The High Court has refused judicial review challenges by Pinewood Wind Ltd and Element Power Ltd to a ministerial direction that changed wind energy provisions in the Laois County Development Plan 2017–2023.
In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2018, Ms Justice O’Regan said the applicants had not discharged the burden required to obtain an order quashing the direction or other relief. The court’s decision refused the relief sought; it did not grant the companies’ applications.
The direction, issued on 28 September 2017 under section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, required Laois County Council to delete a 1.5km setback from schools, dwellings, community centres and public roads in areas open for wind farm consideration. It also directed the plan to include a yellow map and remove a red map. Pinewood had a planning application for a wind farm pending; Element did not.
The companies argued, among other grounds, that the Minister had not properly considered their submissions, given adequate reasons for the direction or acted rationally. They also challenged the absence of strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment, and alleged a failure to have regard to climate legislation.
On the submissions ground, the judge noted that the Minister’s letter said he had carefully considered the chief executive’s report, which summarised the submissions. She found the applicants had not proved that their submissions were not considered.
On reasons and alleged irrationality, the court read the direction and related ministerial submissions alongside Appendix 5 of the draft development plan. Justice O’Regan found that these materials gave sufficient reasons for the yellow map and a rational basis for its inclusion. She also rejected the argument that the 2017 plan had to explain changes by comparison with the 2011 plan, treating the newer plan as a standalone document.
The judge was also not satisfied that the Minister had failed to consider the climate objectives: she pointed to reasons in the direction addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental assessment grounds were rejected because the regulations relied on by the applicants excluded the relevant development plan procedures, and the court found no ambiguity in that exclusion as it applied to the direction.
The judgment therefore refused the relief claimed in the companies’ judicial review proceedings.