The High Court quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a four-turbine wind farm at Coor West, Shanavogh, County Clare, after finding that the Board had not met statutory requirements for its appropriate assessment and environmental impact assessment. The court also found that a notice requiring further information did not give reasons for requiring an appropriate assessment.
In a judgment delivered on 14 June 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett granted Kathleen Connolly’s application for an order of certiorari quashing the Board’s decision of 6 June 2014. The decision had granted permission for four turbines, each with a hub height of up to 85 metres and a rotor diameter of up to 82 metres, and associated development.
The original application was for six turbines. Clare County Council refused permission in July 2011, citing concerns including visual and noise impacts, the location and water pollution risks, and gaps in information about effects on the hen harrier, bats and haulage routes. The developer appealed. After seeking further information under section 132 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Board received a redesigned four-turbine proposal and additional material, including a Natura Impact Statement.
Ms Connolly argued that the Board had failed to carry out or properly record screening and appropriate assessments, failed to conduct or record a proper environmental impact assessment, and failed to consider section 37(2) of the Act. The Board maintained that it had complied with its legal duties.
The judge found that the section 132 notice requiring a Natura Impact Statement did not give reasons for the Board’s determination that an appropriate assessment was required, as section 177U(6)(a) required. He also held that the Board’s decision did not set out sufficiently complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions to explain its appropriate assessment under section 177V(1). The general statement that the Board had considered the material and concluded there would be no adverse effect on the relevant European sites did not give an affected person enough information to assess the decision’s lawfulness.
On environmental impact assessment, the court found that the Board’s decision offered no proper evaluation of the proposed development’s direct and indirect effects or meaningful statement of its main reasons. The inspector’s report that the Board generally adopted concerned the earlier six-turbine design, while the proposal had since changed in turbine number, locations, access route, internal roads and burrow pits. The judgment said the decision did not describe or evaluate the new material.
The court rejected the section 37(2) objection: that provision’s restrictions did not apply on the facts, so it was unnecessary to decide whether the Board had complied with it. The defects identified under sections 172(1J), 177U(6)(a) and 177V(1) led the court to grant certiorari. The judgment records no further order.