The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to planning permission for a solar farm at Treascon and Clondoolusk, Co Offaly, refusing the applicant’s requests for a Court of Justice of the European Union reference and leave to appeal. It made no order as to costs.
In a follow-up judgment delivered on 10 March 2023, Humphreys J considered applications made after an earlier judgment had dismissed the proceedings. The court said the developer, Elgin Energy Services Limited, had informed the applicant that it intended to apply to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for an environmental impact assessment screening decision concerning hedgerow removal.
The applicant sought declaratory relief on environmental assessment requirements and asked the court to revisit its refusal to quash the planning permission. The judge held that the proposed relief was not supported by grounds in the pleaded case and that the Minister, whose screening process was at issue, had not been joined as a party. The screening question would have to be addressed in other proceedings, the judgment said. The court also noted that the developer had said it would apply for screening, so there was no basis for a declaration directing it to do so.
The applicant proposed eight questions for an appeal, covering the relationship between the solar farm and rural land restructuring, environmental assessment duties, and possible remedies concerning hedgerow removal. The judge refused leave, finding that the questions went beyond the grounds originally pleaded. He said an appeal application could not be used to introduce new issues after the earlier judgment.
The court also refused the proposed CJEU reference. The judgment said the EU law points raised did not properly arise from the pleaded case and that a preliminary ruling was not necessary to decide an issue remaining before the court. The judge added that the proposed reference was procedurally inappropriate in light of the developer’s stated intention to seek screening; any challenge to the screening process or decision could be brought in due course.
On costs, the court applied the statutory default position that each party bear its own costs in the relevant environmental proceedings. It ordered no costs in favour of any party.
The final order was to perfect the substantive order dismissing the proceedings, refuse the CJEU reference, refuse leave to appeal, and make no order as to costs.