Pol O Grianna and Others v an Bord Pleanála and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 248
• Docket Number: Record Number: No.19 JR/2014
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 April 2015

O Grianna & Ors v An Bord Pleanala & Ors

JUDICIAL REVIEW

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 50 AND 50A OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000 (AS AMENDED)

BETWEEN:

POL O GRIANNA, GERALDINE UI DHUINNIN, AOIFE NI DHUINNIN, CLIODHNA NI DHUINNIN,BERNADETTE COTTER, TIM O'CONNELL, CAOIMHGHIN O BUACHALLA, PADRAIG D. KELLEHER, ALAN KING, XAK AROO

APPLICANTS

AND

AN BORD PLEANALA

RESPONDENT

AND

CORK COUNTY COUNCIL

FIRST NAMED NOTICE PARTY

AND

FRAMORE LIMITED

SECOND NAMED NOTICE PARTY

[2015] IEHC 248

Record Number: No.19 JR/2014

THE HIGH COURT

Planning Authority – Section 50 and SOA of The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) – Remittal Application

Facts: In an earlier judgment in the case, planning consent was granted for one of the two projects interconnected in nature without looking into the matter of combined environmental effects of the two projects. The assessment of the cumulative effects of stage two of the development was required to be mentioned in the EIA in the instant case. It did not include a statement of the environmental effects associated with the second stage. The Board requested for permission, through an order of remittal of the case, to exercise its power under The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and the Regulations to request a further EIS. The applicants challenged the request for remittal.

Mr. Justice Peart held that the decision granting the planning consent to one of the two projects interconnected in nature without looking into the matter of combined effects of the two interconnected projects would be quashed. The Court determined that the two projects were primarily one project and therefore, assessment of the cumulative effects of the combined or single project was mandatory. The Court held that the application challenging the request for remittal would be denied. The Court stated that the developer would not be penalised. The Court allowed reasonable remedial actions to take effect in the interest of fairness and justice to avoid delay and cost.

Decision of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 In this case the Court has determined that the construction of the wind turbines themselves and the connection to the national grid is a single project, and not two separate projects, and that before granting planning consent for the former, it was necessary that the cumulative effects of the combined or single project ought to have been carried out. In circumstances where that has not happened, I concluded that the decision should be quashed. I will come to the terms in which that order should be made.

2 Having determined that the decision should be quashed, the question of whether the matter should be remitted to the Board has arisen. The Board has submitted that it is an appropriate case for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to remit the matter so that it can carry out an EIA in a way that reflects the findings and conclusions of this Court in its judgment. That application is opposed by the...