:13,
105:20, 106:8,
118:6, 145:28,
151:29, 169:1,
171:17
owners [1] -
38:22
P
pace [4] -
127:15, 128:19,
138:2, 150:27
Package [2] -
162:19, 162:25
page [74] - 4:27,
4:29, 5:1, 20:22,
21:4, 21:5, 24:1,
24:2, 24:5, 24:8,
26:15, 26:16,
26:19, 26:21,
26:22, 27:2, 27:4,
37:4, 38:15,
43:18, 44:6, 44:8,
44:15, 45:2,
47:18, 63:16,
63:21, 67:17,
68:17, 69:3,
70:27, 71:5,
72:16, 72:23,
93:1, 95:7, 96:3,
99:20, 102:11,
103:5, 104:3,
107:18, 117:21,
121:20, 122:25,
129:23, 130:6,
130:9, 131:15,
134:12, 141:7,
146:26, 159:27,
161:17, 161:25,
162:10, 162:22,
165:27, 169:3,
171:3, 172:6,
174:26, 176:5,
177:28, 178:14,
179:10, 183:19,
185:13, 186:2
pagination [12] -
5:1, 5:2, 26:14,
26:16, 26:17,
26:22, 29:18,
37:4, 134:12,
141:5
paid [2] - 95:12,
113:16
palaver [2] -
145:6, 153:9
palaver" [1] -
147:24
papal [1] -
131:24
Papal [2] -
153:18, 153:21
paper [3] -
121:13, 141:20,
155:13
para [1] - 38:20
paragraph [99] -
5:17, 7:11, 8:10,
8:15, 8:16, 9:23,
10:21, 11:29,
15:21, 21:5,
21:22, 27:22,
29:22, 30:21,
31:9, 31:13,
33:13, 35:3,
35:21, 36:9,
36:16, 37:4,
37:16, 38:17,
38:19, 39:2,
39:29, 40:1, 41:6,
41:7, 44:8, 44:16,
44:17, 44:18,
45:2, 45:22,
46:23, 47:18,
49:24, 50:22,
50:26, 52:1,
52:21, 52:26,
53:6, 54:7, 54:16,
55:11, 57:21,
58:18, 58:21,
59:8, 59:22,
61:14, 62:1, 62:7,
63:10, 63:20,
63:29, 64:15,
67:18, 68:18,
68:20, 69:3, 71:1,
71:6, 72:22, 74:7,
94:6, 101:7,
102:11, 103:5,
104:3, 109:9,
109:11, 109:12,
110:12, 111:24,
111:26, 112:27,
113:25, 114:14,
115:24, 116:13,
117:14, 117:21,
121:20, 122:25,
123:8, 141:25,
161:17, 165:26,
167:29, 177:28,
179:9, 185:13
paragraphs [11]
- 13:11, 31:10,
37:2, 38:18, 96:3,
99:19, 107:15,
168:16, 168:19
parallel [7] -
34:2, 41:11,
42:13, 43:17,
45:18, 53:18,
54:9
parameters [2] -
68:22, 69:1
pardon [1] -
26:29
parent [1] -
129:21
parking [3] -
117:6, 117:7,
117:10
Parks [2] -
71:16, 74:17
part [25] - 3:18,
4:10, 14:22,
14:24, 22:3,
46:29, 64:29,
78:9, 80:9, 80:12,
91:2, 92:1, 98:24,
108:11, 119:25,
136:17, 137:9,
147:16, 147:17,
147:21, 149:24,
149:26, 150:2,
150:28, 151:3
Part [8] - 18:3,
156:16, 175:1,
178:22, 180:13,
180:14, 180:16,
180:17
partem [2] -
105:24, 123:16
participate [2] -
21:27, 101:27
participated [2]
- 85:15, 123:21
participating [4]
- 93:4, 93:16,
94:8, 99:28
participation
[31] - 15:2, 16:6,
60:26, 61:6, 61:9,
61:13, 61:18,
61:22, 62:2,
78:27, 81:8,
82:11, 83:4,
83:14, 84:11,
85:10, 85:20,
97:18, 97:21,
102:8, 107:5,
119:23, 123:7,
124:27, 125:4,
125:16, 125:21,
126:12, 126:19,
160:9, 160:10
particular [48] -
7:19, 19:22,
21:22, 23:4,
24:15, 28:1,
29:17, 41:6,
53:27, 53:29,
59:28, 63:2, 65:7,
69:24, 71:4, 82:5,
82:7, 82:16, 84:4,
88:15, 89:9,
92:23, 93:6, 93:9,
93:22, 100:21,
106:2, 106:28,
108:4, 114:5,
116:7, 121:15,
123:12, 123:15,
127:29, 128:10,
135:11, 159:7,
159:20, 160:12,
160:23, 168:9,
168:15, 174:17,
176:29, 177:26,
179:17, 182:20
particularity [1]
- 168:3
particularly [1] -
101:8
particulars [1] -
175:3
parties [23] -
5:25, 16:8, 42:10,
47:10, 71:19,
76:13, 76:14,
80:9, 80:12,
81:11, 82:18,
83:13, 86:23,
89:25, 89:26,
91:9, 91:17,
92:16, 98:10,
101:26, 118:3,
120:5, 120:27
Parties [1] -
72:11
PARTIES [1] -
1:20
parties' [2] -
108:17, 109:26
parts [1] -
111:12
PARTY [2] -
1:17, 1:22
Party [1] - 20:23
party [12] - 2:32,
47:11, 108:16,
108:25, 117:18,
117:26, 118:13,
118:16, 121:27,
123:24, 166:20,
175:14
party's [6] -
21:10, 108:15,
109:24, 111:14,
122:8, 126:4
pass [4] - 8:14,
106:28, 114:6,
161:9
passage [11] -
21:3, 21:4, 37:22,
55:12, 92:22,
104:24, 109:8,
109:11, 109:13,
175:17
passages [2] -
20:21, 92:21
passed [2] -
76:13, 171:29
past [3] - 37:12,
57:5, 125:15
PATRICIA [1] -
1:8
pause [4] -
43:20, 138:25,
176:18, 180:20
pausing [1] -
28:26
PD/98/1221 [1] -
173:2
Peart [5] - 20:18,
21:6, 21:23, 22:4,
68:23
peat [8] - 67:12,
67:23, 68:9,
68:25, 68:28,
69:15, 74:14,
74:15
people [3] -
69:29, 106:2,
107:10
per [2] - 5:8,
145:17
perceived [1] -
151:11
perception [1] -
173:18
perfectly [6] -
12:12, 12:21,
38:2, 60:8, 60:21,
78:18
performance [8]
- 139:6, 141:13,
142:1, 145:22,
148:18, 149:9,
152:19, 160:24
performing [3] -
93:16, 113:12
perhaps [1] -
132:18
perimeter [1] -
163:6
period [49] -
3:22, 4:3, 4:5,
4:13, 5:21, 7:20,
7:28, 9:6, 12:17,
12:20, 14:4,
15:25, 16:19,
16:25, 18:4, 18:6,
18:9, 18:13,
18:14, 18:16,
18:20, 18:22,
18:23, 18:25,
19:6, 19:18,
22:18, 35:12,
37:10, 40:23,
40:24, 50:26,
51:17, 51:22,
52:8, 87:9, 92:4,
92:5, 135:19,
144:3, 159:20,
168:8, 168:10,
168:14, 170:20,
174:17, 174:18
permissible [5] -
36:7, 121:18,
182:8, 182:12,
182:19
Permission [1] -
170:9
permission [138]
- 2:32, 5:4, 5:7,
5:10, 6:14, 6:15,
6:16, 6:19, 6:20,
7:19, 7:22, 9:2,
9:29, 10:5, 10:27,
12:7, 12:28, 13:1,
13:24, 14:9,
14:17, 14:27,
17:11, 17:27,
17:29, 18:2, 18:8,
18:22, 18:26,
18:29, 19:4,
19:11, 20:5, 20:7,
20:8, 20:9, 20:24,
21:10, 22:9,
23:22, 23:26,
24:16, 24:18,
24:27, 34:20,
34:22, 34:23,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
24
36:3, 37:7, 37:24,
37:27, 37:28,
38:6, 38:8, 38:25,
38:28, 39:15,
40:18, 40:21,
47:6, 48:12,
50:14, 66:14,
80:23, 81:17,
82:8, 82:12,
85:24, 86:5, 86:9,
86:18, 87:2,
87:21, 88:11,
88:24, 90:24,
91:21, 92:7,
97:19, 98:12,
101:12, 101:20,
101:25, 102:8,
117:4, 138:4,
145:24, 157:11,
159:20, 159:21,
160:23, 162:16,
165:7, 168:9,
168:15, 168:28,
168:29, 169:2,
169:26, 170:6,
170:13, 171:10,
171:19, 171:25,
171:27, 172:9,
172:11, 172:18,
172:20, 172:28,
172:29, 173:2,
173:4, 173:6,
173:12, 173:26,
174:17, 174:20,
175:2, 176:15,
176:23, 177:2,
177:13, 178:20,
179:18, 179:20,
179:29, 180:11,
181:28, 182:7,
182:10, 182:14,
182:15, 182:17,
182:27, 183:5,
183:29, 184:29
permission" [1]
- 44:27
permission' [2] -
176:29, 179:6
permissions [1]
- 177:3
permit [14] -
33:15, 34:1, 35:4,
36:8, 36:10,
51:18, 54:21,
55:20, 59:12,
59:20, 61:24,
99:10, 133:12
permits [1] -
119:28
permitted [10] -
34:21, 34:23,
68:27, 94:14,
94:28, 118:27,
122:29, 123:1,
163:17, 181:3
person [7] -
70:3, 100:3,
100:6, 100:17,
102:24, 148:16,
163:23
person's [1] -
100:10
personal [4] -
83:19, 129:6,
129:28, 135:15
personally [4] -
69:28, 70:12,
70:23, 137:14
persons [5] -
42:3, 104:22,
105:15, 121:25,
134:26
perspective [4] -
3:16, 4:4, 164:12,
164:22
persuaded [1] -
80:11
persuasive [2] -
132:16, 132:17
pertain [1] - 88:5
pertained [1] -
102:7
pertains [1] -
107:4
perusal [1] -
182:25
PETER [1] - 1:7
Pezinok [2] -
59:27, 60:14
phase [3] - 15:3,
124:12, 124:14
PHILIP [1] - 2:29
philosophical
[3] - 131:14,
131:23, 137:7
photocopied [1]
- 2:31
phrase [2] -
161:3, 177:1
physical [6] -
30:19, 33:10,
33:18, 34:15,
34:18, 35:6
pick [1] - 20:20
picks [1] -
169:22
picture [1] -
124:28
pile [1] - 137:3
place [15] -
53:23, 55:1,
84:29, 85:8,
90:13, 91:14,
91:15, 91:18,
135:29, 143:21,
147:7, 147:12,
147:15, 153:2,
156:2
placed [2] -
132:29, 133:2
places [1] -
177:27
Plaintiff [1] -
128:16
plaintiff [2] -
43:3, 45:7
Plaintiffs [1] -
96:28
plan [15] - 10:24,
31:3, 42:9, 112:3,
112:28, 139:8,
139:25, 139:26,
139:29, 140:1,
140:21, 142:4,
149:13, 171:5,
171:8
Plan [2] - 11:7,
158:8
planes [1] - 51:6
planned [3] -
48:25, 52:10,
52:14
Planner [3] -
163:24, 163:27,
170:22
Planner.. [1] -
163:20
Planning [98] -
6:12, 7:14, 7:27,
10:12, 11:4, 11:5,
11:15, 11:25,
13:19, 14:16,
15:7, 16:1, 16:3,
20:3, 21:13, 23:7,
24:12, 25:5, 25:6,
38:23, 50:10,
50:13, 79:6,
84:18, 85:5,
86:21, 87:1,
87:11, 87:26,
88:17, 88:18,
89:17, 89:23,
91:11, 91:14,
92:4, 92:15,
97:15, 98:25,
99:3, 101:17,
101:21, 101:23,
107:4, 118:7,
125:20, 126:12,
141:10, 141:27,
143:19, 143:27,
144:5, 144:18,
148:9, 156:7,
157:25, 158:2,
158:4, 158:5,
158:10, 158:18,
158:22, 159:4,
160:19, 160:21,
160:26, 161:2,
161:3, 161:13,
162:5, 164:12,
165:4, 167:20,
168:13, 173:21,
174:29, 175:5,
175:22, 176:13,
176:21, 177:1,
177:6, 177:8,
179:14, 180:4,
180:5, 180:11,
180:24, 182:14,
182:16, 182:28,
183:25, 184:3,
184:14, 184:17,
184:25, 186:10
planning [131] -
6:13, 6:15, 6:16,
6:19, 9:2, 10:5,
10:26, 10:29,
11:13, 11:23,
12:27, 13:24,
14:5, 14:27,
15:11, 15:13,
15:17, 15:22,
16:24, 17:27,
19:4, 19:11,
19:19, 20:4, 20:7,
20:9, 20:24,
21:10, 21:27,
22:8, 22:9, 22:16,
22:22, 22:27,
23:1, 23:21,
23:25, 24:15,
24:18, 24:26,
34:19, 37:24,
38:7, 38:26,
40:18, 40:21,
48:11, 50:14,
55:16, 66:14,
78:14, 78:22,
82:8, 82:12,
84:19, 85:9,
85:11, 85:15,
86:5, 86:9, 87:4,
87:16, 87:18,
87:27, 88:3, 88:7,
88:11, 91:21,
97:19, 98:12,
98:21, 101:12,
101:19, 102:8,
105:3, 105:15,
117:4, 117:19,
124:14, 125:21,
138:4, 142:2,
142:25, 142:29,
148:12, 161:27,
162:3, 164:25,
165:7, 167:4,
168:28, 168:29,
169:2, 169:9,
169:11, 169:17,
169:26, 170:13,
171:10, 171:13,
171:27, 172:9,
172:11, 173:2,
173:6, 173:12,
173:26, 174:16,
175:2, 176:15,
176:23, 178:5,
178:11, 178:20,
179:17, 179:20,
179:28, 181:28,
182:7, 182:10,
182:13, 182:26,
183:4, 183:14,
183:23, 183:29,
184:29
plans [11] -
59:27, 85:10,
86:28, 105:16,
138:14, 139:10,
142:6, 142:7,
145:29, 146:22,
182:25
plant [7] - 20:26,
67:12, 67:13,
67:24, 69:16,
71:28, 72:2
play [2] - 162:4,
167:14
PLC [1] - 1:17
pleadings [4] -
4:27, 66:21,
89:10, 141:16
Pleanála [25] -
3:12, 3:15, 3:19,
4:14, 34:7, 38:10,
45:21, 51:4, 55:2,
67:1, 67:11,
72:14, 73:13,
73:14, 74:19,
78:14, 78:23,
78:24, 85:11,
116:28, 120:1,
185:29, 186:12
pleased [2] -
70:6, 134:4
plenary [1] -
178:22
plot [1] - 168:28
point [64] -
27:17, 27:22,
27:29, 30:2, 30:3,
30:8, 30:12,
30:21, 31:12,
32:18, 32:29,
34:11, 34:23,
34:27, 35:8,
35:20, 35:24,
36:2, 36:14,
36:19, 50:19,
56:23, 57:23,
75:22, 77:26,
77:29, 85:4,
85:10, 85:26,
85:27, 90:8,
91:10, 91:20,
92:25, 96:22,
97:28, 98:11,
98:13, 99:22,
103:3, 107:10,
114:16, 115:22,
117:13, 118:9,
118:27, 119:1,
119:16, 120:8,
121:27, 122:27,
124:18, 125:10,
125:11, 125:29,
129:8, 129:24,
142:9, 147:1,
150:18, 152:27,
154:14, 179:8
Point [2] - 32:22,
79:28
pointed [2] -
88:8, 96:11
points [3] -
69:25, 110:29,
177:5
policy [7] - 84:4,
136:8, 144:19,
147:9, 149:11,
149:25, 151:26
political [1] -
135:16
Pope [1] - 137:3
population [1] -
127:21
portfolio [2] -
96:7, 113:21
posed [2] -
34:13, 104:13
posing [1] -
102:16
position [13] -
11:4, 51:27,
52:18, 64:28,
77:2, 82:18,
97:10, 111:15,
114:23, 115:5,
115:17, 115:18,
177:26
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
25
positive [5] -
15:17, 16:2,
136:26, 160:18,
176:12
possibility [4] -
4:25, 5:26, 59:28,
108:14
possible [11] -
15:8, 15:15,
15:18, 16:4, 58:4,
58:25, 79:16,
83:22, 91:6,
114:5, 151:26
possibly [4] -
27:27, 60:17,
61:24, 97:3
potential [7] -
5:11, 5:22, 90:23,
103:9, 110:1,
114:9, 116:23
potentially [1] -
82:10
power [18] -
22:7, 45:28, 46:6,
46:9, 46:12,
67:12, 67:24,
69:16, 71:28,
72:1, 96:14,
168:8, 176:13,
177:12, 181:9,
182:19, 185:25
PowerPoint [1] -
85:18
powers [10] -
95:2, 95:9,
102:26, 114:1,
114:2, 114:19,
137:23, 180:12,
181:21, 181:23
pp [2] - 104:26,
135:4
practical [2] -
109:5, 109:25
practice [1] -
113:13
practising [2] -
181:1, 181:4
pre [4] - 49:15,
50:5, 58:10,
84:27
pre-existing [4]
- 49:15, 50:5,
58:10, 84:27
precedent [1] -
131:5
preceding [2] -
11:29, 53:3
precise [6] -
109:16, 114:3,
128:24, 128:29,
130:26, 164:26
precisely [5] -
76:29, 77:1,
165:3, 165:10,
166:14
precluded [1] -
184:7
precludes [3] -
98:25, 168:5,
177:11
predicated [1] -
127:5
predominantly
[1] - 131:21
prefaced [1] -
94:21
preferred [1] -
106:5
prejudice [3] -
15:21, 18:4,
93:21
prepared [1] -
74:20
preproduction
[1] - 170:17
Presbyterian [1]
- 137:6
prescribed [7] -
46:15, 46:20,
151:4, 157:24,
158:23, 170:19,
186:13
prescribes [1] -
40:23
prescription [1]
- 160:9
presence [1] -
136:20
present [30] -
8:14, 17:6, 19:24,
19:25, 19:26,
22:4, 32:19, 34:3,
39:25, 41:12,
45:5, 45:19, 51:2,
56:19, 58:13,
60:22, 61:2,
64:21, 67:6,
67:16, 68:15,
71:3, 71:20, 72:4,
72:20, 75:14,
85:18, 123:19,
149:24, 151:11
presentations
[1] - 85:18
presented [2] -
17:17, 84:16
preserve [1] -
42:10
President [13] -
165:13, 166:23,
166:29, 167:10,
168:23, 169:22,
173:15, 174:13,
175:19, 177:24,
177:26, 178:13,
179:9
press [1] -
147:24
pressing [1] -
166:29
presumably [1] -
67:13
presume [1] -
74:20
presumed [1] -
126:2
prevent [2] -
182:9, 182:12
previous [5] -
31:27, 39:2,
60:18, 166:18,
179:9
previously [17] -
12:28, 17:18,
19:4, 29:8, 29:9,
29:10, 30:16,
30:17, 34:6,
35:23, 49:4,
49:27, 53:6,
88:10, 98:28,
103:27, 107:15
primarily [6] -
89:1, 90:29,
107:7, 157:20,
158:29, 161:1
primary [3] -
138:25, 181:26,
182:6
principal [5] -
45:6, 45:14,
81:29, 103:16,
117:28
principle [16] -
3:29, 8:8, 12:27,
26:2, 65:6, 65:24,
82:25, 101:5,
103:2, 107:29,
109:17, 128:1,
131:2, 132:23,
185:22, 185:24
principle' [1] -
73:22
principled [2] -
107:24, 111:23
principles [5] -
62:9, 117:23,
124:24, 136:7,
145:14
print [1] - 27:7
priority [1] -
73:21
prism [2] -
154:15, 154:27
prisons [1] -
134:26
privacy [1] -
131:7
private [1] -
106:6
Pro [18] - 27:25,
28:16, 29:14,
30:10, 30:24,
34:3, 34:14,
36:24, 47:20,
47:21, 47:23,
48:23, 49:10,
57:29, 62:25,
62:26, 62:28,
79:23
Pro-Baine [18] -
27:25, 28:16,
29:14, 30:10,
30:24, 34:3,
34:14, 36:24,
47:20, 47:21,
47:23, 48:23,
49:10, 57:29,
62:25, 62:26,
62:28, 79:23
probability [2] -
10:2, 177:9
problem [3] -
40:12, 108:21,
151:10
problems [2] -
131:1, 151:14
procedural [1] -
5:13
procedure [18] -
51:17, 51:18,
51:23, 53:18,
53:22, 54:3, 54:9,
54:26, 58:4, 58:7,
61:23, 61:24,
73:9, 100:7,
101:28, 122:28,
122:29, 160:3
procedures [26]
- 5:14, 81:26,
82:2, 82:4, 82:20,
83:10, 83:12,
84:22, 99:7,
99:21, 100:3,
101:3, 106:22,
107:27, 108:17,
109:27, 117:17,
122:18, 123:11,
123:15, 124:21,
125:6, 125:10,
125:23, 125:25,
126:20
procedures" [1]
- 121:21
procedures' [1]
- 108:27
proceed [9] -
9:21, 10:2, 32:1,
45:13, 46:14,
52:14, 67:13,
124:20, 184:4
proceeded [4] -
9:12, 13:7, 57:4,
76:17
proceedings
[22] - 33:4, 38:22,
39:13, 41:12,
44:25, 61:21,
67:6, 67:7, 67:8,
68:14, 68:15,
68:24, 71:20,
73:11, 73:25,
76:10, 76:16,
165:29, 166:8,
178:22, 184:20
process [25] -
3:14, 3:25, 5:26,
21:28, 28:6, 29:4,
30:18, 32:25,
35:14, 45:11,
82:12, 84:19,
85:2, 85:9, 85:15,
122:28, 123:21,
124:1, 124:4,
124:8, 124:13,
124:19, 144:24,
153:25, 153:28
processes [1] -
125:21
procured [1] -
170:18
procurement [1]
- 5:14
produce [2] -
129:16, 133:14
produced [1] -
87:23
production [1] -
128:23
Professor [2] -
127:25, 136:14
profitable [1] -
113:11
progress [1] -
142:2
project [52] -
4:11, 4:25, 5:11,
5:20, 5:27, 28:13,
28:23, 28:27,
28:28, 29:7, 29:8,
29:10, 29:20,
29:24, 30:1,
30:13, 30:14,
30:15, 30:17,
31:21, 33:24,
34:9, 34:24,
34:25, 35:9,
35:15, 35:25,
35:28, 43:12,
46:15, 46:21,
47:29, 48:11,
48:14, 48:17,
48:27, 49:4,
52:29, 53:12,
53:25, 55:21,
57:4, 58:3, 58:26,
59:12, 59:15,
60:1, 66:7, 66:9
project' [2] -
32:2, 35:7
projects [14] -
27:14, 27:18,
28:4, 28:25, 29:3,
29:15, 29:16,
30:4, 31:2, 32:8,
32:23, 32:24,
56:28, 57:24
Projects [1] -
27:17
projects' [1] -
32:9
projects... [1] -
28:21
prolong [2] -
55:24, 130:29
prolongation [2]
- 56:16, 56:17
prolonged [3] -
54:12, 56:14,
63:14
prolonged.. [1] -
56:2
prompted [1] -
106:9
promulgate [1] -
175:13
proof [3] - 73:11,
73:16, 73:26
proper [11] -
10:29, 11:13,
11:23, 87:4,
87:18, 87:26,
88:3, 88:7, 98:21,
115:15, 148:12
properly [4] -
67:24, 77:27,
84:5, 125:17
properties [4] -
96:11, 103:19,
103:22, 115:7
property [27] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
26
95:4, 96:7, 96:17,
96:24, 97:1, 97:4,
100:23, 103:20,
104:28, 104:29,
105:2, 105:8,
105:27, 106:3,
106:7, 106:11,
107:2, 108:1,
110:2, 110:3,
110:4, 110:18,
110:19, 111:17,
113:17, 115:6,
115:13
proportionatel
y [2] - 82:20,
126:10
propose [9] -
6:5, 81:17, 84:12,
103:28, 117:2,
122:16, 127:26,
153:27
proposed [11] -
14:7, 48:10,
68:11, 77:17,
94:8, 97:25,
100:1, 100:10,
130:21, 144:1,
169:8
proposes [1] -
94:2
proposing [1] -
95:26
proposition [4] -
6:7, 38:2, 49:11,
83:8
prospective [1] -
48:26
protected [8] -
66:11, 66:22,
75:15, 75:16,
103:20, 103:22,
104:29
protection [1] -
77:14
prove [4] - 10:1,
91:13, 116:26
provide [12] -
76:27, 77:17,
97:20, 124:6,
134:9, 134:17,
134:29, 138:14,
138:23, 138:26,
146:9, 175:14
provided [10] -
5:8, 7:23, 8:2,
22:16, 22:20,
22:28, 42:18,
70:19, 97:22,
176:1
provides [12] -
17:2, 25:4, 36:17,
49:10, 50:26,
89:22, 92:2, 94:1,
105:20, 138:12,
139:17, 180:3
providing [3] -
85:15, 126:14,
160:3
provision [32] -
7:7, 8:17, 8:22,
9:8, 12:11, 12:12,
12:24, 13:8,
13:17, 13:23,
14:25, 16:27,
17:26, 29:17,
42:17, 47:27,
51:29, 56:28,
63:9, 63:17,
63:19, 73:5,
87:25, 94:11,
100:15, 117:7,
156:6, 156:13,
174:13, 185:20,
186:9
provisions [26] -
11:6, 13:11, 15:5,
15:29, 19:8,
21:19, 33:2,
65:14, 65:23,
69:7, 74:25,
113:29, 114:6,
126:15, 134:16,
135:14, 136:13,
141:1, 156:8,
158:7, 168:3,
174:23, 181:2,
181:10, 181:11,
181:13
proviso [1] -
62:12
proximity [1] -
72:5
Public [2] -
104:2, 104:8
public [46] -
15:2, 16:6, 17:3,
17:4, 17:5, 21:2,
22:11, 42:27,
60:26, 61:6, 61:8,
61:13, 61:17,
61:22, 62:2, 62:3,
62:15, 78:6, 78:7,
78:20, 78:27,
81:8, 83:4, 83:14,
84:11, 85:9,
85:20, 97:18,
102:25, 104:23,
105:11, 105:29,
106:3, 106:5,
106:8, 107:5,
123:7, 126:12,
126:18, 141:11,
141:28, 148:18,
149:25, 149:28,
160:9
publication [1] -
105:20
publish [1] -
22:12
punched [2] -
67:3, 116:27
purchase [1] -
106:15
purported [1] -
128:6
purports [1] -
120:14
purpose [29] -
6:20, 42:7, 57:25,
84:26, 138:16,
138:26, 140:15,
149:3, 149:4,
150:3, 157:4,
157:6, 157:7,
157:8, 159:16,
159:19, 159:22,
167:12, 174:10,
174:22, 180:21,
181:14, 181:16,
181:22, 181:23,
182:20, 185:26
purposes [15] -
6:4, 8:14, 22:4,
32:19, 41:23,
43:7, 46:16,
59:19, 64:21,
67:25, 93:6,
108:6, 167:8,
180:17, 180:22
purposive [1] -
132:2
pursuance [1] -
114:26
pursuant [18] -
9:2, 10:5, 14:26,
18:5, 18:23,
41:21, 42:28,
43:9, 49:13,
56:27, 68:1, 68:8,
86:18, 96:18,
177:16, 180:12,
181:2, 183:26
pursue [2] -
138:27, 140:15
pursued [1] -
79:13
pursuing [1] -
138:16
put [19] - 9:18,
62:18, 64:22,
64:28, 66:24,
75:5, 76:22,
89:10, 100:19,
106:14, 108:3,
120:24, 124:11,
147:12, 147:14,
148:22, 152:1,
152:4, 167:6
puts [1] - 114:17
putting [1] -
16:14
Q
qualification [1]
- 109:7
quality [1] -
104:16
Quarries [4] -
47:2, 155:26,
155:29, 159:8
quarry [3] -
38:24, 39:4,
185:29
Quarry [3] -
37:7, 38:22,
39:22
quarrying [1] -
37:8
quashed [3] -
21:9, 117:10,
185:4
queries' [1] -
169:20
questions [10] -
102:23, 112:23,
126:21, 153:6,
157:26, 158:3,
158:23, 164:26,
170:10
quick [1] -
186:24
quickly [1] -
155:20
Quinn [1] -
136:14
quintessentiall
y [1] - 178:4
quite [17] -
16:16, 30:5,
41:15, 62:21,
70:9, 73:25, 83:5,
86:18, 89:21,
92:24, 97:11,
99:15, 137:25,
148:28, 162:2,
166:17, 173:17
quote [2] -
168:1, 176:25
quoted [4] -
32:29, 108:12,
109:11, 162:11
quotes [4] -
44:16, 73:5,
172:15
quoting [1] -
110:13
R
raise [2] - 22:26,
69:25
raised [3] -
126:24, 154:24,
164:26
raising [1] -
45:15
rake [1] - 38:3
range [1] - 10:13
rate [1] - 106:6
Rathdown [2] -
41:17, 42:20
rather [19] -
38:6, 40:23,
41:24, 84:19,
87:24, 89:26,
91:28, 106:4,
107:17, 119:3,
119:15, 122:29,
130:18, 135:16,
145:21, 151:22,
169:14, 176:14,
184:1
ratio [1] - 125:8
rationale [1] -
99:5
Re [1] - 180:29
re [1] - 16:15
re-extensions
[1] - 16:15
reached [4] -
83:29, 129:8,
143:28, 184:4
reaching [1] -
184:3
read [8] - 5:3,
17:16, 19:3,
95:26, 100:14,
120:18, 145:5,
184:15
reaffirmation [1]
- 155:19
real [5] - 96:17,
96:25, 108:17,
109:24, 111:13
reality [1] - 97:1
really [19] - 3:25,
5:28, 11:19, 19:6,
24:8, 25:1, 36:23,
38:17, 46:23,
49:19, 51:10,
52:17, 67:15,
70:14, 151:12,
151:24, 154:18,
166:10, 179:4
reason [14] -
43:10, 50:18,
82:6, 83:21, 91:8,
96:19, 99:14,
115:14, 123:6,
126:13, 152:28,
173:9, 173:17,
185:1
reasonable [7] -
5:20, 21:17,
22:23, 108:2,
113:4, 118:5,
177:10
reasoning [4] -
145:16, 145:25,
148:29, 152:25
reasons [16] -
27:24, 45:24,
51:3, 70:20,
80:17, 82:21,
95:21, 100:19,
108:3, 122:13,
146:6, 146:9,
152:14, 152:24,
153:11, 175:6
receive [2] -
134:8, 134:28
received [1] -
48:14
recent [8] -
63:24, 64:13,
70:5, 131:24,
139:8, 139:9,
143:27, 174:12
recite [1] -
151:25
recognise [1] -
137:17
recognised [5] -
84:2, 132:29,
136:4, 143:12,
143:16
recognition [1] -
135:7
recommenced
[1] - 42:28
reconsideratio
n [1] - 46:1
Record [1] - 1:5
record [1] -
100:14
recovering [2] -
95:12, 113:15
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
27
REDMOND [2] -
1:7, 1:7
reduce [1] -
150:24
reduced [1] -
115:7
reducing [4] -
104:27, 140:5,
140:6, 150:21
reduction [2] -
142:26, 143:1
reduction) [1] -
143:25
reductions [2] -
143:18, 143:23
reenacted [1] -
155:9
reenforced [1] -
30:9
reevaluated [1] -
60:1
refer [10] -
36:25, 52:17,
119:21, 120:11,
136:7, 149:14,
156:6, 174:5,
181:16, 185:12
reference [30] -
4:26, 27:9, 28:12,
32:15, 57:14,
58:15, 58:20,
71:22, 79:17,
80:2, 80:3, 80:8,
80:11, 80:20,
135:24, 162:10,
163:24, 164:2,
169:9, 173:2,
174:26, 177:19,
178:1, 178:2,
179:6, 180:21,
181:16, 186:1
referenced [2] -
141:12, 141:29
referenda [1] -
135:28
referred [33] -
6:20, 22:21,
24:21, 27:14,
27:18, 32:23,
39:1, 48:17,
63:24, 63:29,
64:13, 64:14,
65:3, 74:3, 77:26,
90:27, 94:4,
112:29, 119:21,
127:24, 130:19,
131:14, 140:18,
146:23, 155:27,
157:10, 157:12,
157:18, 161:23,
168:23, 175:21,
176:23, 179:23
referring [1] -
167:10
refers [14] -
24:3, 24:5, 33:9,
71:26, 147:11,
156:1, 167:10,
173:2, 176:28,
177:26, 178:29,
180:27, 183:10,
183:18
refined [1] -
81:23
refusal [5] -
172:24, 172:26,
173:18, 175:7,
185:1
refuse [12] -
23:18, 24:17,
24:23, 145:13,
145:23, 172:28,
175:6, 175:8,
179:19, 179:25,
181:4, 185:3
refused [5] -
23:13, 47:4,
101:25, 117:4,
181:2
refusing [1] -
180:15
regard [71] -
4:12, 5:27, 17:25,
24:16, 31:23,
39:11, 40:4,
44:23, 60:1,
61:16, 73:28,
81:21, 82:10,
87:19, 88:3, 90:8,
93:5, 102:29,
111:16, 116:5,
116:10, 117:12,
128:29, 129:27,
139:1, 139:7,
141:1, 141:12,
141:29, 142:13,
143:9, 144:29,
145:1, 145:2,
145:3, 145:4,
145:5, 145:7,
145:8, 146:3,
146:7, 146:22,
147:29, 148:4,
148:5, 148:6,
148:8, 148:14,
148:17, 149:4,
149:9, 149:12,
149:14, 149:15,
149:23, 151:17,
151:25, 152:2,
152:6, 152:8,
152:12, 155:3,
155:7, 167:24,
169:8, 175:25,
177:2, 178:7,
179:18, 183:1,
186:6
regards [8] -
7:19, 15:13, 18:6,
60:4, 144:20,
168:9, 168:14,
174:16
regime [3] -
95:20, 95:21,
143:15
regional [5] -
10:25, 11:8,
86:29
register [2] -
17:3
registered [1] -
38:25
REGISTRAR [2]
- 3:4, 111:9
regret [1] - 134:2
regulate [1] -
46:13
regulation [4] -
45:14, 47:27,
175:3, 175:4
regulations [12]
- 15:12, 77:28,
78:5, 78:10, 79:3,
105:3, 105:19,
160:3, 160:14,
175:13, 181:25
Regulations [9]
- 77:24, 78:5,
78:29, 79:8,
160:8, 174:29,
175:1, 175:9
regulatory [1] -
154:12
REILLY [1] - 1:8
reiteration [1] -
118:15
rejoinder [1] -
132:15
relate [4] - 4:10,
4:18, 74:13,
116:15
related [5] -
3:29, 67:10,
97:25, 99:27,
172:20
relates [12] -
3:14, 7:23, 17:12,
18:9, 92:7, 116:4,
174:20, 181:28,
182:8, 182:10,
182:14, 182:17
relating [4] -
75:28, 105:4,
136:28, 177:3
relation [52] -
3:25, 3:27, 6:19,
11:19, 13:21,
17:11, 18:22,
21:1, 23:4, 23:13,
25:19, 26:8,
35:15, 42:19,
51:4, 53:25,
62:20, 65:9, 66:5,
66:15, 66:16,
72:19, 72:21,
75:18, 77:7, 78:2,
78:6, 78:20, 79:4,
87:8, 87:21,
136:13, 138:15,
142:3, 142:23,
142:24, 159:15,
159:19, 160:4,
160:14, 160:22,
160:24, 164:16,
164:24, 165:4,
174:10, 176:8,
176:15, 176:24,
177:8, 179:5,
184:7
relationship [2]
- 113:12, 114:21
relatively [1] -
9:28
relevance [6] -
19:7, 46:24,
123:3, 166:4,
166:22
relevant [50] -
4:13, 6:23, 7:28,
8:13, 11:6, 11:9,
13:12, 15:28,
19:24, 21:2, 22:4,
23:22, 25:2,
27:26, 32:18,
49:23, 50:10,
50:13, 50:23,
52:23, 53:1,
54:10, 54:18,
54:28, 62:20,
62:23, 62:28,
68:26, 70:28,
75:25, 77:7, 78:1,
79:1, 88:9, 93:28,
100:8, 105:18,
123:25, 139:6,
139:18, 145:15,
149:18, 149:19,
149:21, 151:19,
176:7, 180:11,
183:8, 186:11
relied [6] - 74:3,
74:8, 74:25,
81:16, 132:6,
184:29
relief [7] - 21:26,
42:3, 67:14,
67:16, 68:13,
68:14, 75:10
reliefs [1] - 74:4
relies [1] - 71:8
relies. [1] -
72:13
rely [13] - 41:6,
48:5, 66:2, 75:26,
81:18, 84:8,
95:15, 113:10,
113:13, 114:24,
117:2, 120:15,
131:19
relying [3] -
21:19, 69:7,
185:17
remain [3] -
6:16, 20:8, 20:9
remained [2] -
48:26, 87:6
remaining [2] -
13:10, 80:24
remains [2] -
6:17, 98:26
remarks [1] -
128:22
remedial [2] -
156:20, 156:21
remedy [1] -
83:25
remember [2] -
134:6, 145:27
remembered [1]
- 123:18
remind [1] -
145:26
remit [1] -
114:22
removal [3] -
89:14, 163:4,
163:13
rendered [1] -
104:17
renew [1] -
95:14
renewable [1] -
52:8
renewal [3] -
33:15, 35:3,
36:10
renewed [1] -
113:5
reopen [2] -
81:9, 92:20
reopening [2] -
88:6, 92:20
repeat [4] - 58:6,
61:17, 81:9,
103:17
repeated [3] -
155:8, 159:17,
160:29
replace [3] -
39:14, 39:28,
44:26
replaced [2] -
44:19, 117:29
replaces [1] -
114:19
replied [1] -
171:4
reply [6] - 118:9,
120:29, 124:7,
169:28, 187:9,
187:15
Report [3] -
4:22, 4:24, 5:2
report [14] -
44:15, 71:11,
71:23, 71:26,
74:16, 128:20,
128:21, 161:22,
161:27, 162:9,
184:15, 185:13
reported [1] -
171:15
reports [3] -
127:25, 128:27,
148:28
representation
s [6] - 85:19,
96:20, 102:28,
116:5, 116:8,
121:19
represented [1]
- 70:18
representing [1]
- 25:22
represents [1] -
58:25
reproduced [1] -
2:31
reputation [1] -
103:25
request [4] -
52:9, 54:10,
56:13, 170:23
requested [2] -
170:26, 171:8
require [13] -
27:19, 28:1,
28:29, 48:18,
105:23, 107:5,
114:10, 120:5,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
28
135:8, 145:12,
148:23, 152:2,
152:13
required [25] -
4:14, 7:28, 12:6,
21:15, 31:1,
42:19, 47:29,
61:13, 78:11,
82:26, 88:23,
88:28, 100:3,
110:9, 112:19,
112:24, 116:13,
121:3, 145:9,
145:16, 147:26,
153:3, 160:26,
162:15, 177:7
requirement [7]
- 15:29, 61:6,
66:13, 78:20,
109:2, 141:28,
146:2
requirements
[16] - 5:15, 7:24,
7:29, 8:2, 15:11,
21:12, 22:20,
41:24, 45:26,
55:22, 55:29,
59:18, 124:21,
141:11, 160:13,
178:26
requires [15] -
34:25, 55:21,
66:8, 73:2,
109:17, 119:25,
143:13, 146:18,
146:21, 147:10,
152:11, 160:20,
168:7, 175:5,
184:6
requiring [4] -
14:6, 14:18, 48:2,
169:16
requisite [4] -
7:21, 22:19, 92:6,
174:19
reserved [2] -
38:27, 39:21
resident [1] -
20:29
resident's [1] -
127:17
residential [1] -
117:5
residents [1] -
92:14
residual [2] -
24:21, 179:23
resilient [3] -
138:17, 140:17,
140:26
resourced [1] -
75:4
resources [4] -
29:28, 76:3, 93:6,
137:21
respect [33] -
13:20, 28:17,
55:27, 68:9,
68:25, 73:16,
76:7, 81:18, 83:5,
84:4, 84:6, 87:16,
88:8, 98:18,
98:29, 99:21,
106:29, 110:29,
115:29, 116:19,
119:6, 119:22,
121:26, 122:15,
122:25, 126:1,
126:18, 127:2,
134:25, 150:6,
152:14, 166:3,
166:19
respectful [20] -
28:14, 33:26,
34:26, 36:16,
47:20, 62:27,
72:18, 75:17,
120:9, 147:26,
149:20, 155:4,
157:5, 158:2,
161:5, 161:12,
167:17, 167:23,
184:11, 184:18
respectfully [9] -
3:17, 9:28, 10:7,
10:12, 25:16,
25:20, 36:21,
80:18, 147:23
respects [2] -
103:12, 168:10
respond [1] -
124:6
RESPONDENT
[1] - 1:15
respondent [7] -
2:32, 21:9, 21:14,
47:26, 121:28,
124:6, 124:9
Respondent [16]
- 34:14, 68:7,
71:13, 72:10,
73:27, 74:23,
74:25, 117:5,
117:16, 121:24,
169:6, 171:8,
172:24, 178:18,
180:16, 185:19
respondent's
[1] - 122:12
Respondent's
[2] - 71:10, 71:26
Respondent..
[1] - 173:19
Respondents
[4] - 24:19, 67:29,
117:12, 179:21
response [3] -
122:6, 122:8,
123:23
responses [1] -
144:20
responsibilitie
s [1] - 5:12
rest [5] - 84:18,
109:29, 119:13,
158:20, 166:13
resting [2] -
73:11, 73:27
restraint [2] -
131:7, 131:12
restricted [1] -
57:3
restricting [1] -
107:24
rests [2] -
153:12, 154:22
result [4] -
60:14, 68:11,
117:7, 150:25
resulted [2] -
37:10, 89:1
resulting [1] -
105:8
results [1] -
169:15
resume [2] -
38:24, 144:11
Resume [1] - 3:4
resumed [2] -
37:9, 111:9
RESUMED [2] -
3:8, 44:1
resumption [1] -
37:10
retail [1] - 117:5
retaining [1] -
170:14
return [1] -
87:14
reveal [1] -
118:19
reversed [1] -
179:3
review [21] -
17:5, 23:17,
55:28, 62:5,
67:23, 68:7,
68:24, 73:2,
73:10, 73:17,
73:25, 74:4,
85:24, 85:27,
86:21, 89:27,
105:22, 106:4,
145:14, 150:5,
178:23
reviewed [1] -
78:16
reviewing [1] -
124:20
revised [2] -
161:11, 171:5
RICE [1] - 1:8
right-hand [1] -
26:15
right.. [1] - 96:1
rights [63] -
61:22, 62:3, 65:8,
81:7, 83:24, 84:1,
91:27, 96:17,
96:24, 97:1,
97:26, 100:10,
100:29, 101:1,
102:7, 102:15,
103:14, 103:20,
103:24, 104:15,
104:17, 105:1,
105:27, 106:24,
106:25, 108:9,
108:10, 108:16,
108:18, 108:23,
109:3, 109:6,
109:25, 109:26,
110:2, 110:4,
110:18, 111:14,
111:17, 111:26,
115:6, 118:25,
126:5, 127:4,
127:11, 129:6,
129:12, 129:28,
130:9, 130:14,
130:17, 131:8,
132:7, 135:15,
135:18, 136:1,
136:3, 136:12,
136:17, 136:27,
176:23, 187:11
Rights [1] -
132:22
rights' [1] -
104:10
rights....has [1] -
134:22
rigid [2] - 101:2,
107:26
rise [1] - 36:27
risk [13] - 75:15,
76:28, 87:23,
88:10, 96:11,
96:17, 96:25,
99:5, 108:17,
109:24, 111:13,
127:21, 152:17
River [10] -
69:17, 69:18,
71:13, 71:14,
71:15, 71:17,
71:27
road [11] - 21:2,
41:19, 42:7, 42:9,
45:12, 46:2, 46:7,
46:14, 46:17,
169:13, 170:3
Roads [2] -
41:22, 41:25
roadway [1] -
42:22
robust [1] -
124:25
Rock [1] -
155:28
role [3] - 85:4,
119:23, 162:4
roman [1] -
167:19
ROONEY [1] -
1:10
Rooskey [1] -
168:28
Roscommon [6]
- 23:12, 23:14,
165:1, 168:28,
185:23, 186:7
rose [1] - 183:15
Ross [1] -
106:18
routinely [1] -
113:5
rule [3] - 73:1,
105:23, 123:16
ruled [4] - 59:29,
66:12, 75:29,
76:21
rules [5] - 101:2,
106:10, 106:11,
107:26, 120:5
Rules [2] - 73:1,
74:25
run [1] - 124:16
running [2] -
4:16, 37:11
runs [1] - 83:11
runway [27] -
3:23, 4:1, 4:2,
4:16, 4:19, 28:26,
28:28, 36:2, 36:5,
51:5, 51:7, 66:23,
72:6, 101:13,
101:15, 101:17,
101:18, 127:13,
127:23, 128:18,
128:26, 138:1,
150:8, 150:22,
150:25
Runway [3] -
87:9, 162:19,
162:24
runways [1] -
51:8
RYAN [1] - 1:9
Ryan [2] -
128:13, 130:10
RYANAIR [2] -
1:22, 2:27
Ryanair [1] -
150:20
S
SAC [3] - 71:15,
71:17, 71:27
SACs [2] -
76:27, 76:28
safeguard [1] -
11:3
sake [1] - 65:26
SALAGEAN [1] -
1:9
sale [1] - 96:14
salient [1] -
96:22
SAME [2] - 67:2,
155:17
satisfaction [1] -
169:18
satisfactory [3] -
13:22, 14:7,
181:7
satisfied [24] -
5:13, 22:22, 25:5,
45:24, 55:29,
63:23, 73:25,
74:6, 75:10,
108:14, 161:2,
161:3, 161:14,
177:9, 177:15,
180:4, 180:14,
181:26, 182:23,
182:25, 182:27,
183:24, 184:6,
184:25
satisfied' [1] -
160:21
save [4] - 83:27,
120:17, 131:4,
131:16
saw [3] - 23:6,
53:21, 110:12
says' [1] - 69:27
SC [7] - 2:4,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
29
2:13, 2:18, 2:18,
2:22, 2:23, 2:27
scale [3] - 48:27,
151:9, 151:10
schedule [1] -
94:3
schedule') [1] -
94:4
scheme [12] -
22:12, 22:15,
97:21, 100:5,
101:29, 110:15,
110:22, 117:28,
118:7, 119:26,
119:28, 144:13
Scheme [1] -
150:23
schemes [3] -
9:11, 29:25,
158:9
scientific [1] -
131:20
scope [8] - 6:14,
14:25, 20:6,
33:24, 117:11,
127:28, 133:7,
184:26
scopes [1] -
133:8
screening [7] -
78:10, 78:16,
78:17, 78:23,
78:25, 90:18,
91:1
SCULLY [1] -
1:8
se [1] - 145:17
SECOND [1] -
1:20
Second [14] -
67:28, 69:6, 71:8,
72:10, 72:26,
74:2, 74:3, 74:9,
74:13, 74:16,
74:24, 75:2,
121:27, 122:18
second [17] -
21:5, 21:8, 26:29,
82:18, 83:2,
84:29, 91:2,
93:13, 97:17,
100:15, 116:25,
122:8, 122:16,
122:25, 123:10,
123:23, 126:26
secondly [14] -
16:2, 20:5, 22:7,
27:26, 40:11,
46:15, 83:26,
86:27, 110:7,
128:5, 128:9,
133:8, 151:2,
157:15
Secretary [2] -
37:19, 44:13
Section [119] -
6:2, 6:7, 6:9,
6:12, 6:21, 6:23,
7:1, 7:4, 8:17,
11:15, 13:11,
19:2, 19:3, 20:1,
20:13, 20:28,
20:29, 21:20,
21:21, 25:17,
89:2, 92:29, 94:1,
94:14, 96:19,
97:12, 146:21,
148:7, 149:22,
150:3, 150:4,
151:2, 151:3,
151:21, 152:5,
152:13, 153:25,
153:27, 153:29,
154:8, 154:9,
154:10, 154:13,
154:18, 154:21,
155:7, 155:9,
156:1, 156:2,
156:11, 156:16,
157:2, 157:4,
157:5, 157:8,
157:19, 157:20,
157:28, 158:29,
159:1, 159:17,
159:18, 159:23,
159:29, 160:2,
160:4, 160:16,
160:20, 162:3,
162:11, 164:13,
164:14, 164:23,
164:28, 165:15,
165:16, 165:22,
166:5, 166:13,
166:16, 167:12,
167:18, 168:3,
168:11, 174:10,
174:11, 174:12,
174:14, 175:18,
175:23, 175:24,
176:27, 177:4,
177:11, 177:16,
178:26, 180:13,
180:25, 181:3,
181:9, 181:26,
182:4, 182:6,
182:28, 183:26,
184:2, 184:5,
184:13, 184:26,
186:4, 186:9
section [137] -
6:23, 6:29, 7:2,
7:29, 12:20,
13:27, 14:13,
14:15, 14:16,
15:5, 15:10,
15:12, 15:24,
16:24, 17:10,
17:11, 17:16,
17:17, 17:26,
17:29, 18:19,
18:23, 18:28,
19:2, 19:3, 21:12,
21:15, 22:16,
23:7, 23:13,
23:18, 23:26,
24:20, 25:4,
25:19, 25:22,
26:6, 33:29, 34:4,
34:19, 35:28,
36:7, 36:8, 39:26,
40:16, 41:10,
42:17, 42:25,
43:4, 43:10,
45:25, 45:29,
46:9, 46:20, 47:5,
47:29, 48:15,
49:13, 49:16,
56:20, 65:22,
65:24, 66:5, 66:6,
81:5, 82:15,
82:28, 84:12,
84:16, 84:26,
84:27, 84:29,
85:5, 85:26, 86:1,
86:6, 86:8, 86:11,
89:2, 89:22,
90:28, 91:2, 91:9,
97:20, 101:21,
116:20, 117:25,
119:27, 121:17,
123:1, 125:17,
126:3, 126:14,
126:27, 126:28,
138:6, 139:3,
139:4, 139:21,
139:23, 139:27,
140:2, 140:10,
140:12, 140:24,
141:1, 141:10,
141:11, 141:13,
141:27, 141:28,
142:1, 142:16,
142:23, 145:10,
145:11, 145:13,
145:17, 145:25,
146:18, 156:12,
167:9, 168:5,
169:17, 169:26,
169:27, 176:8,
179:22, 180:3,
180:22, 182:8,
182:12, 183:1,
183:4
section.. [1] -
19:20
sections [3] -
174:24, 175:26,
176:2
sector [3] -
147:3, 147:4,
147:6
sectoral [4] -
139:10, 139:29,
140:1, 142:6
security [4] -
13:21, 14:6,
14:18, 163:6
seduced [1] -
80:3
see [61] - 4:15,
8:23, 11:5, 13:23,
15:5, 17:27,
19:16, 20:18,
20:21, 22:2, 23:6,
24:1, 27:29,
29:22, 31:10,
37:1, 41:4, 41:16,
43:1, 43:18, 44:8,
44:29, 50:24,
51:13, 51:23,
51:29, 52:22,
52:25, 53:4, 53:8,
54:16, 63:20,
64:8, 64:10, 67:6,
67:16, 67:17,
67:20, 68:17,
72:16, 72:22,
73:6, 79:23,
95:23, 112:23,
136:25, 152:3,
156:6, 156:17,
159:29, 160:8,
160:29, 161:8,
162:21, 163:22,
166:11, 171:22,
174:9, 177:24,
178:1, 185:28
seek [8] - 21:26,
38:26, 75:27,
76:11, 99:1, 99:2,
132:14, 143:18
seeking [1] -
180:16
seeks [3] - 21:8,
21:26, 62:18
selection [1] -
97:14
selectively [1] -
94:15
self [1] - 78:17
self-
assessment [1] -
78:17
sell [1] - 95:3
Senior [4] -
163:19, 163:24,
163:27, 170:22
sense [5] -
57:26, 96:16,
106:25, 136:3,
178:8
sensible [2] -
16:27, 124:24
sensitive [1] -
60:4
sentence [7] -
20:22, 22:3,
32:20, 51:14,
58:14, 64:8,
185:17
separate [8] -
60:25, 66:12,
69:8, 79:6, 98:20,
102:14, 137:16,
141:1
series [1] -
25:26
serious [2] -
72:25, 136:25
seriously [3] -
125:3, 165:21,
184:19
serve [1] - 94:3
service [3] -
163:7, 163:12,
163:16
Service [3] -
2:32, 71:16,
74:17
services [3] -
134:10, 135:1,
144:25
Services [2] -
1:27, 2:31
SERVICES [1] -
1:32
set [26] - 7:29,
32:6, 64:10,
64:12, 92:27,
93:1, 103:12,
125:26, 133:29,
137:26, 139:2,
142:20, 148:23,
154:13, 154:25,
157:24, 159:15,
162:21, 164:14,
164:15, 168:16,
171:1, 172:12,
172:25, 177:5,
184:16
sets [12] - 4:8,
4:17, 26:13,
38:11, 67:7,
146:28, 162:2,
172:5, 172:12,
174:23, 175:3,
176:2
setting [2] -
18:28, 144:2
settled [1] -
73:12
seven [2] -
95:11, 113:18
several [1] -
49:26
sewerage [2] -
20:25, 106:1
shall [16] -
15:14, 15:22,
15:23, 16:19,
16:24, 17:11,
18:3, 22:17,
51:16, 63:23,
92:4, 94:3, 139:6,
140:19, 174:16,
187:19
shall" [2] - 7:17,
7:27
shall... [1] - 7:15
sharp [1] - 108:7
SHEELAGH [1] -
1:9
shock [1] - 9:5
shopping [1] -
20:24
SHORT [1] -
43:27
short [15] - 21:4,
37:9, 75:2, 95:29,
96:6, 97:4,
109:22, 114:23,
124:26, 165:24,
168:1, 181:12,
185:17, 186:1,
187:1
short-changed
[1] - 124:26
shortage [1] -
9:10
show [3] -
114:8, 118:13,
133:15
showing [5] -
111:21, 112:28,
118:20, 118:26,
119:18
shown [3] -
102:14, 105:7,
169:11
shows [1] -
186:11
shut [2] - 37:14,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
30
118:12
side [2] - 150:29,
186:21
sides [1] - 118:4
SIDNEY [1] - 1:9
significance [6]
- 11:16, 41:20,
59:5, 61:4, 62:17,
135:27
significant [28] -
4:2, 4:10, 10:23,
11:12, 12:10,
13:2, 25:16, 28:7,
32:26, 33:6,
49:26, 50:12,
50:18, 55:3, 55:4,
56:28, 58:3,
58:25, 59:3, 61:1,
61:11, 62:10,
62:22, 69:16,
76:3, 86:27,
110:5, 124:3
significantly [9]
- 10:14, 27:25,
98:1, 112:7,
112:10, 171:19,
173:1, 173:11,
178:19
SILE [1] - 1:9
similar [6] -
65:24, 68:14,
71:2, 72:4, 75:12,
174:4
similarly [1] -
48:14
SIMONS [2] -
2:18, 187:5
Simons [2] -
154:25, 187:2
simple [5] -
88:27, 89:5,
148:29, 166:14,
166:17
simpliciter [1] -
185:1
simply [30] -
7:12, 9:24, 10:3,
17:1, 18:28,
19:10, 26:2, 27:6,
38:3, 40:17,
66:18, 78:1, 83:5,
85:29, 87:28,
88:4, 89:21, 90:3,
90:12, 119:3,
119:15, 127:26,
133:3, 133:16,
145:8, 146:2,
148:19, 161:4,
161:14, 165:12
simulator [1] -
163:9
single [1] -
131:10
sinks [1] - 140:7
sit [1] - 186:17
site [25] - 22:14,
30:28, 33:3,
33:16, 33:18,
35:4, 35:7, 41:19,
41:28, 54:22,
60:15, 66:11,
71:13, 71:14,
73:20, 74:19,
163:6, 163:19,
163:27, 169:10,
170:25, 171:5,
171:7
site.. [1] - 33:10
sites [4] - 32:13,
66:22, 68:4,
75:16
sits [1] - 133:15
sitting [1] -
165:6
situation [5] -
13:27, 54:24,
55:1, 97:17,
114:18
situations [1] -
29:7
size [3] - 5:11,
5:20, 57:1
skipped [1] -
21:20
slab [1] - 170:14
slightly [3] -
17:20, 79:3,
84:14
slope [2] -
165:6, 169:16
slotted [1] - 67:4
Slovak [3] -
50:23, 50:26,
51:27
Slovakia [2] -
52:25, 54:4
slow [1] - 25:29
small [1] - 35:11
smoke [1] -
163:9
social [5] -
134:10, 134:29,
135:25, 136:6,
136:8
societies [1] -
135:19
Society [4] -
167:11, 181:4,
181:19, 181:21
socio [7] -
133:28, 134:19,
136:12, 136:16,
136:19, 136:27,
137:10
socio-
economic [7] -
133:28, 134:19,
136:12, 136:16,
136:19, 136:27,
137:10
sold [1] - 96:12
sole [3] - 90:15,
91:26, 131:23
solely [7] -
65:17, 65:25,
79:5, 81:13,
91:11, 92:11,
145:25
Solicitor [1] -
180:29
SOLICITORS [5]
- 2:6, 2:10, 2:20,
2:25, 2:29
Solicitors [2] -
181:2, 181:11
sometimes [3] -
10:13, 65:3,
108:7
somewhat [2] -
7:6, 142:20
somewhere [1] -
67:13
sorry [18] - 8:14,
14:1, 26:26,
26:28, 35:11,
38:15, 38:20,
44:20, 49:19,
63:17, 67:3,
70:14, 121:9,
121:11, 121:14,
134:3, 141:5
sort [1] - 178:4
sought [22] -
5:4, 5:7, 43:3,
50:2, 65:9, 66:16,
67:15, 67:16,
67:19, 68:13,
75:10, 80:17,
98:28, 117:9,
156:15, 158:12,
166:9, 166:10,
166:11, 170:12,
170:20, 172:25
sounds [2] -
145:6, 187:7
source [1] -
67:24
sources [2] -
5:22, 5:28
south [1] - 71:28
spaces [2] -
117:6, 117:8
spatial [1] - 87:1
speaking [1] -
34:13
speaks [1] -
176:21
special [14] -
42:17, 69:14,
69:17, 69:18,
71:4, 71:14,
71:23, 71:29,
72:6, 77:7, 77:13,
77:14, 78:9,
160:13
species [3] -
66:11, 68:4,
75:16
specific [7] -
9:20, 51:19,
59:11, 83:25,
100:27, 107:23,
114:1
specifically [2] -
51:11, 128:8
Specifically [1] -
122:11
specified [9] -
18:23, 86:1, 86:6,
105:17, 127:28,
129:29, 181:5,
183:3, 184:2
specify [2] -
32:7, 129:14
spend [4] -
65:29, 77:12,
131:27, 154:17
sphere [1] -
135:17
spheres [1] -
149:19
spot [2] - 152:1,
152:4
stability [1] -
95:22
staff [1] - 149:12
stage [8] - 15:4,
16:6, 34:24,
45:20, 90:5,
124:8, 151:28,
159:26
stages [2] -
45:10, 107:6
stamp [1] -
178:8
stand [3] -
45:11, 121:4,
124:27
standalone [1] -
84:17
standard [4] -
9:28, 75:3, 132:1,
145:14
standi [1] -
21:26
standing [2] -
84:6, 144:21
standings [1] -
163:14
start [6] - 38:19,
153:17, 155:12,
187:16, 187:17,
187:19
started [3] -
8:12, 85:2,
186:29
stasis [1] - 9:9
STATE [1] - 2:25
State [33] -
37:19, 42:10,
47:11, 47:13,
64:29, 65:8, 76:4,
76:5, 82:8,
102:17, 110:3,
110:16, 120:4,
120:10, 130:23,
134:17, 134:25,
134:29, 137:9,
137:12, 139:15,
140:15, 142:20,
144:18, 146:15,
149:28, 153:12,
156:29, 157:15,
159:3, 159:13,
161:10, 176:7
state [3] - 73:3,
134:9, 162:17
State's [1] -
111:15
State.. [1] -
44:13
Statement [1] -
48:12
statement [10] -
42:1, 48:5,
108:11, 108:22,
109:4, 109:13,
109:14, 128:29,
147:24, 156:4
states [1] -
122:9
States [7] -
27:20, 28:1,
62:13, 64:9,
64:12, 64:18,
64:19
station [1] -
20:25
status [2] -
136:2, 136:12
statute [8] -
65:6, 83:15,
88:16, 97:20,
98:25, 148:23,
149:23, 156:23
statutory [53] -
5:12, 22:11,
47:27, 85:12,
87:10, 88:16,
92:1, 92:11, 95:2,
95:9, 97:21, 99:4,
100:5, 101:24,
101:27, 101:29,
102:26, 110:14,
110:21, 110:25,
114:18, 114:19,
114:22, 114:26,
115:20, 119:11,
119:26, 119:27,
142:3, 142:5,
142:6, 147:27,
148:15, 150:4,
151:5, 152:10,
152:14, 152:18,
152:24, 154:5,
156:6, 156:9,
159:16, 159:19,
159:22, 174:8,
174:9, 174:10,
174:13, 174:22,
182:19, 185:20
stay [1] - 92:25
stays [1] - 15:27
steeper [1] -
169:11
stenographic
[1] - 1:29
Stenography [3]
- 1:27, 2:31, 2:32
STENOGRAPH
Y [1] - 1:31
steps [1] -
165:11
still [6] - 8:8, 9:9,
30:18, 58:24,
60:27, 64:1
stop [1] - 126:5
stopped [1] -
37:9
storm [1] - 70:6
straightforwar
d [2] - 166:15,
167:14
strange [2] -
51:21, 54:24
stranger [1] -
82:9
strangers [1] -
89:8
strategy [2] -
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
31
87:1, 147:21
stream [1] -
103:21
strength [1] -
111:29
strict [2] - 15:6,
165:16
strictly [1] -
47:15
striking [2] -
124:22, 174:3
strong [3] - 48:8,
48:14, 97:1
struck [3] - 9:9,
42:8, 133:12
structure [1] -
57:11
structures [1] -
163:8
struggling [1] -
101:10
sub [6] - 15:5,
19:2, 160:22,
167:19, 168:16,
168:19
sub-headings
[1] - 160:22
sub-
paragraphs [2] -
168:16, 168:19
sub-roman [1] -
167:19
sub-section [2] -
15:5, 19:2
subject [14] -
17:13, 27:20,
46:17, 46:19,
57:1, 62:12,
66:10, 95:20,
96:9, 101:4,
107:28, 109:6,
144:24, 157:11
Subject [1] -
18:2
subject... [1] -
14:9
SUBMISSION
[2] - 81:1, 153:14
submission [56]
- 9:23, 13:6,
28:14, 33:12,
33:27, 34:26,
36:16, 47:21,
50:3, 62:19,
62:28, 66:17,
66:23, 71:11,
72:18, 74:18,
75:17, 76:22,
76:23, 78:1,
79:20, 81:27,
83:9, 90:10,
90:17, 90:27,
90:29, 91:7,
91:24, 98:17,
102:18, 117:26,
118:12, 118:16,
118:18, 119:4,
119:9, 120:9,
122:5, 122:7,
124:12, 125:23,
147:1, 147:26,
149:21, 155:4,
157:5, 158:3,
161:5, 161:12,
167:17, 167:23,
182:3, 184:12,
184:18
submissions
[59] - 15:4, 16:8,
16:13, 23:4,
28:12, 33:28,
74:9, 74:12,
80:25, 81:9,
81:18, 81:20,
81:29, 83:6, 84:8,
85:16, 88:28,
89:25, 90:4,
90:15, 91:10,
91:23, 97:6,
97:25, 97:29,
98:18, 98:29,
99:2, 100:1,
110:16, 110:20,
115:16, 116:15,
118:6, 121:20,
121:26, 121:29,
122:20, 122:21,
122:28, 123:1,
123:6, 123:13,
123:22, 123:25,
123:27, 124:10,
125:11, 126:15,
126:18, 128:14,
132:21, 133:3,
138:7, 153:5,
154:26, 155:27,
175:21
SUBMISSIONS
[1] - 3:8
submit [7] - 9:4,
13:17, 25:16,
31:2, 79:1, 127:6,
140:20
submits [1] -
69:14
submitted [6] -
21:12, 43:11,
48:13, 76:4,
118:4, 176:20
subparagraph
[3] - 15:8, 15:19,
160:20
subparagraphs
[2] - 8:24, 160:15
subsection [26]
- 7:11, 7:12,
13:12, 13:16,
14:2, 14:5, 14:29,
16:10, 16:11,
16:16, 16:28,
17:8, 17:29, 18:2,
18:17, 19:2,
19:14, 19:25,
29:22, 92:2,
93:13, 93:19,
93:21, 139:17,
139:19, 168:6
Subsection [1] -
17:1
subsequent [11]
- 48:13, 49:28,
50:6, 53:23,
54:27, 58:10,
62:27, 87:29,
88:5, 97:19,
166:24
subsequently
[5] - 6:18, 20:27,
42:8, 131:1,
151:23
subsidiary [1] -
64:28
substance [11] -
39:14, 39:28,
40:6, 40:13,
44:20, 44:26,
49:14, 88:10,
109:3, 116:12,
145:11
substance" [1] -
45:1
substantial [15]
- 9:2, 45:15,
52:11, 82:3,
86:17, 89:3,
89:15, 90:14,
91:5, 100:29,
108:9, 115:4,
115:13, 116:22,
119:14
substantially
[11] - 6:26, 8:12,
8:29, 9:27, 10:3,
10:10, 10:17,
75:2, 81:15,
86:15, 137:22
substantive [3] -
97:13, 111:12,
142:16
substantively
[1] - 89:19
substitute [3] -
30:3, 38:3, 56:7
substituted [1] -
156:16
subtitle [1] -
170:8
succession [1] -
25:28
suffered [1] - 9:6
suffice [3] -
100:24, 105:27,
148:1
suffices [3] -
112:4, 142:13,
150:11
sufficient [9] -
60:28, 66:24,
98:15, 107:2,
114:10, 131:3,
148:29, 161:7,
181:7
sufficiently [5] -
9:17, 61:27,
62:12, 82:3,
128:24
suggest [24] -
4:4, 9:16, 9:28,
10:7, 11:3, 12:11,
12:13, 13:13,
16:5, 25:20,
27:24, 36:21,
49:11, 65:12,
66:25, 75:12,
76:28, 79:12,
80:14, 80:18,
87:12, 134:27,
135:29, 186:20
suggested [5] -
28:11, 76:9,
165:29, 169:24,
175:15
suggesting [5] -
10:12, 23:24,
45:8, 56:20,
167:26
suggestion [6] -
3:15, 3:17, 16:7,
57:16, 57:18,
79:11
suit [2] - 111:3,
186:25
suitable [1] -
84:3
suite [2] -
156:18, 157:18
summarised [3]
- 81:20, 82:1,
101:28
summarising [1]
- 111:13
summary [1] -
169:2
Superior [2] -
73:1, 74:26
supplementary
[1] - 58:29
supplemented
[1] - 58:5
supplied [2] -
2:31, 123:25
supplying [1] -
69:15
support [6] -
49:10, 72:12,
73:20, 75:14,
127:24, 131:23
supported [2] -
72:10, 85:17
supports [1] -
177:25
suppose [5] -
40:8, 49:24,
61:11, 63:6,
70:16
Supreme [24] -
24:6, 25:12,
25:19, 41:2, 41:4,
44:4, 69:21,
69:25, 95:6,
99:12, 99:16,
99:19, 99:21,
99:24, 104:4,
104:7, 115:16,
129:17, 129:19,
155:5, 178:29,
179:3, 181:8,
181:19
surely [1] - 89:3
surprising [1] -
59:14
surrounding [1]
- 90:22
surroundings
[2] - 29:26, 30:8
survey [1] -
169:9
sustain [1] -
75:3
sustainable [12]
- 10:29, 11:14,
11:23, 87:4,
87:18, 87:27,
88:7, 98:21,
138:17, 140:17,
140:27, 148:12
SUZANNE [1] -
2:24
sworn [2] - 71:9,
74:7
synopsis [4] -
71:13, 71:15,
74:19, 174:1
synthesis [1] -
101:7
system [8] -
50:9, 51:8, 51:11,
51:12, 132:18,
140:6, 163:10
systems [3] -
132:19, 133:10,
133:19
T
T.D [1] - 134:3
Tab [21] - 4:27,
6:25, 7:1, 7:9,
17:23, 20:17,
26:12, 26:17,
30:25, 36:29,
38:16, 41:3, 44:5,
47:1, 47:2, 49:20,
49:22, 134:5,
138:10, 141:2,
141:4
tab [10] - 23:11,
38:16, 53:3,
58:18, 77:24,
92:24, 159:14,
168:24, 185:9
Taisce [2] - 67:1,
67:9
talks [1] - 44:19
target [1] -
149:29
targets [2] -
149:12, 151:17
task [1] - 77:19
tasks [1] -
170:17
taxpayer [2] -
95:12, 113:15
technical [3] -
8:28, 9:25, 86:14
technologies [1]
- 52:14
technology [1] -
143:24
temptation [1] -
80:12
ten [10] - 4:5,
5:7, 5:10, 43:23,
55:6, 90:24,
95:11, 99:10,
113:19, 182:22
term [7] - 6:11,
33:8, 36:21,
76:17, 113:20,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
32
114:21, 114:23
terms [44] -
3:28, 6:16, 7:6,
13:8, 17:13, 20:7,
23:7, 38:5, 39:14,
40:6, 44:26,
56:14, 63:14,
83:28, 98:9,
99:15, 112:29,
127:21, 130:2,
135:5, 145:15,
154:3, 156:9,
156:19, 158:25,
160:20, 161:13,
161:15, 162:1,
162:4, 165:15,
165:16, 165:21,
166:15, 167:14,
167:20, 168:10,
176:12, 176:22,
177:29, 183:17,
184:15, 184:20,
186:15
terms.. [1] -
170:28
terribly [5] -
26:26, 38:20,
154:3, 175:17,
186:15
test [16] - 78:11,
78:17, 100:9,
110:10, 116:20,
119:11, 146:7,
148:5, 148:6,
148:14, 148:17,
148:19, 161:7,
161:10, 161:11
tests [1] - 150:4
text [4] - 14:1,
132:2, 136:19,
136:21
THE [12] - 1:1,
1:12, 1:19, 2:4,
2:8, 2:15, 2:22,
3:1, 44:1, 111:5,
111:7, 187:26
theme [1] -
157:2
themselves [5] -
9:17, 32:9,
104:15, 115:18,
120:6
THEN [1] -
187:26
theologians [1] -
137:8
theological [1] -
131:22
theoretical [1] -
85:12
there'd [1] -
150:8
there'll [1] -
150:9
thereafter [2] -
57:17, 170:25
therefore [23] -
7:27, 12:21,
22:25, 31:15,
35:25, 36:9,
47:12, 52:29,
58:27, 91:2,
92:16, 102:1,
102:19, 117:8,
137:22, 148:4,
149:13, 168:13,
169:12, 171:25,
172:21, 173:4,
182:29
therein [3] -
134:16, 138:23,
177:6
thereof [1] -
32:15
thereto [1] - 18:5
thermal [1] -
67:24
thinks [2] - 8:20,
178:7
third [23] - 16:8,
82:18, 83:13,
83:17, 83:28,
85:8, 86:23,
87:16, 89:25,
89:26, 91:9,
91:17, 92:16,
97:22, 101:26,
117:18, 126:4,
129:23, 132:28,
146:23, 175:14,
177:28, 178:28
THIRD [1] - 1:20
Thirdly [1] -
133:9
thirdly [1] -
82:24
Thomas [1] -
180:29
THOMAS [1] -
1:8
thorough [1] -
123:29
threatened [1] -
135:11
three [11] - 5:21,
29:7, 29:12, 36:2,
50:28, 51:9,
51:12, 160:22,
170:1, 170:20,
175:21
threshold [2] -
83:29, 178:3
throughout [1] -
157:12
Thursday [5] -
23:23, 27:28,
30:27, 100:14,
148:3
ticking [2] -
157:23, 158:24
tied [1] - 112:23
ties [2] - 16:27,
90:9
TIM [1] - 2:13
timber [1] -
170:16
time" [1] - 21:17
timeframe [4] -
64:10, 64:19,
64:20, 143:4
timeframes [1] -
64:12
title [2] - 138:12,
138:25
TO [1] - 187:26
to' [8] - 148:5,
148:6, 148:14,
148:17, 152:2,
152:6, 152:8,
155:3
today [3] - 4:18,
113:28, 153:28
together [3] -
19:8, 67:7,
112:23
TOLAND [31] -
2:23, 81:1, 81:3,
89:8, 89:16,
95:25, 98:8,
101:16, 102:10,
111:11, 120:24,
121:6, 121:11,
121:14, 126:23,
132:11, 132:14,
137:6, 141:17,
141:20, 141:23,
145:8, 146:18,
148:5, 149:6,
150:12, 150:18,
151:15, 152:5,
152:9, 153:10
Toland [7] -
80:23, 120:3,
120:18, 154:24,
155:1, 161:23,
161:29
tomorrow [4] -
186:22, 187:3,
187:8, 187:24
took [15] - 47:22,
48:22, 53:23,
55:1, 61:5, 85:14,
87:7, 88:11, 91:7,
120:8, 147:7,
158:7, 165:4,
165:7, 184:27
top [2] - 26:15,
71:5
totally [1] -
165:14
toto [1] - 87:26
touch [1] - 79:10
towards [5] -
141:6, 142:27,
142:28, 143:2,
143:3
town [1] - 59:27
Trading [1] -
150:23
trading [1] -
144:13
traditionally [1]
- 70:19
traffic [2] -
117:8, 117:11
training [5] -
163:8, 163:9,
163:13, 163:16
transcript [1] -
1:28
Transcripts [1] -
2:30
transfer [2] -
114:8, 114:16
transition [15] -
138:16, 138:27,
139:11, 140:9,
140:13, 140:16,
140:19, 140:25,
142:17, 142:25,
142:29, 143:2,
143:3, 143:5
Transition [2] -
146:24, 147:18
travel [1] - 131:6
trawling [1] -
77:13
treat [1] - 133:21
treated [2] - 8:6,
26:7
treatment [3] -
20:25, 134:18,
135:25
tree [1] - 163:4
trespass [2] -
86:8, 154:23
trespasses [1] -
137:24
TREVOR [1] -
1:7
trial [2] - 141:2,
141:4
trigger [3] -
106:8, 110:5,
138:6
triggers [1] -
98:17
true [4] - 70:11,
134:20, 176:27,
182:27
try [3] - 80:13,
143:22
trying [2] -
121:14, 187:1
TUESDAY [2] -
1:25, 3:1
turn [25] - 6:2,
20:11, 24:1,
26:13, 30:23,
43:18, 44:6,
52:21, 64:24,
65:28, 68:17,
69:3, 70:27,
72:16, 92:23,
99:19, 111:17,
111:22, 112:27,
122:22, 126:23,
126:26, 127:15,
140:12, 154:8
turned [1] -
111:25
turning [3] -
84:10, 92:26,
103:5
turns [1] - 63:4
twice [1] -
157:20
two [29] - 3:13,
12:20, 13:3,
15:29, 19:8,
20:12, 20:21,
26:13, 27:23,
37:2, 38:17, 40:8,
40:28, 47:19,
48:22, 52:8, 67:7,
74:19, 75:21,
77:22, 110:29,
120:7, 122:13,
126:23, 127:24,
143:9, 146:22,
156:8, 175:26
type [3] - 46:18,
102:2, 147:11
types [1] -
105:17
U
Uchtála [1] -
135:3
ultimately [3] -
79:22, 80:7,
127:16
ultra [5] - 25:8,
42:8, 168:19,
180:7, 185:3
UN [1] - 143:15
unable [1] - 9:21
unacceptable
[1] - 76:10
unauthorised
[2] - 165:10,
165:12
unbound [1] -
116:27
unchanged [1] -
87:7
uncompleted [3]
- 13:26, 13:28,
176:15
unconstitution
al [1] - 82:29
under [100] - 5:3,
6:15, 11:15,
12:20, 14:4,
14:13, 14:25,
15:10, 15:12,
15:24, 16:24,
17:10, 18:2, 20:6,
20:27, 21:26,
22:11, 23:13,
23:18, 34:15,
36:7, 37:8, 38:23,
39:25, 41:22,
42:5, 42:25,
45:25, 45:29,
46:9, 46:19, 47:5,
48:3, 49:16, 50:9,
51:19, 51:27,
52:18, 53:6,
78:10, 78:29,
81:13, 81:22,
82:15, 83:4,
83:20, 85:5, 86:5,
86:11, 86:12,
87:22, 90:28,
91:9, 97:12,
101:21, 103:16,
110:9, 114:24,
117:7, 117:29,
119:11, 121:17,
121:21, 130:24,
134:15, 137:22,
139:23, 139:26,
140:2, 140:12,
141:7, 141:23,
145:13, 148:7,
151:16, 153:25,
153:26, 153:29,
158:29, 160:4,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
33
160:22, 164:14,
164:27, 166:16,
170:8, 171:26,
172:19, 172:29,
173:5, 173:11,
174:13, 178:18,
178:22, 180:25,
181:9, 184:26,
185:13, 186:8
Under [1] -
22:15
undergone [1] -
52:11
underline [2] -
37:22, 106:29
underlines [1] -
113:23
underlining [1] -
115:2
underlying [6] -
8:7, 70:21, 101:5,
103:19, 107:29,
113:17
undermine [3] -
39:6, 40:3, 44:22
understandabl
e [12] - 9:7, 12:12,
12:22, 13:5, 13:6,
56:4, 60:8, 60:21,
70:20, 78:12,
78:18, 124:15
understood [3] -
57:26, 151:6,
151:8
undertake [1] -
36:4
undertaken [3] -
24:14, 49:13,
179:16
undoubtedly [1]
- 73:10
unduly [1] -
130:29
unenforceable
[1] - 136:18
unenumerated
[13] - 83:18, 84:1,
127:17, 128:11,
129:12, 129:15,
129:21, 130:9,
130:14, 130:25,
131:4, 132:7,
134:21
unequivocally
[1] - 131:5
unfairness [2] -
118:17, 120:29
unfortunately
[3] - 17:19, 29:18,
47:1
Union [3] -
52:25, 132:23,
147:6
unique [1] - 11:4
uniquely [2] -
155:1, 158:4
unjust [4] -
108:5, 118:21,
118:26, 119:18
unlawfully [1] -
121:25
unleaded [1] -
149:15
unless [4] -
54:1, 105:6,
126:20, 153:6
unlike [4] - 51:2,
97:17, 128:10,
133:11
unnecessary [1]
- 131:28
up [23] - 4:16,
26:21, 26:25,
38:9, 38:10,
61:27, 63:5, 64:1,
64:9, 91:13,
91:14, 106:14,
110:29, 111:23,
114:20, 116:25,
121:4, 132:10,
132:13, 133:22,
155:14, 169:22,
178:13
up-to-date [2] -
61:27, 64:1
updating [5] -
58:27, 59:5,
61:16, 62:9,
62:15
urged [4] -
125:13, 160:10,
167:21, 183:8
urging [2] -
165:3, 184:10
uses [1] - 60:3
utilise [1] -
180:16
utility [1] -
117:28
utterly [6] -
56:18, 58:12,
60:22, 65:23,
78:26, 78:28
V
VALENTINE [1] -
2:19
Valentine [1] -
66:29
Valera [1] -
136:16
VALERIAN [1] -
1:8
validity [12] -
18:4, 50:27,
51:16, 51:22,
52:3, 54:12,
55:16, 55:24,
56:1, 56:13,
63:13, 64:13
valuable [1] -
104:18
value [3] - 105:8,
112:1, 113:13
values [6] -
100:23, 104:28,
105:2, 106:3,
106:7, 107:2
various [12] -
42:2, 42:10,
81:10, 95:1,
107:6, 127:7,
131:26, 133:8,
133:9, 143:24,
153:11, 174:23
vary [1] - 14:8
varying [1] -
98:25
vehicle [2] -
95:10, 112:28
vehicles [1] -
37:11
verbatim [1] -
1:28
version [2] -
29:19, 63:17
vicissitudes [1]
- 96:10
videos [1] -
85:17
view [27] - 5:20,
10:8, 10:15,
11:25, 12:23,
21:15, 21:25,
22:25, 23:29,
24:28, 45:7,
45:11, 61:5,
112:4, 114:16,
124:9, 125:24,
128:9, 129:26,
152:29, 158:1,
164:3, 165:5,
165:7, 166:2,
172:10, 180:1
viewed [1] - 97:8
views [2] -
25:11, 25:13
VIII [3] - 178:23,
180:13, 180:17
Village [6] -
24:6, 25:12,
159:3, 168:21,
168:22, 179:1
vindication [1] -
125:9
vires [6] - 25:9,
42:8, 105:22,
168:19, 180:8,
185:3
virtue [2] -
56:29, 185:21
vista [1] - 16:14
vital [1] - 76:6
W
walked [1] -
95:24
walls [1] -
170:15
wants [2] - 78:7,
186:17
warrant [1] -
108:25
warranting [1] -
73:21
WAS [1] -
187:26
water [3] -
53:29, 54:1, 54:2
ways [3] - 133:6,
143:23, 167:13
WEDNESDAY
[1] - 187:26
weeks [1] - 16:2
weeks.. [1] -
15:25
weigh [1] -
111:29
weight [1] -
112:16
welfare [3] -
134:18, 135:25,
136:7
well-
established [1] -
82:27
well-settled [1] -
73:12
Wells [8] -
36:25, 36:28,
41:5, 41:9, 44:12,
44:18, 62:28,
79:23
Wells' [2] -
37:12, 37:13
Westin [1] -
73:13
Wexele [2] -
116:25, 116:28
whatsoever [4] -
36:13, 73:20,
83:14, 86:4
whence [1] -
47:28
whereas [7] -
38:6, 45:13,
75:25, 76:5, 77:4,
95:14, 113:10
which....
replace [1] - 40:5
whilst [3] -
107:6, 130:7,
132:15
White [8] - 67:8,
67:18, 68:18,
69:4, 72:17,
76:25, 77:2,
183:10
whole [6] - 38:3,
39:23, 63:4,
78:27, 123:21,
150:23
wholly [5] -
86:19, 86:20,
87:10, 88:18,
89:18
Wicklow [2] -
24:4, 24:7
wide [2] - 10:13,
180:12
widely [1] -
136:1
wider [3] -
107:9, 127:21,
147:8
wildlife [1] -
69:13
Wildlife [2] -
71:16, 74:17
wind [1] - 69:22
windows [1] -
37:14
wish [8] - 9:8,
36:24, 55:13,
75:23, 76:6, 91:3,
118:9, 121:16
wished [4] -
3:13, 38:24, 76:5,
91:23
wishes [1] -
120:11
withhold [1] -
136:1
won [1] - 135:18
wonder [3] -
43:20, 145:3,
145:7
word [5] - 7:17,
7:26, 29:15, 30:4,
147:23
wording [4] -
24:20, 25:4,
179:22, 180:3
words [13] -
16:22, 45:1, 57:9,
57:15, 58:15,
58:16, 58:20,
58:27, 91:4,
106:14, 119:19,
131:20, 175:29
work-out [2] -
95:10, 112:28
workings [1] -
37:13
Works [4] - 42:1,
42:27, 104:3,
104:8
works [58] - 9:2,
10:4, 10:5, 10:11,
13:1, 14:26, 20:8,
29:24, 30:6,
30:19, 33:9,
33:17, 34:5, 34:9,
35:5, 35:10,
35:11, 36:11,
37:8, 41:19,
41:26, 42:4, 42:7,
42:20, 42:23,
42:26, 46:13,
46:18, 49:12,
68:10, 79:26,
85:1, 86:17, 89:3,
89:15, 89:17,
89:20, 89:24,
89:28, 90:12,
90:14, 90:15,
91:5, 106:1,
119:14, 160:24,
161:19, 161:20,
162:17, 162:24,
162:26, 162:29,
163:4, 163:17,
164:4, 164:6,
166:1, 170:13
works....
constituted [1] -
43:12
Worldport [2] -
25:24, 26:3
worth [2] -
20:12, 150:16
writing [2] -
145:3, 169:8
written [9] -
2:32, 52:9, 71:11,
74:9, 81:18, 83:6,
Gwen Malone Stenography Services Ltd.
34
84:8, 85:16,
132:20
wrote [1] - 169:5
X
XA [1] - 156:16
Y
year [11] - 3:16,
3:22, 4:5, 4:12,
5:7, 5:10, 5:21,
59:17, 140:18,
143:7, 144:27
years [15] - 7:21,
18:25, 37:9,
47:19, 48:22,
49:26, 50:28,
51:9, 51:12, 52:8,
55:6, 90:25, 92:5,
95:11, 113:19
yesterday [3] -
70:7, 70:9, 77:11
yield [1] - 150:16
Z
zoning [3] -
105:3, 105:18,
107:9
‘
‘consent’ [2] -
31:16, 31:24