Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Retention permission for wind turbine upheld despite slightly incorrect location
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refuse leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, concerning a refusal to quash retention permission for a wind turbine built slightly out of its permitted location. The applicants' extensive challenge, based on a myriad of grounds, ultimately focused on the interpretation of s. 34(12)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court found that the applicants' interpretation would lead to absurd results and a disconnect with EU law. The court emphasized the need for interpretations that avoid absurd outcomes and align with EU law, and noted that the applicants' argument did not meet the criteria for an appeal.
retention permission, wind turbine, Planning and Development Act 2000, s. 34(12)(b), environmental impact assessment (EIA), preliminary examination, absurd results, EU law, public importance, leave to appeal, Interpretation Act 2005, judicial review, statutory interpretation, planning law, EU directives.
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.
