The High Court has dismissed farmer John Keane’s challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a four-turbine wind farm at Cloontaa, between Claremorris and Ballyhaunis in Co Mayo.
Mr Keane argued that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate because it did not properly address the risk that heavy turbines and construction equipment could damage local roads and bridges during delivery. The challenge was brought by judicial review against the Board’s September 2011 decision granting permission to PWWP Development Limited.
The development company had initially applied in 2009 to build seven turbines. Following revised public notices, the proposal was reduced to four. Mayo County Council granted permission in July 2010, subject to 31 conditions, and the Board later granted permission with further conditions.
The judgment records that the planning authority sought additional environmental information, including a survey identifying local roads and bridges on possible delivery routes. The Board’s inspector considered the access arrangements and identified strengthening works, while noting that some bridges required preliminary inspection. PWWP agreed to use route C, which crosses a railway line; Iarnród Éireann had agreed risk-mitigation measures for that crossing.
Permission conditions required surveys of roads and bridges before and after construction. The Council was to arrange surveys of the haul routes and repair haulage damage, with the cost met by the developer. The developer also had to provide security to cover damage to the public road network.
Mr Justice Hogan held that the Board was entitled to conclude that the environmental impact statement and additional material identified the main risks and allowed them to be assessed before permission was granted. He considered that any likely road or bridge damage would be reversible and that the conditions provided for monitoring and repair. He said the Board could lawfully regard the information and mitigation measures as sufficient, even if a more detailed survey might have described potential impacts more precisely.
The judge did not decide which standard of judicial review applied to the Board’s assessment. He concluded that the challenge would fail even under the more demanding “manifest error” approach discussed in the judgment. He also distinguished the case from a European Court of Justice ruling concerning Ireland’s system for granting retention permission, because the risks here had been identified in advance.
The court dismissed the challenge to the validity of the Board’s planning decision. The judgment does not revoke or amend the permission.