The High Court has refused nine applicants’ challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant planning permission for a five-turbine wind farm at Carrigarierk Hill, north of Dunmanway, Co Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 30 November 2017, Ms Justice Costello ruled that the Board had lawfully carried out and recorded both an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and an appropriate assessment (AA). She refused the relief sought in the judicial review proceedings.
The applicants argued that the Carrigarierk wind farm and a proposed substation at Barnadivane should have been treated as one project for EIA purposes. They also said the Board could not properly assess the development because the planning status of the substation, and the point where the grid connection would end, were uncertain.
The judge held that the wind farm and substation were separate developments. The Board was required to assess the wind farm’s likely cumulative effects with the substation, rather than treat both as a single project. The judgment said the Inspector’s report had considered cumulative effects with other developments and the Board had adopted that report. The absence of a specific reference to cumulative effects with the Barnadivane substation did not establish that the Board had failed to assess them.
The court also rejected the argument that uncertainty about whether a substation would be built prevented a valid EIA or AA. The Board had assessed the wind farm and its proposed grid connection route. If no substation were built at Barnadivane, the development could not operate, but that did not invalidate the planning permission. The court found no legal requirement that permission for the replacement substation be in place before the Board assessed Carrigarierk.
The applicants further challenged the AA, including the Board’s treatment of conservation objectives for the Gearagh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the environmental baseline used for tree felling. The Board revisited its AA after the National Parks and Wildlife Service issued site-specific objectives for the Gearagh SAC. The judge found those objectives were the same as those already assessed in the Natura Impact Statement, so the Board could confirm its earlier conclusion without seeking an addendum report from the Inspector.
On tree felling, the court accepted that evidence before the Board indicated the commercial forestry would be felled whether or not the wind farm proceeded. It held that this likely future change could form part of the environmental baseline, and that the Inspector had also considered mitigation measures to prevent water pollution.
The judgment concluded that the Board’s assessments complied with the law and that it had properly recorded its reasons. It refused the applicants’ requested relief; it did not itself grant or alter planning permission.