The High Court has refused a local group’s application to stop works on Clonsura Bog, after finding that peat company Westland Horticulture was carrying out unauthorised development through winter maintenance measures. The court gave the group liberty to apply again if the measures continue for an unacceptable period without progress on a substitute consent application.
The North Westmeath Turbine Action Group brought the case under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It alleged that peat extraction and drainage works continued after peat harvesting became unlawful in July 2019, and that the works were linked to plans for a wind farm. The group also challenged geotechnical investigations carried out for Coole Windfarms in 2020.
Justice Bolger found that Westland had stopped peat removal by May 2020. She accepted that the company continued winterisation measures, including clearing silt pipes and ponds, and that those measures involved drainage. They fell within the activities covered by an earlier planning declaration and were not shown to qualify for the maintenance exemption Westland relied on. The judge therefore found them to be unauthorised development.
The court did not accept the group’s claims that the works amounted to extensive drainage, caused pollution, or were being done to prepare the bog for wind turbines. The group had provided no independent expert evidence on environmental damage, and its claims were disputed. The judge also found no evidence establishing an agreement to integrate the peat and wind farm developments.
The court separately found that Coole Windfarms’ five boreholes and temporary monitoring pipes were investigations to examine the subsoil. It accepted that they came within the Class 45 exemption for surveying land or examining subsoil, and found that the group had not established they formed part of the wind farm development or breached the stay on its planning permission.
Although the court found unauthorised development, it declined to grant the requested injunction. It described the ongoing measures as minor and accepted that stopping them could create a risk of environmental damage by leaving silt pipes and ponds uncleared. That risk had not been adequately addressed by the group. Westland’s application for substitute consent remained live before An Bord Pleanála, which could consider environmental safeguards and remedial measures.
The court refused relief under section 160 but allowed the group to return if the winterisation measures continue for an unacceptable period without progress on substitute consent. The judgment said final orders, costs and any further orders would be dealt with at a mention listed for 25 January; it did not determine those matters in the judgment.