The High Court has refused Nagle View Turbine Aware Group leave to appeal the dismissal of its challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s treatment of noise and wind energy guidelines for a proposed development by Coom Green Energy Park Limited.
In a judgment delivered on 10 January 2025, Mr Justice Humphreys said the group’s three proposed questions did not meet the legal requirements for an appeal. The court held that they rested on inaccurate or unsupported premises, did not arise from the earlier judgment, or concerned matters outside the pleaded grounds.
The group’s first proposed question asked whether the Board had completed as full an assessment as possible of turbine noise when it had not assessed noise character, including amplitude modulation, or possible mitigation. The judge said that premise was wrong: the earlier judgment found that the Board had assessed noise character and considered whether mitigation was needed. The group had not established an evidential basis for finding the assessment incomplete or unreasonable.
A second proposed question concerned noise effects on nearby sensitive receptors, including members’ homes. The judge again said the earlier ruling had found that the inspector considered noise impacts on nearby homes, including noise character. He also said the proposed ground about proper planning and development had not been pleaded.
The third question asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Balz v An Bord Pleanála had a wider application. The judge said the earlier judgment had not confined Balz in the way the question suggested, and that the proposed question was abstract and did not show how any alleged misinterpretation affected the outcome or created legal uncertainty.
The group had argued that the judgment could allow the Board to ignore sound character and said the conflict between noise nuisance and energy production was a broader public concern. The judge said those claims were unsupported by evidence and did not reflect the findings in the case. He also noted that the project had already been delayed by almost a year, and that further delay would weigh against an appeal in the public interest.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. It directed that this order and the order dismissing the original proceedings, made on 1 November 2024, be perfected forthwith as the final order, with no further listing. The earlier dismissal was made with no order as to costs.