The High Court has refused Paddy Massey leave to appeal a ruling in his challenge to planning permission for a renewable energy project, finding that his proposed appeal did not meet the statutory criteria.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2025, Mr Justice Humphreys said the main proposed appeal point concerned whether the court could refuse to quash a planning decision where an alleged shortcoming in an appropriate assessment had made no difference. He said the principle that harmless errors do not automatically require a decision to be quashed was well established, and that applying it to the facts was not a pure point of law suitable for appeal in a planning case.
The judge said the evidence in this case was uncontroverted that the project would have no impact or effect on European sites. He said Mr Massey had not produced expert evidence that any alleged error would have made a difference. The judgment also said the first proposed question was framed around a hypothetical answer to a question already referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
A second proposed question concerned whether a provision of the Planning and Development Act 2000 governing strategic infrastructure applications was mandatory or directory. The judge described the issue as a technical point about which company within a corporate group had applied for permission, and said it was not of public importance. He also rejected the contention that the cited cases created a conflict in the law.
The court had previously dismissed Mr Massey’s claim for certiorari, a remedy that would quash the planning decision, while granting declaratory relief and referring a question to the CJEU. In this judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys said the alleged assessment error did not justify certiorari on the evidence, even if an error existed. The leave decision does not determine the question referred to the CJEU.
The judge said an appeal was not in the public interest, citing the risk of further delay to the renewable energy project and the absence of evidence that the alleged error affected the outcome. He dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The case is to remain on a virtual listing while the parties await the CJEU’s ruling. The order also provides that, if the Supreme Court grants leapfrog leave, costs of this application will be costs in that appeal; otherwise, there is no order as to Mr Massey’s costs and the other parties’ costs are reserved.