The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the North Meath Wind Information Group and John Callaghan against a refusal to join them to a developer’s judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse consent for a proposed wind farm at Castletownmoor, Co Meath.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 23 February 2018, also upheld the High Court’s order that the group and Mr Callaghan pay the developer’s costs of their unsuccessful application to join the proceedings.
North Meath Wind Farm Limited and Element Power Ireland Limited brought the judicial review seeking to have the Board’s refusal quashed. The Group and Mr Callaghan sought to receive the court papers, participate in the hearing and file opposition papers. They said they wanted to defend the refusal, which they feared could otherwise be set aside and sent back to the Board for reconsideration.
The Group comprises local residents from the Kells area and was formed in 2012 in response to wind farm proposals. The judgment records that its members, including Mr Callaghan, raised funds, lodged objections, attended hearings and meetings, made submissions and brought legal proceedings. Mr Callaghan lives near the Castletownmoor proposal, where 25 turbines were proposed. An affidavit for the developer put his residence about 4.8 kilometres from the site.
The court rejected the argument that the Group could join the case as an unincorporated association. It said section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides a capacity exception for qualifying environmental organisations seeking to challenge planning decisions, but that exception did not extend to joining a challenge brought by someone else. The Group was not challenging the Board’s refusal, with which it agreed.
The court also found that neither the Group nor Mr Callaghan was “directly affected” within the meaning of Order 84, rule 22(2) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. If the developer succeeded, the refusal might be quashed and the application reconsidered, but that would not directly remove a right or interest they held. The judgment said they might have sufficient interest to challenge a future grant of consent if one were made.
On costs, the court held that the environmental costs protection in section 50B applied to parties to the proceedings, including notice parties, and did not protect people whose applications to become notice parties had been refused. It concluded that the High Court was entitled to award costs against them. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment did not decide the developer’s underlying challenge to the Board’s refusal.