The High Court has refused Val Martin leave to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s permission for the retention and completion of a meteorological mast at a relocated site within the Raragh Wind Farm in Co. Cavan.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter delivered judgment on 27 April 2022 after a telescoped hearing, which considered the leave application and judicial review together. The court’s decision was to refuse leave because the pleaded grounds did not disclose substantial grounds for challenge. The judgment did not quash or otherwise set aside the planning permission.
The Board had upheld Cavan County Council’s grant of permission to Raragh Developments Limited. The mast had been included in the original wind farm permission, granted by the Board in 2010, but was not built then. The wind farm became operational in December 2019. The Council granted permission in March 2020 for completion of the mast at a different site location and retention of associated works; the Board made its order granting permission on 23 October 2020.
Martin argued that the relocated mast was a further stage of the wind farm project and required a fresh environmental impact assessment. He also argued that site notices should have been erected at Corrinshigo Lane. A separate argument about the planning authority’s obligations when considering retention of unauthorised development was not pleaded, and the judge declined to consider it. Martin withdrew a challenge concerning the procedure for changing the location of an approved development.
On the notices issue, the court accepted evidence that Corrinshigo Lane, as a whole and in the relevant sections, had not been taken in charge by the Council. Although part of the lane was a public road, it did not adjoin the site or provide an entrance to it. The notice at the wind farm’s main entrance on the R162-4 public road therefore met the applicable requirement, the judge found. The judge also rejected the related argument under the EIA Directive.
On environmental assessment, the judge held that the mast was part of the original project assessed for environmental impact, rather than a new stage of it. The relocation did not increase wind energy production or the development’s size, and the evidence before the Board indicated it was unlikely to have significant environmental effects. The judge concluded that the change did not fall within a class requiring an environmental impact assessment and did not amount to impermissible project splitting.
The court therefore refused leave to apply for judicial review. The judgment records no ruling on the separate request concerning protective costs orders; the parties had agreed to defer that issue unless it became necessary.