Judgment: 2026-05-15 · Court archive

High Court refuses residents group leave to appeal ruling on White Hill wind farm amendment

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2026] IEHC 301

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group
  • John Nolan
  • Catriona Nolan (Applicant)
  • White Hill Wind Limited
What

High Court refuses residents group leave to appeal ruling on White Hill wind farm amendment

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Humphreys held that the questions proposed by Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal in planning judicial review proceedings.

The High Court has refused a residents group and two individuals permission to appeal rulings arising from their challenge to an amended wind farm permission involving White Hill Wind Limited.

Mr Justice Humphreys held that the questions proposed by Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal in planning judicial review proceedings.

The applicants had challenged a September 2024 decision concerning an amendment to an existing permission. Earlier High Court judgments in November 2025 and March 2026 dismissed most of their grounds. Part of one ground concerning objectives for a Special Protection Area remained for further submissions and possible declaratory relief.

For the proposed appeal, the applicants asked questions about the meaning of the power to "alter the terms of the development" under section 146B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the test for deciding whether an alteration is material.

The court rejected both proposed questions. It said the earlier judgment had already interpreted the statutory wording and had held that "terms" was not confined to planning conditions. The limiting question was materiality, including whether an amendment materially affected third-party rights, habitats or species.

The judge also rejected the applicants' description of the amendment as involving "two new turbines" or an expansion of the permission. He said the factual findings treated it essentially as a change in the location of already-permitted structures. Whether the alteration was material was principally a factual issue, and the applicants had failed to discharge the burden of proving materiality.

The court further held that no substantive European Union law issue requiring an appeal had been identified. It also cited finality in planning litigation, potential financial prejudice to the developer and the public interest in renewable-energy infrastructure.

Leave to appeal was dismissed. The remaining declaratory issue was listed for further directions on May 18, 2026.

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