In Wicklow, a widow named Oonagh Stokes, who owns land adjacent to a proposed development by Greg Kavanagh’s firm, Beakonford Limited, has launched High Court action. She aims to revoke the development firm’s permission to construct 98 homes close to her property, stressing her rights-of-way over the development ground at Inchanappa South, Ashford.
John Kenny, Ms. Stokes’ barrister, received court approval to move forward with his client’s case, hinting at a significant past between Ms. Stokes and Beakonford Limited. Last year, Mr. Kavanagh’s firm, of which he is a director, started a legal process against Ms. Stokes and another local inhabitant, Barbara Wilding. Beakonford Limited accuses them of contesting the 98-house project’s approval without genuine reasons, implying that the appeal is a scheme to procure a €6 million payment. They assert that Ms. Wilding was serving as Ms. Stokes’s representative or alternate identity, a claim both women vociferously deny.
Ms. Stokes brought another case forward in May, alleging that Mr. Kavanagh instigated a campaign of fear and harassment against her. She accuses them of tearing out the electrical cords for her driveway lighting and dismantling a fence dividing their properties.
In her lawsuit against Mr. Kavanagh and his company, she characterises his behaviour as “intimidating and unstable.” Mr. Kavanagh, she says, bought the land adjacent to her home from Nama, a state agency to which her deceased husband, Brian, had transferred the land during the financial crisis.
In a twist of events, Ms. Stokes was astonished when, in the summer of 2022, Mr. Kavanagh requested to buy her house and land for €10 million. Although she requested additional time to consider, by October, the company was presenting a significantly lower offer, she claims.
Making perceptible her opposition to the implementation of the 98 housing development, Ms. Stokes has commenced a judicial review of An Bord Pleanála, requesting the High Court to nullify the permission to proceed. She is also seeking an order to stall any works by the developer until the conclusion of her case, stating that the planning application failed to reference any easements or right-of-way and erroneously included her land without consent. Furthermore, Ms. Stokes argues that the proposed construction violates local development schemes, and that the board made a legal error by determining otherwise.
Ms Stokes has expressed her concerns that the proposed project could potentially impact Inchanappa House, a protected property, and its surrounding land. Additionally, she insists that the board should not dismiss the potential for the construction to significantly harm the environment.
This week, Ms Stokes has been granted permission by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys to present her case via the judicial review process in the High Court. So far, she has been the only party represented in court. The hearing will continue on the 9th of July, at which point the board and developer, acting as the notice-party, will have the opportunity to offer their responses.