The High Court has dismissed a married couple’s application for judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s permission for an 11-turbine wind farm at Cleanrath, Inchigeelagh, County Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2018, Mr Justice Robert Haughton rejected challenges concerning the Board’s environmental impact assessment, its treatment of noise and amplitude modulation, a change to a recommended noise condition, and the assessment of effects on the Gearagh Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area.
The applicants had lived at Bear na Gaoithe since 1992, about 637 metres from the nearest proposed turbine, and ran a horticulture nursery, florist and gardening business from their property. Cork County Council had granted permission for six turbines in June 2016. On appeal, the Board granted permission for 11 turbines, with a maximum tip height of 150 metres, subject to 22 conditions. The applicants obtained leave to seek judicial review in July 2017.
They argued that the Board should have examined and assessed the scientific material they submitted challenging the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines and the noise research on which they were based. They also said the Board had not properly considered evidence that amplitude modulation—a pulsing or “thumping” quality in turbine noise—could occur, and should have included a specific mitigation provision recommended by the inspector.
The judge held that an environmental impact assessment must examine and assess the proposed development’s direct and indirect effects, but does not require a detailed evaluation of every submission or scientific paper. He found the Board was entitled to apply the 2006 guidelines, which remained in force, and was not required to assess research challenging those guidelines as planning policy. On amplitude modulation, he found material before the inspector and Board that could support their conclusion and said the court could not substitute its view for the Board’s absent irrationality or unreasonableness.
The Board’s noise condition omitted wording recommended by the inspector about mitigation for amplitude modulation. The judge said the omission may have been an error, but found that another condition required implementation of mitigation measures described in the environmental and Natura impact statements. He concluded that those measures covered the relevant monitoring and turbine curtailment or cessation.
The applicants also challenged the assessment of the Gearagh sites, arguing that uncertainty about the causes of historic erosion prevented a conclusion that the development would not harm their integrity. The judge distinguished uncertainty about past degradation from the question of the proposed development’s effects. He found the Board had adequate information to conclude that the proposed drainage measures would prevent increased runoff affecting the sites, and that its assessment was adequately recorded.
The judicial review application was dismissed.