The High Court has dismissed objectors’ judicial review challenge against the awarding of planning permission for a 579ft eight-turbine wind farm in southeast Clare.
RWE Renewables Ireland sought permission to build the Fahybeg wind farm. It would be a 38.4MW wind farm on lands 1.5km from Bridgetown, and 3.5km from O’Briensbridge in southeast Clare in May 2023. An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission in March 2024 after Clare County Council had refused to approve the plans.
As part of the proposal, the wind farm developers are to establish a Community Benefit Fund which will distribute up to €3.12m over the first 15 years of the wind farm that will have “a significant long-term, positive effect on the socio-economic profile of the study area and wider area”.
More than 300 people from the area lodged objections against the initial proposals.
Is there any tax disadvantage to gifting my children money now rather than as inheritance?
Childcare in Ireland: ‘Even as well-paid professionals, it was an exhausting struggle. The numbers never added up’
Smooth Company’s Áine Kennedy: ‘My screen time is outrageous. I don’t have a work-life balance at the moment’
Semi-state CEOs: What do they earn and should they be paid more?
After An Bord Pleanála signed off on the plans, the Fahybeg Windfarm Opposition Group and Sean Conway launched High Court judicial review proceedings seeking to have the appeals board decision quashed.
However, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys - who pres–des over the Planning and Environment Division of the High Court - has dism–ssed all grounds of the judicial review challenge.
The applicants claimed that the decision should be quashed as the planned wind farm would materially contravene the Development Plan due to the loss of part of Ballymoloney Woods.
Mr Justice Humphreys stated that on the basis of the applicants’ analysis, the felling of any tree necessarily constitutes a material contravention of the Development Plan.
Mr Justice Humphreys stated that this approach represented an “excessively literalist and absolutist interpretation” of development plan objectives.
Mr Justice Humphreys added that the application failed to engage with the specifics of the individual trees which are actually being felled, pointing 0.4 of a hectare or, or 0.2 per cent of the total amount of long established woodland is being removed.
He said: “There is no absolute prohibition on the removal of trees, contrary to the applicants’ complaints, and a reasonably informed reader would not read such a preclusion into the Development Plan when same is read objectively and holistically.”
Mr Justice Humphreys also dismissed the objectors’ claim that planning permission should be quashed due to the impact that the wind farm would have on property prices in the area.
He said that there is no substantive evidence presented that would conclusively indicate a depreciation in property values directly attributable to the wind farm’s presence at this particular location.
