Drogheda Port Company ordered to show ministerial consent for Boyne spraying study

Drogheda Port Company must produce formal proof of ministerial consent before carrying out a pilot study to confirm the method of spraying spartina grass on the Boyne estuary, the High Court ruled yesterday.

The grass is being removed to create compensatory feeding grounds for wintering birds.

Counsel for the DPC, Mr Pat Butler, said the study would confirm the appropriate method for the spraying programme in accordance with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

He said his client wanted to create alternative feeding grounds by spraying in accordance with a ministerial licence. The chemicals had been deemed safe for use. He added that Duchas, the national parks and wildlife body, was aware of the proposal and would send a representative next week to consider the boundaries of the pilot area.

The Coastwatch campaigner, Ms Karin Dubsky, opposed the DPC application to carry out the proposal. In an affidavit, Ms Dubsky, a marine biologist and environmental scientist of Whitewalls, Ballymoney, Co Wexford, said the Boyne estuary qualified under the 1992 EU Habitats Directive as incorporated into Irish law under the Habitats Regulations, 1997, and had been listed as a Candidate Special Area of Conservations (SAC) site. She said spartina grass in Irish estuaries, typically associated with salt marsh, benefited plant diversity and bird populations.

She claimed the eradication plan envisaged the use of the damaging pesticide, glyphosate. Ms Dubsky asked the court to refuse the application and to grant an order noting that the status of the feeding area had changed, and spraying would be unfeasible. She also sought an order directing DPC to remove spoil from the Stagrennan polder, a feeding ground for birds. Removing the spoil would eliminate the need for the compensatory feeding ground, she said.

Mr John Peart SC, for Ms Dubsky, said the area was to be changed into a designated SAC and different rules affected its protection. Before it could be interfered with, the relevant Minister had to agree. That matter was separate from the granting of a licence. He argued that DPC required a different EIA and ministerial consent.

Mr Justice O'Sullivan said he would refuse the DPC application until it received the consent from the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands for the proposed works. He said it was not his function to consider whether the conditions of the ministerial licence granted to DPC should be changed.

He said the Minister had authorised a spraying programme, preceded by a pilot study. However, the designation of the area as a SAC involved different rules. He thought it proper that he should have proof of the Minister's consent.