Judgment: 2024-11-01 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to Cork wind farm permission over noise assessment

The court found that An Bord Pleanála had considered the noise evidence, including concerns about amplitude modulation, and that the applicant had not proved the environmental assessment was inadequate.

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2024] IEHC 603

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Nagle View Turbine Aware Group (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Respondent)
  • Coom Green Energy Park Limited
What

The court found that An Bord Pleanála had considered the noise evidence, including concerns about amplitude modulation, and that the applicant had not proved the environmental assessment was inadequate.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • North County Cork
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 18 November 2024

    The court dismissed the proceedings. It directed that, unless a party made a written legal submission on costs within 14 days, the order would be perfected on the basis of no order as to costs. The matter was listed for 18 November 2024 to confirm the order.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to planning permission for a 22-turbine wind farm in north County Cork, finding that An Bord Pleanála had considered the noise evidence and the applicant’s objections.

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to planning permission for a 22-turbine wind farm in north County Cork, finding that An Bord Pleanála had considered the noise evidence and the applicant’s objections.

Nagle View Turbine Aware Group sought to quash the permission granted to Coom Green Energy Park Limited. The group argued that the board relied too heavily on the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines, failed to properly consider newer material and concerns about amplitude modulation, and had not adequately assessed noise impacts for environmental assessment purposes.

The board and the developer disputed those claims. They said the inspector had considered other guidance, including draft 2019 guidelines, World Health Organization material, a British Standard and guidance from the Institute of Acoustics. The inspector also considered whether a planning condition should address amplitude modulation and concluded that the issue had been satisfactorily addressed.

Justice Humphreys said the facts did not match the Supreme Court case relied on by the applicant. The inspector had acknowledged submissions that the 2006 guidelines were outdated and had considered them alongside other material. The board was required to have regard to the existing guidelines, but had not treated them as binding, the judge said.

The judgment said the board had considered the applicant’s submissions but was not required to accept them. The applicant had not proved that relevant evidence was ignored or that the environmental assessment contained a legally significant gap. The court also rejected the argument that planning permission gave the developer immunity from a future civil claim over nuisance: a permission does not prevent such proceedings if the development’s actual effects give rise to an actionable wrong.

The court dismissed the proceedings. It directed that, unless a party made a written legal submission on costs within 14 days, the order would be perfected on the basis of no order as to costs. The matter was listed for 18 November 2024 to confirm the order.

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