The High Court has dismissed a farmer’s appeal against orders requiring unauthorised dairy farm structures in Gurteen, County Wexford, to stop operating and be removed. It refused his request for a stay while he sought substitute consent, but varied the deadlines to allow the dairy herd to be moved in the interests of animal welfare.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 18 June 2024 that use and operation of the milking parlour and other structures identified in the notice of motion must cease by midnight on 21 July. The tanks must also be cleaned out by then. The structures must be removed and the lands restored to their earlier condition by midnight on 19 September. The parties have liberty to apply. The court said failure to comply could lead to an application for attachment and committal for contempt.
The case was a High Court appeal from a Circuit Court planning enforcement order made on 26 April 2023. That order required cessation of the unauthorised development and restoration of the land, but allowed a 12-month stay. The High Court dismissed the appeal and varied the order. The allocation of legal costs was left for a supplemental order; the judge’s provisional view was that the neighbouring landowner should recover costs from the farmer.
The farmer, Patrick Furlong, accepted that he had built without planning permission. The judgment says the works began around June 2020, after the lands had been used for dry stock farming, and included a milking parlour and associated structures. Wexford County Council warned him in August 2020 and issued an enforcement notice in December that year. Three applications for retention permission were unsuccessful: two were refused and the third was rejected as invalid. The council considered that the proposed development required an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive. Furlong challenged that decision by judicial review, but the leave application had not been moved by the time of the judgment.
Furlong told the court he faced financial hardship and intended to apply for substitute consent. He also said the proceedings had affected his family’s mental health. The neighbouring landowner opposed further delay, citing hardship in using and enjoying his property and concerns about pollution and environmental protection.
The judge said the development was large, had continued after the council’s warning and had been given ample time for attempts to obtain retrospective consent. He referred to uncontroverted evidence that it interfered with the neighbouring home’s amenity and appeared to have polluted its water supply. The orders require cessation and reinstatement; they do not determine the outcome of any future substitute consent application.