The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permissions for two wind farm developments in County Roscommon, finding that the Board had not lawfully assessed their effects on nearby European conservation sites.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2014, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan ruled that the Board’s appropriate assessments did not meet the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive. The Board had also failed to give the reasons needed to show how it concluded that the projects would not harm the integrity of the protected sites.
The challenge was brought by Eamon (Ted) Kelly, a Dysart resident and local residents’ group chairman who had appealed both planning applications. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht supported his challenge on the habitats issues. An Bord Pleanála and Galetech Energy Developments Ltd, the applicant for both permissions, opposed it.
The first permission, granted on 9 September 2013, covered 16 turbines at Croan, Gortaphuill, Mullaghardagh and Dysart. The second, granted on 13 September 2013, covered 19 turbines at Milltown, Skeavally, Tawnagh and Tobermacloghlin. Board inspectors had recommended refusing both applications, but the Board decided by a 4–1 majority to grant permission.
The court said the Board could grant permission only after an appropriate assessment supported a determination that the developments would not adversely affect any relevant European site. Such an assessment had to identify the potential effects using the best scientific knowledge and contain complete, precise findings and conclusions capable of removing reasonable scientific doubt.
For the first development, the inspector had identified concerns about bird movements between wetlands, collision risk and possible changes to turlough habitats linked to groundwater. The Board disagreed with aspects of her conclusions, citing additional bird survey information and ground conditions, but the judgment found no evidence of the analysis or evaluation behind those disagreements.
For the second development, the inspector identified risks to birds and wetlands, including possible effects on groundwater flow through karst limestone. The Board again disagreed, but had not set out findings sufficient to resolve the identified scientific uncertainties.
The court did not decide the separate screening issue or the other challenges, as it was unnecessary to do so. It made orders of certiorari quashing both planning decisions. The judgment therefore set aside the two permissions; it did not itself decide whether either development could receive permission following a lawful assessment.