The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s 2014 permission for a 29-turbine wind farm near Rhode, County Offaly. Mr Justice Fullam delivered judgment on 11 February 2016, concluding that the applicants had not established any of the grounds they pursued.
Stephen Carroll, Joanne Addie and Peter Sweetman sought to quash the permission granted to Green Wind Energy (Wexford) Limited for the Yellow River wind farm. The development includes turbines of up to 166 metres, a substation and associated roads and works. The applicants also sought declarations concerning environmental impact assessment and screening under the Habitats Directive. They withdrew grounds relating to two planning conditions before the hearing.
The applicants argued that the Board had not carried out its own adequate environmental impact assessment, pointing to its statement that the inspector’s assessment was “noted”. They also challenged the handling of potential effects on health, noise, shadow flicker and property values, and argued that mitigation measures should not have been considered when screening for an appropriate assessment.
The court found that the Board’s consideration of the environmental impact statement, submissions, further material and inspector’s report amounted to an examination, analysis and evaluation. It said the Board was entitled to adopt the inspector’s report and that the decision documents showed the basis for granting permission.
On noise and shadow flicker, the judgment noted that the developer reduced the project from 32 turbines to 29, revised the layout and adopted a 40 dB(A) noise limit in its response to submissions. The permission also required noise monitoring and included conditions on noise and shadow flicker. The court found evidence available to support the Board’s and inspector’s conclusions and said no manifest error had been shown.
On property values, the court said the applicants had not identified a specific environmental nuisance affecting their homes in a way that impaired their use as dwellings. It held that the inspector was entitled to assess the material before him, which included studies from other countries and a study the developer disputed.
The court also rejected the challenge concerning the whooper swan. It found that the species was not a qualifying interest of the designated European sites considered in the case. The court added that, even on the assumption that screening obligations applied to the swans, the Board could consider the specific mitigation measures proposed by the developer.
The order dismissed the proceedings. It did not quash the planning permission.