Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in planning and development judicial review proceedings, decides issue of whether to remit proceedings (where there is consent to an order of certiorari) back to planning board for fresh consideration of planning application for wind farm development, and finds, in granting an order of remittal, that: (1) the applicant did not make complaints about the adequacy or application of certain environmental EU Directives, nor of the EIS or EIA completed in its statement of grounds, such that it has not pointed to any specific prejudice if remittal is now granted; (2) additional opportunities for public representations and scrutiny can be accounted for on remittal; (3) costs incurred is not a decisive factor on remittal since the beginning the planning process afresh would incur significantly more costs than remittal; and (4) the planning board is in a position to proceed appropriately to address the passage of time since the EIS was first submitted in 2014.
Judicial review - planning and development - whether remittal order should be made pursuant to Order 84, rule 26(4) RSC - planning board's decision to grant planning permission for construction of wind farm and associated electricity sub-station compound - consent to order of certiorari - draft court order - length of time elapsed since applications for permission made - appropriateness of remittal - inspector's recommendations - changes to EIA Directive in intervening period - changes to local environment - no opportunity available to public to make submissions - operative guidelines pertaining to planning application now out of date - trouble and expense - unjust result - unfair to developer applicant for permission if case not remitted where errors are solely those of the planning board - legal principles governing remittal in context of judicial review of planning decision of board - if remitted, board will have to consider applicant's submissions previously made in respect of noise - no complaint about adequacy of environmental impact statement - sufficiency of environmental impact assessment and statement unchallenged - issue of justice and fairness - no complaint made about specific aspect of changes law which would significantly affect outcome for specific developments in issue - clonres principles - expense and inconvenience of remittal - prejudice to applicant - costs not a significant factor in overall assessment of justice and fairness - remittal order made - certiorari granted
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now