The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a wind farm at Knocknamona, Co Waterford. Mr Justice Robert Haughton held that the permission covered the wind farm development, not the proposed grid connection or haul route works, and found that the grounds pursued by the applicants had not been made out.
Michael and Giancarla Alen-Buckley sought to quash the Board’s decision of 14 December 2016 to grant permission to Ecopower Developments Limited. The proposal, originally for 12 turbines, was revised on appeal to omit four. Waterford County Council had refused permission, citing an inadequate environmental impact statement and concerns about landscape and visual amenity.
The applicants argued that conditions attached to the Board’s permission effectively extended it to cover the grid connection and haul routes. The court rejected that interpretation. It relied on the application documents, the inspector’s reports and the Board’s decision, which granted permission generally in accordance with the inspector’s recommendation. The inspector had said those works were outside the planning application but were included in the environmental assessment. The court also noted that Ecopower was continuing to seek planning permission for the grid connection.
Because the permission did not cover those works, the court said challenges based on inadequate public notice of their routes and the presentation of two route options fell away. The court also rejected an allegation that a photographed site notice misstated turbine height: it found no factual basis to establish that the photograph showed a notice erected for the application. It held there was no requirement to state blade length or rotor diameter in the notice.
The court found that the Board was entitled to assess the planning appeal afresh and was not bound by the council’s refusal. It also rejected the applicants’ development-plan argument, finding no material contravention and concluding that the inspector and Board had considered the plan, including its wind energy strategy. The court held that conditions could leave certain technical details for later agreement with the planning authority, and that difficulties obtaining third-party consent or separate permission could prevent implementation without invalidating the permission.
On appropriate assessment, the court found that the inspector applied the correct Stage 1 screening test and that the Board was entitled to conclude a Stage 2 assessment was unnecessary. Separately, the court ruled that unpleaded arguments—including some raised in affidavits and submissions—could not be considered because no application had been made to amend the pleadings. The judgment concerned the legality of the decision-making process, not whether the wind farm should have been approved on its merits.