The High Court has dismissed Ardragh Wind Farm Ltd’s challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for five wind turbines at Ardragh, in the western end of Cork’s Mealagh Valley.
In a judgment delivered on 22 November 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons found that the Board’s decision, read with its inspector’s reports and the appeal history, showed that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out and informed the refusal. The court did not set aside the Board’s decision.
Ardragh Wind Farm Ltd had sought judicial review, arguing that neither the formal decision nor the Board Direction expressly stated that the Board had carried out an assessment or adopted the inspector’s assessment. The company did not challenge the inspector’s assessment itself or the finding that the proposed turbines, considered alongside other wind energy developments, would have significant negative effects on the landscape and visual amenities.
The project was for five turbines and associated works, with a potential output of about 11.5 megawatts. Cork County Council had granted permission, but two third-party appeals were brought to An Bord Pleanála. The Board first sought further information about cumulative landscape and visual effects. After receiving the developer’s response and submissions from the third-party appellants, the inspector prepared a supplementary report recommending refusal.
The Board refused permission in June 2014, recording that decision in a direction dated 2 July and a formal order signed and sealed on 8 July. Its reasons referred to the proposed development’s cumulative impact with other permitted and proposed projects, including significant negative effects on the Mealagh Valley’s landscape character, visual amenities, tourism and recreational potential.
Justice Simons applied the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in *Connelly v An Bord Pleanála*, which allows reasons and evidence of an assessment to be considered across connected materials, provided they make the decision and assessment sufficiently clear. He concluded that the inspector’s two reports, the Board Direction and the formal decision showed that the Board had accepted the inspector’s approach and taken account of the assessment. An express formula stating that the Board had “adopted” the report was not necessary in the circumstances.
The judge also said that, even if the challenge had succeeded on its merits, he would have refused relief as a matter of discretion. The proceedings had been initiated in 2014 but were not listed for hearing until 2019. Setting aside the refusal would not revive the county council’s earlier permission; the developer would need to make a fresh application. The court also noted that the developer had not shown an arguable basis for finding that the outcome might have differed.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The judge reserved the question of costs, including whether special environmental litigation costs rules applied.