Grace v an Bord Pleanála
 IESCDET 29
THE SUPREME COURT
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, AS AMENDED
This determination relates to an application by Ms. Grace and Mr. Sweetman for leave to appeal, under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution, directly from two judgments of the High Court (Fulham J.) delivered on respectively the 1st October, 2015 and the 4th December, 2015. The orders appealed against were both made on the 4th December and perfected on the 15th December, 2014. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court it is also necessary that it be established that there are ‘exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal’ to this Court.
In these proceedings generally the applicants seek to quash the decision of the respondent (‘the Board’) of the 22nd July, 2014 to grant planning permission in respect of what is known as the Bunkimalta Windfarm being a proposed development comprising of 16 wind turbines at Keeper Hill in Co. Tipperary. The applicants also seek various declarations concerning what was said to be the inadequacy of the assessment carried out prior to that grant of the permission in question.
The High Court held that the assessment concerned was valid. Furthermore, the High Court held that the applicants did not have a sufficient interest so as to give them standing to bring the application most particularly because of the failure by the applicants to raise the issues sought to be advanced in the judicial review application in the course of the hearings before the Board.
Thereafter, the applicants sought a certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on two questions. The first was the question of standing or sufficient interest. The second concerned certain issues relating to foraging habitat which are set out more fully in the applicants' notice. The High Court refused the relevant certificate and declined to make a reference to the Court of Justice under Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is as against both the substantive decision of the High Court and the decision refusing leave that the applicants seek leave to appeal directly to this Court.
The notice of application for leave to appeal together with both the response of the Board and that of the first and second named notice parties (‘the Developers’) are published along with this determination. It is not, in those circumstances, necessary to set out in full detail the contents of those documents. For the purposes of this determination it is sufficient to summarise the basis on which the applicants suggest that the constitutional threshold for leave to appeal has been met.
So far as the issue concerning standing is concerned it is said that an issue of general public importance arises in relation to whether the previous jurisprudence of this Court on standing (in particular in environmental matters) must now be revised in the light of recent case law of the Court of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL