The High Court has refused the Carrownagowan Concern Group and two named applicants leave to appeal a judgment that dismissed the balance of their challenge to planning permission for a proposed wind farm in County Clare.
In a judgment delivered on 23 September 2024, Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed the leave application with no order as to costs. He said the proposed appeal did not identify demonstrable uncertainty in the law on the four questions raised. The court’s order also directed that an earlier order be perfected: that order granted a declaration but otherwise dismissed the proceedings and awarded the applicants costs to an extent set out in the substantive judgment.
The case concerns permission granted by An Bord Pleanála on 29 September 2022 for a wind farm and associated works across nine townlands in County Clare. The board had accepted the inspector’s conclusions that significant effects on two European sites could be ruled out following appropriate assessment, and that the project’s effects were acceptable following environmental impact assessment.
The applicants’ underlying challenge had been dealt with in two earlier judgments. In October 2023, the court struck out part of the case and discharged leave in part; that judgment was under appeal, with judgment awaited. In May 2024, the court dismissed the remaining part. The applicants then sought leave to appeal the May decision.
Their four proposed questions concerned whether an alleged error in appropriate assessment could be treated as harmless; what analysis and reasons the planning decision had to set out on environmental effects; whether reasons could be incorporated by reference; and whether the board had to explain the expertise it applied.
The judge said the first question misstated the earlier decision. He had not refused relief solely on the developer’s assertion that an error would not have changed the outcome. He relied on evidence, including an affidavit from the developer’s expert, which the applicants had not challenged by replying evidence or cross-examination. The court found no established legal uncertainty warranting an appeal on that issue.
On the other questions, the judge said some arguments had not been included in the applicants’ pleaded grounds, while others were abstract or unsupported by evidence that the applicants had been disadvantaged. He also rejected their claim that the earlier judgment conflicted with other decisions on the reasons required in environmental assessments.
The court added that further delay weighed against leave, given the project’s renewable energy purpose and the time already spent in litigation. It did not decide any further appeal; it refused permission to bring one from the May 2024 judgment.