Bailey -v- Kilvinane Windfarm Ltd [2016] IECA 92 (16 March 2016)

Bailey -v- Kilvinane Windfarm Ltd [2016] IECA 92 (16 March 2016)

The constructed turbines T1, T3, and T4 represent unauthorised development due to material deviations in both location (19-20m) and rotor diameter (23m for T3 and T4) from the 2002 planning permission. The applicant has sufficient interest as a neighbour affected by the development. Discretionary grounds do not justify refusal of relief as the breaches are not trifling and the respondent's good faith does not override the statutory requirement for compliance.

Citation
[2016] IECA 92
Parties
Appellant: William Henry Bailey; Respondent: Kilvinane Wind Farm Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Planning Permission, Injunctive Relief, Discretionary Grounds, Locus Standi
Planning Law Environmental Law Unauthorised Development Planning Permission Injunctive Relief Discretionary Grounds Locus Standi

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Henry Bailey

Appellant

Kilvinane Wind Farm Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the constructed wind turbines constitute unauthorised development due to deviations from planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has sufficient interest to maintain proceedings under s.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000
  3. 3 Whether discretionary grounds justify refusal of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The constructed turbines T1, T3, and T4 represent unauthorised development due to material deviations in both location (19-20m) and rotor diameter (23m for T3 and T4) from the 2002 planning permission. The applicant has sufficient interest as a neighbour affected by the development. Discretionary grounds do not justify refusal of relief as the breaches are not trifling and the respondent's good faith does not override the statutory requirement for compliance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that turbines T1, T3, and T4 constitute unauthorised development
  • Remitted to High Court for determination of appropriate relief under s.160