Judgment: 2025-11-28 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to 348-acre Waterford solar farm permission

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2025] IEHC 662

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Mervyn Cummins
  • Josephine Curry
  • Paul Fogarty
  • Des O’Donovan
  • Clonea Gun Club
  • An Coimisiún Pleanála
  • BNRG Mothel Limited
  • Mr Justice Humphreys
What

High Court dismisses challenge to 348-acre Waterford solar farm permission

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Bishopstown
  • Bridgetown
  • Ballyhest
  • Ballyneale
  • Clonea Power
  • Mothel
  • Carrick-on-Suir
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

On the sporting-rights issue, the court held that a planning application is not invalid merely because a subordinate rights-holder has not consented where the legal owner has given the consent required by the planning regulations. The Marquis of Waterford, said to own the sporting rights licensed to the gun club, was not a party to the proceedings.

The High Court has dismissed the remaining grounds of a challenge to planning permission for a 141-hectare solar farm near Clonea Power and Mothel in Co Waterford.

Mr Justice Humphreys ruled that Mervyn Cummins, Josephine Curry, Paul Fogarty, Des O’Donovan and the Clonea Gun Club had not established grounds to overturn An Coimisiún Pleanála’s April 2024 decision approving the development at Bishopstown, Bridgetown, Ballyhest and Ballyneale, about 5km south of Carrick-on-Suir.

The case had been divided into two modules. Earlier grounds, including environmental and planning arguments, were dismissed in an October 2025 judgment. The latest ruling dealt principally with claims concerning sporting rights over the land, alleged wayleaves and the gun club’s property rights.

On the sporting-rights issue, the court held that a planning application is not invalid merely because a subordinate rights-holder has not consented where the legal owner has given the consent required by the planning regulations. The Marquis of Waterford, said to own the sporting rights licensed to the gun club, was not a party to the proceedings.

The applicants also argued that utility wayleaves had not been properly shown on planning drawings. The court found that they had not proved the existence of a relevant omitted wayleave and that part of their later argument concerning an ESB line fell outside their pleaded case.

Mr Justice Humphreys said planning rules must be interpreted in a workable way and could not require developers to identify unregistered rights of which they could not reasonably be aware. He also found no demonstrated prejudice arising from the alleged omissions.

The court allowed developer BNRG Mothel Limited to file its statement of opposition late, describing the failure to file it earlier as human oversight rather than a substantive defect.

The proceedings were dismissed. Unless a party sought a different costs order, the court proposed no order as to costs, including reserved costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review