The High Court has rejected the first module of a legal challenge to changes allowing two turbines at the permitted White Hill wind farm in counties Carlow and Kilkenny to be relocated.
Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan challenged An Coimisiún Pleanála's September 10, 2024 decision approving alterations requested by White Hill Wind Limited under section 146B of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The changes move turbine T6 about 170 metres southwest and T7 about 220 metres south after two landowners withdrew from involvement in the project. Associated access tracks, cabling, foundations and other infrastructure are also altered, with additional commercial forestry to be felled.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys rejected the applicants' argument that the commission had gone beyond its statutory powers or wrongly classified the changes as non-material. He held that section 146B permits amendments to the text of a permission and is not confined to altering conditions. The applicants had not established that the relocation amounted to a material alteration.
The court also rejected a claim that the commission failed to consider the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines. The amendment decision referred back to the original permission, which had considered the guidelines, and the guidelines did not in any event specifically govern section 146B amendments.
An objective-bias challenge also failed. The court held that the commission was entitled to continue exercising its statutory powers despite related litigation and that using personnel familiar with the original wind-farm permission did not establish bias.
Challenges concerning appropriate assessment and bird species including mallard and grey heron were also dismissed in this module. The judge found that alleged deficiencies had not been established by the evidence.
A separate complaint about the statutory scheme for environmental impact assessment was left to be addressed against the State in the next module.
Accordingly, all Module I grounds were dismissed. Two issues remain: alleged failures concerning conservation objectives and a challenge to the validity of section 146B itself.