Judgment: 2026-03-06 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to seven-turbine Carlow-Kilkenny wind farm permission

High Court · [2026] IEHC 135

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group
  • John Nolan
  • Catriona Nolan
  • An Coimisiún Pleanála
  • White Hill Wind Limited
  • Mr Justice Richard Humphreys
What

High Court dismisses challenge to seven-turbine Carlow-Kilkenny wind farm permission

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ridge
  • Knocknabranagh
  • Knockbaun
  • Baunreagh
  • Agharue
  • Coolcullen
  • Cloneen
  • Coan East
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has dismissed the remaining judicial review challenge to permission for a seven-turbine wind farm across counties Carlow and Kilkenny after finding that an earlier landownership problem had been corrected.

The High Court has dismissed the remaining judicial review challenge to permission for a seven-turbine wind farm across counties Carlow and Kilkenny after finding that an earlier landownership problem had been corrected.

White Hill Wind Limited obtained permission in November 2023 for a 50.4 MW wind energy development across townlands including Ridge, Knocknabranagh, Knockbaun, Baunreagh and Agharue in Carlow, and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East in Kilkenny.

Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan challenged the decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála on numerous grounds. Earlier judgments had already dismissed most of those grounds.

The remaining issue in this case concerned the fact that the original permission extended onto neighbouring land without landowner consent. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys accepted that this created a problem with the original decision.

However, a later planning amendment had moved the relevant turbines and associated works away from that land. A separate challenge to that amendment also failed.

In his judgment of 6 March 2026, Mr Justice Humphreys held that judicial review should address real legal consequences rather than technical defects which have already been cured. Once the amended permission removed the development from the affected land, the earlier infringement became historical and no longer justified setting aside the entire permission.

The judge said that quashing the permission in those circumstances would be disproportionate. He also held that the applicants no longer had a material land-rights injury capable of supporting that relief.

A separate challenge to the validity of planning regulations because they did not expressly require landowner consent was withdrawn. The court said in any event that legislation need not expressly state that statutory powers must be exercised consistently with constitutional property rights.

The proceedings were dismissed. The court provisionally proposed no order as to costs, subject to further submissions.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review