The High Court has ordered certiorari of An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant permission for a 12-turbine wind farm in County Kildare and refused to send the planning application back to the board for reconsideration.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2022, Humphreys J held that a defect conceded by the board concerned plans and drawings required by the planning regulations. In the circumstances of this application, that defect went to the application’s validity from the outset, so remittal was not appropriate.
North Kildare Wind Farm Limited applied to Kildare County Council in December 2018 for permission to build 12 turbines, each with a tip height of 169 metres, with associated works including an electricity substation. The council refused permission, primarily over inadequate road capacity and also because consent for road improvement works had not been obtained. The developer appealed, as did applicant Lorraine Quinn. An Bord Pleanála granted permission on 7 September 2020.
Quinn and Eco Advocacy CLG then brought judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the board’s decision. In June 2022, the board consented to certiorari on the basis of ground E30 in the amended grounds, which alleged inadequate particulars of the turbine designs and their site-specific details. The developer sought remittal to the board. The question before the court was whether to remit the application after the board’s concession; the judgment did not determine the applicants’ other, non-conceded grounds.
The court examined the relationship between articles 22 and 23 of the Planning and Development Regulations. It concluded that article 22 requires plans and drawings to comply with article 23, so a failure to meet article 23 requirements also breaches article 22. The planning application form used for this project stated that the application would be invalid without the required documentation. It also identified the proposal as a change from forestry or agriculture to use as a wind farm for renewable energy production, and required plans and particulars complying with article 23.
Humphreys J therefore treated the conceded defect as one that invalidated the application at the outset. The court did not need to decide whether other pleaded grounds would have to be examined when considering remittal. It ordered certiorari removing the board’s decision for the purpose of being quashed, and refused remittal. The order was limited to those outcomes; the judgment did not grant planning permission or direct a fresh determination.