Judgment: 2026-07-22 · Court archive

High Court rejects further challenge to Coole wind farm over turbine dimensions

High Court · [2026] IEHC 505

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • North Westmeath Turbine Action Group
What

High Court rejects further challenge to Coole wind farm over turbine dimensions

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Coole
  • North Westmeath
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected a further challenge to the planning application for a 13-turbine wind farm near Coole in County Westmeath, finding that the proposed turbine dimensions were described with sufficient precision.

The High Court has rejected a further challenge to the planning application for a 13-turbine wind farm near Coole in County Westmeath, finding that the proposed turbine dimensions were described with sufficient precision.

North Westmeath Turbine Action Group had challenged permission for the wind farm and associated works on numerous grounds. In June 2025, Mr Justice Michael Quinn dismissed all but one of those grounds. He found a defect in public notification of the environmental impact assessment because the notice did not cover the integrated project including its grid connection.

A later ruling in November 2025 decided that the appropriate remedy for that defect was a declaration rather than an order quashing the permission.

The group then asked the court to reopen a separate issue. It relied on a 2021 High Court judgment, Sweetman 17, which had found that a wind farm application using an overly broad “design envelope” could fail planning regulations requiring sufficiently precise plans and particulars.

The Coole application described turbines with a tip height of up to 175 metres. It also contained scaled drawings, locations for each turbine and details of foundations, towers, hubs and blades. The planning permission further imposed maximum dimensions of 105 metres for hub height, 175 metres for tip height and 70 metres for blade length.

Quinn J held that this was materially different from Sweetman 17. The design was not open-ended, turbine locations were fixed and the overall documents left little scope for significant deviation from the illustrated dimensions.

The judge also accepted evidence that some flexibility is necessary because wind turbine models can change between planning and procurement.

The court therefore refused to declare the application invalid under Articles 22 and 23 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

The earlier declaration remains: the environmental impact assessment did not comply with the public-notice requirement of the EIA Directive. All other reliefs sought were refused.

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