INVESTIGATION REPORT - addressed to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and

In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 [which deals with exceptions for imperative reasons of overriding public interest], 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, a. [...] (6) In light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 44, the authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site in Northern Ireland or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be). [...] Even where the Critical Level of the protected site had already been exceeded, the Operational Protocol permitted an additional 10% of the Critical Level as a sum of the in-combination assessment.14 After this 10% had been reached, the Operational Protocol stated that the site was to be considered ‘closed’ to further developments with process contributions of 1% or above of the Critical Level.15 T. [...] In the words of the High Court in the Wealden decision, its application ‘removed the premise of the HRA – that a cumulative assessment is required – and brought about a clear breach of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive’.42 4.16 The Operational Protocol also stated that even developments with a process contribution exceeding 1% could be considered not to have adverse effects, or be likely to c. [...] Specifically: ‘The application of a generic effect threshold without the need to take account of the scale of the existing critical load / level exceedance, the distribution and relative importance of the habitats which might be affected in view of the ability of the site to make a full contribution to the achievement of favourable conservation status, does not appear to be supported on logical or.