Judgment: 2025-10-15 · Court archive

High Court rejects first module of challenge to 21-turbine Castlebanny wind farm permission

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2025] IEHC 541

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Save the South Leinster Way
  • Tara Heavey
  • Springfield Renewables Limited
  • Mr Justice Humphreys
What

High Court rejects first module of challenge to 21-turbine Castlebanny wind farm permission

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Castlebanny
  • South Leinster Way
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Humphreys held that the planning process involved a legal error concerning the continuing effect of provisions of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2014-2020 after ministerial intervention in the replacement 2021-2027 plan. However, he refused to quash the permission on that basis.

The High Court has dismissed the first module of a challenge to planning permission for a 21-turbine wind farm at Castlebanny, Co Kilkenny, although further parts of the case remain unresolved.

Save the South Leinster Way and Tara Heavey are seeking to quash the September 2022 permission granted for Springfield Renewables Limited's project, which would include turbines with blade-tip heights of up to about 185 metres and associated works. The development crosses the southern section of the South Leinster Way.

Mr Justice Humphreys held that the planning process involved a legal error concerning the continuing effect of provisions of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2014-2020 after ministerial intervention in the replacement 2021-2027 plan. However, he refused to quash the permission on that basis.

The judge characterised the issue as a technical consequence of an intervention intended to facilitate a more permissive wind-energy policy. Applying the court's discretion in judicial review, he concluded that quashing the permission would be inappropriate, particularly where the applicants had not demonstrated that the error caused environmental harm or would have changed the planning outcome.

The court also rejected challenges concerning the adequacy of reasons, environmental impact assessment, consideration of Kilkenny County Council's submission and impacts on the Lesser Black-backed Gull. On the environmental assessment grounds, the judge found that the applicants had not discharged the evidential burden required to establish flaws, particularly where expert evidence filed by the developer had not been cross-examined.

The judgment does not end the proceedings. Issues concerning a July 2025 decision amending a turbine-height condition under section 146A of the Planning and Development Act remain for a second module. Separate Habitats Directive issues concerning the Kingfisher, Freshwater Pearl Mussel and related State obligations are awaiting the outcome of a CJEU case and will form a third module.

The court postponed perfection of the Module I order until the remaining modules are determined.

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