A High Court judgment with significant implications for the obligations of applicants for permission for wind farm developments is not being appealed, it has emerged.
An Bord Pleanála previously decided not to proceed with its appeal against the judgment of Mr Justice Richard Humphreys last June overturning the board's strategic infrastructure permission for a 24 turbine wind farm in the midlands.
The proposed developer, Bord na Mona Powergen Ltd, then indicated it would apply to progress the appeal it but has now informed the judge it is not proceeding with that application, with the effect his judgment stands.
Environmentalist Peter Sweetman, who took the case, and who has won a considerable number of other environmental cases, has described the judgment "as the most important decision in Irish law that I have had".
Solicitor told by Law Society ‘no comment’ face masks could be a breach of regulations
‘He had a long knife up to my throat’, sister speaks of ‘awful fright’ during burglary
Cork hotel’s credit card policy discriminated against Travellers, WRC finds
Internal investigation into Garda decision to bar press from court hearing held
The proposed windfarm was to be located at Mountdillon Peat Production Bog near Lanesborough in Co Longford.
The board’s June 2020 permission was overturned by Mr Justice Humphreys due to the lack of detail of the actual design of the wind turbines in the planning application. The turbine heights and blade lengths were expressed in terms of the maximum rather than the actual proposed dimensions.
The effect of the lack of detail was equivalent to seeking planning permission for a house “on the basis it could be anything from a one-storey bungalow to a ten storey mansion”, Mr Justice Humphreys held.
If constructed to the maximum dimensions, the height of the proposed 24 turbines would be the joint tallest structures in Ireland, with a tip height of 185 metres, he noted.
Because the windfarm was deemed strategic infrastructure, the developer had made the application directly to the board. Mr Sweetman’s judicial review action was against An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General with the developer a notice party.
Mr Sweetman claimed the plans had no detail in terms of the design of the turbines relative to their particular siting and they referred only to “typical” structures.
That lack of detail meant it would be impossible, on the basis of the plans submitted, to formulate any definitive findings concerning their impact and that core elements of the design were left until after consent for the development was given.
In overturning the permission, Mr Justice Humphreys said it was effectively agreed the planning application was for a “design envelope” rather than for a construction of specified dimensions.
He ruled that, for domestic law purposes, the application fell short of the required detail. The concept of “plans and particulars” in the relevant regulations concerning strategic infrastructural development must mean something specific, something specifically measured and capable of being drawn on a plan, he said.
“That can’t include a widely variable design envelope. Otherwise, one wouldn’t be talking about a plan, still less particulars.”
The board’s argument that everything was assessed on a “worst case” scenario was not an answer for reasons including that “worst case” was “hopelessly subjective”, the judge added.
