The High Court has dismissed five grounds in a judicial review challenging planning permission for a 141-hectare solar farm near Clonea Power and Mothel in Co Waterford. The challenge is not yet fully decided: two grounds remain outstanding, and the court directed that its dismissal order not be perfected until those are addressed.
Humphreys J’s judgment concerns permission granted by An Bord Pleanála on 24 April 2024 for a second phase of the solar project, about a kilometre south of a first phase permitted in 2019. The applicants are four local residents and Clonea Gun Club. The developer, BNRG Mothel Limited, is a notice party to the proceedings.
The applicants argued, among other things, that the board failed to have proper regard to the Waterford development plan’s policy on considering alternatives for renewable energy projects. The judge found that the policy had been considered and said the challenge did not establish a failure to have regard to the plan. The applicants had not pleaded that the permission materially contravened it.
The court also rejected the challenge to the 40-year operating period. The board had departed from its inspector’s recommendation for a 25-year period aligned with the first phase. The judge held that the project’s financial viability could properly be considered when assessing sustainable development and the permission’s duration.
On heritage, habitat and noise issues, the applicants said further information should have been sought, including an architectural heritage impact assessment and updated habitat and botanical surveys. The judge said the need for further information was a planning judgment and found no demonstrated legal error in proceeding on the information before the board. The court also concluded that the applicants had not shown the appropriate assessment of effects on otters and freshwater pearl mussels to be defective. It treated a missing fragment in the inspector’s report about an otter slide as a typographical error that did not justify quashing the decision.
The EIA challenge included claims about internal access tracks and other project features. The judge held that the tracks described in the case were not “roads” within the meaning of the EIA directive and the relevant screening rules. He also rejected the other pleaded project classifications and said the proposed reference to the Court of Justice of the EU on whether solar farms require EIA was inadmissible because that issue had not been pleaded.
The judgment dismissed grounds 3 to 5, 7 and 8, subject to any consequences arising from the remaining grounds. Ground 6 had been withdrawn. Grounds 1 and 2, concerning matters including wayleaves and sporting rights, remain to be heard. The court reserved costs and listed the case for 13 October 2025 to arrange the next hearing.