The High Court has dismissed a judicial review by the Fahybeg Windfarm Opposition Group and Sean Conway challenging An Bord Pleanála’s permission for an eight-turbine wind farm in Co Clare.
The board granted permission on appeal on 6 March 2024 to RWE Renewables Ireland Limited. The applicants sought to have the decision quashed. Their challenge was heard by Mr Justice Humphreys on 13 May 2025, with a further hearing on 26 May to conclude the case. Judgment was delivered on 30 May.
Three grounds remained in issue. On the claim that the project would materially contravene the Clare County Development Plan by removing trees in Ballymoloney Woods, the judge said the applicants had not established that the proposed felling fell within the area identified as protected woodland. Evidence later provided by RWE showed the felling would be outside that area, he said. The applicants’ attempt to provide further evidence was refused: the judge found their affidavit evidence inadmissible and said they had not applied to cross-examine the developer’s witness.
The court also rejected the complaint that the board gave inadequate reasons for dismissing concerns about effects on house prices. The inspector had noted that no substantive evidence conclusively linked a depreciation in property values to the wind farm at that location. The judge said the board had given its main reasons and was not required to provide further reasons for those reasons.
On shadow flicker, the applicants argued that a general condition requiring the development to follow its plans conflicted with a specific condition allowing up to 30 minutes a day and 30 hours a year at homes and other sensitive locations. The judge read the conditions together: the mitigation measures intended to prevent flicker remained operative, while the specific condition set the outer limit for any non-compliance. The opposing parties agreed with that interpretation. The judge said a declaration was unnecessary, though he was prepared to consider recording the interpretation in a recital to the order.
A further challenge concerned references to borrow pits in parts of the environmental impact assessment. The court accepted that these were errors: no borrow pits formed part of the project, and the inspector and board had understood that. The judge found no resulting error in the board’s assessment.
Several other grounds, including claims about bats, spoil deposition and traffic conditions, were not pursued. The court dismissed the proceedings. It directed that, unless a party made written submissions within 14 days seeking a different costs order, the order would be perfected on a no-order-as-to-costs basis. The matter was listed for 30 June 2025 to confirm the order.