The High Court has prohibited further construction of an underground cable connection for the Derrysallagh wind farm, finding that the grid works could not be treated as exempt from planning permission while the environmental assessment of the wider project remained outstanding.
In a judgment delivered on 11 May 2017, Ms Justice Baker ruled on an application by farmer Patrick Daly under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act. The application concerned a proposed 38 kV cable route linking the wind farm in Co Sligo to a substation in Co Leitrim. The court’s order was limited to stopping continuation of the grid construction and cable-laying works.
The wind farm had permission for 12 turbines, but that permission expressly did not cover a grid connection. The court heard that no planning permission had been granted for the cable route, and that no environmental impact assessment had been carried out for the connection or for the project as a whole. The respondents argued that the cable works were exempt development because they were being carried out by an authorised electricity undertaker.
Baker J held that the connection was an integral part of the wind farm project and could not be assessed as a standalone development. Applying the reasoning in an earlier High Court case on project splitting, she concluded that the respondents had not established that the grid works were exempt. The environmental assessment remained for the planning authority to address; the judge did not decide whether a separate assessment of the cable works would always be required.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the application was an impermissible challenge to the wind farm permission. It also rejected their claim that Daly’s delay or conduct should prevent relief. The judge noted that Sligo County Council had issued a warning letter concerning the works and accepted Daly’s evidence that construction reached near his land in November 2016.
Daly withdrew his request to have cable already laid removed and the land restored. About 70% of the cable had been laid in the relevant location when proceedings began. The court made no order for removal or restoration, and did not determine the separate dispute over title to the land. It instead ordered that further grid construction and cable-laying stop.