Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group and Ors v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Ors [I] [No. 2]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 135
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000120]

In the Matter of An Application Pursuant to Section 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Between

Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

and

White Hill Wind Limited (I) (No. 2)

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 135

[H.JR.2024.0000120]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Article 214(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001– Applicants seeking to quash a decision granting planning permission – Whether Article 214(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 is invalid

Facts: The applicants, Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, Mr J Nolan and Ms Nolan, applied to the High Court seeking: an order of certiorari quashing a decision of the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Board), pursuant to s. 37G of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to grant planning permission to the notice party, White Hill Wind Ltd, for development of a wind farm and associated infrastructure; in the alternative, a declaration that Article 214(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 is invalid and contrary to the Constitution. The core grounds of challenge included: (1) the impugned decision is invalid and contrary to s. 37E(2) and fair procedures, because the Board having received from the developer an application form in its own required format, failed to use its discretion to refuse to deal with the application when it knew or ought to have known that the information provided by the developer in s. 7 of the application form wrongly implied that letters of consent to make the application from Mr J Nolan and his father (the administrator of the estate of the late Mr S Nolan), had been supplied to the Board with the planning application when no such consent had been given, and the notice party had no standing to make a planning application for development on the lands of Mr J Nolan and the late Mr S Nolan; and (8A) Article 214(1) is invalid because it does not require the planning applicant for a Strategic Infrastructure Development to provide written consent from the owner of the land where the planning applicant is not the owner.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) it is settled law that the specific point must be one that the applicant has standing to make; (ii) applying such law to the facts, the ephemeral breach of landowner’s rights had been rectified so there was no material breach (other than a historical and technical one) capable of affording continuing standing to obtain certiorari; (iii) it is settled law that any error must transcend the harmless, the de minimis, the non-material and the purely technical lacking real-world consequences; (iv) applying such law to the facts, the fact that the error had been rectified made any problem harmless, historical, technical and de minimis; (v) it is settled law that judicial review is a discretionary remedy; and (vi) applying such law to the facts, the fact that the problem had been rectified disposed the court to exercise discretion against quashing the decision.

Humphreys J held that (i) core ground 1 was dismissed in the No. 1 judgment, subject to the question of whether the s. 146B decision survived the No. II proceedings - following the failure of that point, this core ground was dismissed in this judgment; (ii) core grounds 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were dismissed in the No. 1 judgment; (iii) core ground 3 was withdrawn by the applicants prior to Module I; and (iv) core ground 8A was withdrawn by the applicants in oral submissions but in any event lacked foundation. Humphreys J ordered that the proceedings be dismissed.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 6 ^th day of March 2026

1 . Judicial review is there to remedy tangible legal problems, not to pursue technicalities. In the present case, the original planning permission erroneously encroached on neighbouring land without landowner consent, but that problem has since been rectified by the lawful amendment of the permission. The question is whether there is anything left in this challenge.

Judgment history

2 . In ( [2025] IEHC 600 Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (I) Unreported, High Court, 6 November 2025), the proceedings were dismissed in respect of grounds other than the balance of core grounds 1 and 8A.

3 . In ( [2025] IEHC 601 Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (II) Unreported, High Court, 6 November 2025), proceedings challenging the amending permission were dismissed in respect of grounds other than core grounds 6 and 7.

Geographical context

4 . The proposed development is a 7-turbine windfarm and associated works in the townlands of Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue, Co. Carlow and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East, Co. Kilkenny ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/315365).

Facts

5 . On 19 December 2022, an application for strategic infrastructure development (SID) under s. 37E of the Planning and Development Act 2000, ABP-315365–22, was lodged with the board (now commission) by Galetech Energy Services on behalf of White Hill Wind Limited for proposed development comprising a wind energy development (a 7-turbine wind farm with an electrical output of 50.4 MW) and all associated works at Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue, Co. Carlow; and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East, Co. Kilkenny.

6 . The notice party's application for strategic infrastructure development was accompanied by supporting documentation including an environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) and Natura impact statement (NIS).

7 . The application was the subject of public consultation. A number of prescribed bodies were notified by the notice party of the subject application. The following bodies each made a submission on the application: the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage Development Applications Unit, the Health Service Executive (HSE), Inland Fisheries Ireland, Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Seventy-seven third-party observations were made on the subject application, including by the first named applicant and the third named applicant. The second named applicant did not make a submission on his own behalf to the commission.

8 . The proposed windfarm is located across two planning jurisdictions with the western area of the site being located in Co. Kilkenny and the eastern area being located in Co. Carlow. A submission/report was received from each of the relevant planning authorities, Carlow County Council (dated 20 January 2023) and Kilkenny County Council (dated 21 February 2023), in accordance with s. 37E(4) of the 2000 Act. Both of the submissions/reports of the respective planning authorities were accompanied by resolutions of the elected members of each council, recording the views of the elected members on the subject application for permission.

9 . By way of letter dated 26 July 2023, the commission sought further information from the notice party, namely a response to matters raised in the submissions on the subject application. The notice party responded to that request for further information by way of response dated 18 August 2023. The further information received was not the subject of a further round of public consultation/submission.

10 . The commission decided not to hold an oral hearing (at a meeting held on 17 July 2023) in relation to the subject application, having considered that there was sufficient written evidence on file to enable an assessment of the issues raised.

11 . The commission appointed a planning inspector to prepare a report in relation to the subject application and this was done. The inspector's report, which is dated 30 September 2023, records that the inspector carried out a site inspection on 1 June 2023. The inspector recommended that permission should be granted for the proposed development, subject to conditions and for stated reasons and considerations (at section 8.0 of the report).

12 . The board direction (BD-014581-23) dated 15 November 2023 states, inter alia, that the commission decided to grant permission generally in accordance with the inspector's report and that same and the submissions on file were considered at a meeting held on 14 November 2023.

13 . By order dated 21 November 2023 (ABP-315365-22), the commission granted planning permission in respect of the proposed development subject to 22 conditions and for stated reasons and considerations.

14 . The applicant has brought two sets of proceedings, the present case being Rural Residents I challenging the parent permission, and a second case, Rural Residents II challenging an amendment to the permission.

Procedural history

15 . The first proceedings were issued on 24 January 2024.

16 . Leave was granted on 29 January 2024 with liberty to file an amended statement of grounds. An amended statement of grounds was filed on 2 February 2024.

17 . The statement of opposition of the first named respondent was filed on the 29 May 2024.

18 . The statement of opposition of the notice party was filed on the 15 August 2024.

19 . The submissions of the applicant were filed on the 30 October 2024.

20 . The second proceedings were issued on the 4 November 2024, and leave was granted on 11 November 2024 with liberty to file an amended statement of grounds. An amended statement of grounds was filed on the 14 November 2024.

21 . On 2 December 2024, I made an order modularising the case against the State in both proceedings.

22 . The statement of opposition of the first named respondent was filed on the 26 March 2025.

23 . The statement of opposition of the notice party was filed on the 9 April 2025.

24 . The statement of opposition of the second, third and fourth...