The High Court granted leave in principle for a judicial review challenging Westmeath County Council’s acceptance of a grid-connection planning application as valid, but refused to pause the planning process.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the order on 17 July 2020 and gave his reasons in a judgment delivered on 22 October. Leave was conditional on the applicants submitting a draft amended statement of grounds. The court did not decide the underlying challenge to the council’s decision.
The applicants are North Westmeath Turbine Action Group and North Westmeath Turbine Action Group CLG. They challenge the council’s 3 June 2020 decision to accept as valid an application by Coole Windfarm Limited for express permission for a grid connection. The application was lodged on 25 May.
The developer had previously sought permission for 13 turbines, a compound and ancillary works in 2017. Westmeath County Council refused that application, but An Bord Pleanála granted permission on appeal. The grid connection to a substation in Mullingar was not included in that application.
The turbine group’s challenge to the earlier permission, alongside a separate judicial review brought by Peter Sweetman, had been heard by Mr Justice Quinn. Judgment in those proceedings was reserved when the present matter was heard. The October judgment says later developments, including withdrawal of the planning permission, had overtaken the proceedings addressed in it.
Mr Justice Humphreys said the applicants could have waited until the planning process concluded before challenging the council’s initial acceptance decision. He nevertheless granted leave in principle because the respondents and the developer had not objected on grounds of prematurity. He said the applicants would not lose the point by waiting and could include it in a challenge to an overall decision.
The judge refused a stay, concluding that the prejudice of taking part in further procedures was outweighed by the benefits of allowing the process to continue. He also noted that a stay would affect the developer’s funding applications in the context of public interest in carbon mitigation.
The refusal was qualified. If the applicants later succeeded in the judicial review, they could argue that decisions based on an invalid application must also be treated as invalid. They were also entitled to amend these proceedings to challenge any such later decision, and to seek additional grounds if they arose. The order did not determine whether the council’s acceptance decision was lawful or whether any subsequent planning decision would be valid.