The High Court rejected an application by Derrybrien Cooperative Society Limited to stop tree felling for a wind farm at Derrybrien, Co Galway. Ms Justice Dunne was not satisfied that the removal of forestry was unauthorised development under the planning laws.
The society sought interlocutory or final orders under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to restrain the respondents from continuing the tree removal and to require restoration of the land, including replanting trees and restoring drainage channels. The judgment records that tree felling had restarted in July 2004 and construction resumed in November 2004, after work stopped following a major bog burst and landslide in October 2003.
The dispute focused on whether separate planning permission was required for the removal of trees across the wind farm site. The society argued that the felling was deforestation for conversion to another land use and that an environmental impact assessment was required for the relevant development. The respondents maintained that the tree removal formed part of the wind farm development already authorised by planning permission.
The judge agreed with the society that the work was deforestation, rather than harvesting. But she found that the environmental impact statements submitted with the relevant planning applications had to be considered as part of the permissions. Read objectively as a whole, those documents made clear that the development envisaged removal of the forestry and a change from forestry to wind farm use.
The judgment also rejected arguments that the 1999 environmental assessment regulations retrospectively required additional assessments for earlier permissions or their extensions. Any challenge to the validity of a permission based on alleged deficiencies in its environmental assessment was out of time, the court said.
The court concluded that the society had not established that the deforestation was unauthorised development. The judgment does not direct restoration or order the respondents to stop the work. Justice Dunne said the applicant’s concerns were understandable and expressed an expectation that the respondents’ steps would prevent a recurrence of the 2003 events.