Northern Ireland

Edwin Poots was legally entitled to approve gas storage project off Antrim coast, court told

Former agriculture minister Edwin Poots authorised the undersea facility at Larne Lough
Former agriculture minister Edwin Poots authorised the undersea facility at Larne Lough Former agriculture minister Edwin Poots authorised the undersea facility at Larne Lough

A former Stormont minister was legally entitled to approve a major gas storage project off the Co Antrim coast, the High Court heard.

Edwin Poots authorised the undersea facility at Larne Lough following legislative amendments which provided more scope to take decisions without referral to Northern Ireland Executive colleagues, a judge was told.

Local campaign group No Gas Caverns and Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland are seeking to have his grant of a marine licence to build underground units quashed.

In 2021 Mr Poots, then minister for agriculture, environment and rural affairs, gave consent for the development by Islandmagee Energy Ltd.

The plans involve carving seven underground caverns by a method known as solution mining.

It is estimated that the facilities, close to where scenes for TV series Game of Thrones were filmed, could provide more than 25 per cent of the UK’s natural gas storage capacity.

Opponents claim the excavation process will lead to hypersaline salt and chemical solution being discharged into the sea in a protected marine area near Islandmagee creating a “dead zone” threatening marine life.

Eleven protected priority species, including harbour porpoise and skate, are found within 100 metres of the discharge point.

Amid predictions the seabed storage units will operate until the 2070s, No Gas Caverns and Friends of the Earth claim they will keep Northern Ireland locked into using fossil fuel for decades beyond a target set to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The groups contended that Mr Poots failed to properly consider the environmental implications of a development proposal which is so significant, strategic, cross-cutting and controversial that he was legally required to refer it to the Executive Committee before granting permission.

However, Tony McGleenan KC, for the department, argued that amendments in the Executive Committee (Functions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2020, provided more scope.

“It goes to the need for a degree of latitude or margin being afforded to the decision makers,” he said.

“That’s a key change and it was done to prevent the Executive Committee referral point being weaponised to stall, disrupt and prevent decision-making in planning processes.” 

Even though opponents and climate change pressure groups see the gas caverns as controversial, Mr McGleenan insisted that the Executive had decided on a policy for the project as far back as 2011.

“They are best placed to make that decision, they will have access to information and material, not all publicly available and much of it confidential, that will form the judgment on whether or not the matter is significant or controversial,” he said.

“Therefore it cannot be a pure question of law. That can’t be what Parliament intended.”

The court was also told about the extent of Northern Ireland’s gas usage, with more than a quarter of a million homes maintained by the fuel. 

“Clearly there is an important public interest in securing the supply,” Mr McGleenan said.

He continued: “People may well have different opinions about locking in fossil fuels and the language they want to use.

“But nevertheless, the department has been scrupulously careful.”

During submissions he stressed the time limits on the brine dissolution associated with the project.

“One reads this ground (of challenge) as if it was going to be a 30mw per hour energy consumption in perpetuity for the Islandmagee gas caverns. That’s not right,” the barrister said.

“Once they are operational then the energy use drops away because the dissolution process is over.

“The minister knows that it is temporarily limited. This point is a hypercriticism and it is based on a misconception about the nature of the project.”

He added: “Whatever approach you take on the legal principles on significant or controversial, this case doesn’t reach the legal threshold.”

The hearing continues.