The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by Claire O’Brien and Patrick O’Brien against An Bord Pleanála’s 2017 grant of substitute consent for the Kilvinane wind farm in County Cork.
The applicants sought to quash the Board’s decision, arguing that it had not properly assessed the wind farm’s noise effects and had failed to give adequate reasons. They said they had lived just over 500 metres from the nearest turbine with their three children before moving because of noise. Their submissions included a report by acoustic consultant Dick Bowdler, who criticised the developer’s noise assessment and concluded that permitted limits were exceeded at a number of nearby properties.
The judgment recounts that the wind farm was built with three turbines after alterations to a 2002 planning permission. In 2016, the Court of Appeal held that the turbines as constructed were unauthorised development because of deviations from that permission. The Board later granted the developer leave to apply for substitute consent and, on 2 March 2017, granted that consent following an application accompanied by a remedial environmental impact statement and a revised statement covering the grid connection.
The High Court found that the applicants had not established that the Board failed to consider their submissions. The Inspector’s report summarised their concerns and the Bowdler report, which was also before the Board. The court said the law required assessment of the development’s environmental effects, including noise, but did not require the Inspector or Board to analyse and answer each expert report or public submission point by point.
The court also rejected the claim that the wrong noise baseline had been used. It found the record included comparisons between 2015 measurements and pre-construction noise data collected in 2006, and that the Inspector considered the pre-development baseline. The court said further criticism of the assessment’s methodology went to the merits of the planning decision, which were not being reviewed in these proceedings.
The consent included conditions requiring mitigation measures and limiting turbine noise at dwellings and other sensitive receptors to 40 dB(A) LA90 externally, with a monitoring programme. Reading the Board’s decision alongside its conditions and the Inspector’s report, the judge concluded that the Board’s reasons were sufficient. The court dismissed the judicial review; it did not quash the substitute consent.