The High Court ruled that An Bord Pleanála’s approval of a proposed 11-turbine wind farm at Cleanrath, Co Cork, was unlawful because the record did not establish that the board had completed the required environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton said on 25 February 2016 that the board’s explanations for rejecting its inspector’s recommendation to omit four turbines were inadequate. The inspector had recommended excluding turbines 3, 4, 6 and 7 over visual and residential amenity concerns. The board granted permission without those omissions, relying on turbine-to-house separation distances, national guidelines and information on file.
The judge said the board did not identify the specific information underpinning its conclusion that the turbines could remain. Its statement that no turbine needed to be omitted for ecological reasons was particularly uninformative, given the inspector’s view that removing turbines 3 and 4 would avoid impacts on areas of blanket bog. The court found the record insufficient to determine whether the board had completed a lawful environmental impact assessment for the development as approved.
The court also found the appropriate assessment record deficient. The board had concluded that the project would not adversely affect the integrity of nearby Natura 2000 sites, but the judgment said the record lacked complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions showing how the board reached that determination and ruled out reasonable scientific doubt.
The inspector’s report discussed the developer’s Natura impact statement, but did not address a detailed report by environmental biologist Kevin Corcoran raising concerns about effects on the protected sites. The judge said the board could not treat the absence of further submissions from Mr Corcoran as proof that his concerns had been resolved. The record did not explain how differing scientific views were considered.
The applicants, Klaus Balz and Hanna Heubach, sought to quash the planning permission and declarations concerning the assessments. They also argued that the board had failed to meet statutory requirements for granting permission after the council refused it on material contravention grounds. The court rejected that argument: it held those requirements applied only where both the council and the board found a material contravention. The board had concluded that the project did not materially contravene the development plan, and that conclusion was not challenged in these proceedings.
In its ruling, the court said it would grant the relief sought and discuss the form of the orders with counsel. The judgment does not specify the final form of the orders or expressly state the terms of any order quashing the permission.