High Court: Waterford residents lose case against Ecopower Windfarm development

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

v. As a result of this deficient site notice, members of the public whose lands were affected by the two possible grid connection routes made any submissions to the Board in relation to the application for planning permission nor was any consent given for grid connection work to be carried out on their land.

The applicants also submitted four further issues arising from the grant of planning permission for the Windfarm development alone, including assertions that the Board acted contrary to the 2000 Act, in contravention of the Planning Acts and Council Directive 2011/92/EU, and that the assessment was carried out contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.

High Court

Justice Haughton stated that it was “abundantly clear that the Board neither extended the planning application to include the grid connection and haul route works, nor granted permission for same”.

Furthermore, the fact that the developer “continued to seek permission for the grid connection” was indicative of the fact that the Board and the Developer proceeded on the basis that planning permission for these works was not granted.

As such, Justice Haughton explained that “the issues relating to the alleged grant of planning permission for the grid connection and haul route works fall away” and it could not be said that the site notice was defective for not including details of the grid connection/haul route works, and no public notification issue arises because these were not included in the planning application.

Rejecting all of the applicants’ submissions, Justice Houghton was satisfied that the inspector had carried out the correct tests and that the appropriate standard was applied in all of the circumstances in line with O’Grianna v An Bord Pleanála. As such, none of the arguments made by the applicants were made out, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.