Long-anticipated plans for a major road upgrade on the notoriously dangerous A5 road have been quashed at the High Court in Belfast for breaching elements of the Climate Change Act 2022.
Safety campaigners who form the ‘A5 Enough is Enough’ organisation, consisting of many of those who have lost loved ones and friends on the stretch of road, today said they were disappointed. The group says that 57 lives have been lost on the A5 since the Northern Ireland Executive agreed to proceed with a plan to build a new carriageway in 2007. More than 1,200 people have been injured in collisions on the road over the last decade, according to data cited by the group.
The A5 road project would have seen a new dual carriageway developed linking Derry with Aughnacloy in County Tyrone, with Stormont ministers having approved the project last October. The major roads scheme would also have linked counties Donegal to Monaghan through counties Tyrone and Derry.
Calls have long been made in the North, as well as in the Republic, to fund and complete the new scheme as a priority, including from Peadar Tóibín TD who previously called the road “a deathtrap.” In July 2023, the Dáil debated a Private Members Motion put forward by Sinn Féin calling for a route upgrade to the road which links the North and South, and is a major route for those living and working in the border counties and in the North West.
The cross-border project had secured backing from the Government here, with no Government opposition having been voiced to the 2023 motion. Demand for the new law had surged after data showed that there were 37 fatalities on the A5 between 2012 and 2024. The road has the highest death rate per kilometre for any road in Northern Ireland (equivalent to 0.44 deaths per kilometre).
The scheme to turn the road into a dual carriageway was first approved by the Stormont Executive in 2007, but has stalled due to a series of legal challenges and uncertainty around funding. Judicial review proceedings were launched against Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure by nine applicants, including residents, farmers and landowners who voiced opposition to the £1.2 billion scheme.
Speaking in Court today, Mr Justice McAlinden said the road project would not be proceeding because the plans did not comply with climate change targets agreed by Stormont – with the judge saying that there was an “inadequacy of information” from the Department for Infrastructure’s plans.
Mr Justice McAlinden said that the road scheme had not been mentioned in Stormont’s draft Climate Action Plan, which was published just last week. Quashing the ministerial decision to go ahead with the project, he said that it breached section 52 of the Climate Change Act as well as Article 8 human rights issues identified by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC).
Stormont has committed to ambitious climate change targets, including achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a 48% reduction in net emissions by 2030, with the targets enshrined in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. A Climate Action Plan (CAP) has outlined policies to meet the first carbon budget, aiming for a 33% average annual reduction in emissions between 2023 and 2027.
The judge further said there was a lack of evidence presented that the project would not be a contributing factor to Northern Ireland failing to meet the Act’s net-zero carbon emissions target by 2050.
Mr Justice McAlinden admitted that the decision would bring “anguish” to those who had lost loved ones and had campaigned for change.
“I am acutely aware that this decision will bring significant, fresh anguish to the doors of those who have been injured and maimed and those who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic accidents on the existing A5 road,” he told the court, as reported by Belfast Live.
He added that one of the primary justifications for the construction of the new road was that it would be “much safer” than the existing road, and that over time, “many lives will be saved and many serious injuries prevented and many families will be spared the utter heartbreak of the sudden and shocking loss of a loved one.”
“It is likely that delays in the progression of this scheme will coincide with the occurrence of further loss of life and serious injury on the existing road,” the judge said. However, he added that the decision to proceed with the scheme “must be taken in accordance with the law and the principle of the rule of law cannot be subverted, even if the motivation for doing so is to achieve what is deemed to constitute a clear societal benefit.”
“The shortcomings and shortcuts in the decision-making highlighted in this judgment are capable of being remedied.
“The relevant ministers, departments and officials should redouble their efforts to deal with these shortcomings and that may involve the finalisation of a CAP (climate action plan) which is long overdue.
“But irrespective of the difficulties in overcoming these shortcomings, concerted efforts must be made by all concerned so that sooner, rather than later, a new and safer A5 dual carriageway may come into operation and the long list of names of those who have perished on that road will not be added to.”
Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins said that families of those killed and injured on the stretch of road would be “heartbroken” by the judgement – describing it as “an extremely disappointing day.”
“I want to start off by paying tribute to all the families who have lost loved ones on the A5.” she said. “No doubt this will be heartbreaking for each and every one of them. But their campaign will hopefully not go unnoticed.”
“This is a very detailed judgment and I will have to take time with my legal team to consider the detail within that,” the Minister said, adding: “I am determined we will deliver a safer A5 that will protect lives. We will not be giving up in relation to that.”
Local paper We Are Tyrone carries the comments from Niall McKenna, chairman of 15 Enough is Enough, who said outside court today:
“We find it ironic that the law is there to serve and protect the people. It is there to serve and protect society and the judgement acknowledges this scheme will have major societal benefits, so it seems ironic to go against the societal benefits.
“The law should be there to serve and protect us, not work against us.
“That being said there are positives in the judgement. There are positives in that it does provide a clear and unambiguous roadmap for the scheme to go ahead and we hope that will happen very quickly.”