The High Court has refused permission to appeal its dismissal of a challenge to retention permission for a wind turbine that was built 36 metres from the location originally approved.
100 Meter Tall Group, Patrick Keogh, Patrick Gorey and John Curran had challenged an An Bord Pleanála decision concerning developer Seamus Madden’s turbine. Although the project already had planning permission, the turbine was constructed slightly out of position and a retention application was subsequently made to regularise that difference.
The original judicial review advanced what Mr Justice Humphreys described as 95 grounds in total. After those proceedings failed, the applicants’ proposed appeal centred on a much narrower issue: the meaning of section 34(12)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and whether an environmental preliminary examination prevented retention permission from being granted.
In his April 4, 2025 judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys held that the proposed questions did not properly arise from the case as pleaded. He noted that section 34(12)(b), now presented as central to the proposed appeal, had not been specifically identified in the statement of grounds.
The judge also found that the issue related to a historical version of the legislation which had since been clarified. No evidence was produced of another live case raising the same point within the statutory time limit for planning challenges.
He rejected the applicants’ interpretation that the mere carrying out of a preliminary environmental examination would itself prevent retention permission where full environmental impact assessment screening was unnecessary. The court considered that interpretation unworkable and inconsistent with the statutory purpose and EU law terminology.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Unless the Supreme Court grants a separate leapfrog appeal, there is no order for costs of the leave application, and the High Court’s earlier order dismissing the substantive judicial review with no order as to costs is to be perfected. The judgment does not reopen the merits of the retention permission itself.