The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by seven local residents seeking to restrain the operation of wind turbines with 103-metre rotor blades at Barranafaddock Wind Farm in Co Waterford. The court held that the planning decisions permitting the turbines could no longer be challenged in the residents’ proceedings for an injunction.
The appeal concerned a wind farm at Ballyduffy. Waterford County Council granted permission in 2011 to modify an earlier permission, allowing turbines with rotor blade diameters of 90 metres. A condition required the developer to submit turbine details, including design and height, for the council’s agreement before work began.
In 2013, the developer submitted turbine details that included a 103-metre blade diameter. The council marked the submission “Noted and agreed”. The turbines became operational in 2015. The judgment notes that the blade tips’ permitted height did not change, because the turbine hubs were lowered.
In 2018, following complaints, the council referred the blade-length change to An Bord Pleanála. The Board decided that the increase from 90 metres to 103 metres was “development and is not exempted development”. The residents then brought proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, seeking an injunction.
The High Court granted the injunction, treating the Board’s decision as binding and concluding that the development was unauthorised. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. In the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan agreed with the Court of Appeal that the High Court was wrong to conclude that the turbines were unauthorised and should be restrained.
The Supreme Court held that the council’s 2011 and 2013 planning decisions could not be questioned in the injunction proceedings because the residents had not sought judicial review within the statutory time limit or applied to extend it. The court said it was unnecessary to decide whether the blade extension itself required an environmental impact assessment, or to determine the full relationship between the Board’s section 5 role and the courts’ section 160 jurisdiction.
The court concluded that the developer could rely on the 2011 and 2013 decisions as valid planning permission for the blades. It dismissed the residents’ appeal. The judgment also recorded concerns about the council’s decision-making, but did not rule on whether those decisions were lawful when made.