North Westmeath Turbine Action Group & Anor v an Bord Pleanála & Ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Quinn
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 608
• Docket Number: RECORD NO. 2019/297JR

Between

North Westmeath Turbine Action Group

and

North Westmeath Turbine Action Group Limited by Guarantee

Applicants

and

An Bord Pleanála

and

Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

and

Westmeath County Council, Coole Windffarm Limited and Greenwire Limited and Greenwire Windfarms Limited

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 608

RECORD NO. 2019/297JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Planning permission – Judicial review – Form of order – Respondent and notice party addressing the court as to the form of order – Whether the order following the judgment should take the form of a declaration only

Facts: The applicants, North Westmeath Turbine Action Group and North Westmeath Turbine Action Group Limited by Guarantee, sought declarations that in granting planning permission for a 13 turbine windfarm located near the village of Coole, County Westmeath, and associated works the first respondent, An Bord Pleanála, failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 2014/52/EU (the EIA Directive) as transposed into Irish law, and a declaration that the proposed development was not validly assessed in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC as transposed (the Habitats Directive). The applicants also sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent to grant planning permission for the development. On 16 June 2025, the High Court (Quinn J, [2025] IEHC 367) dismissed all of the applicants’ grounds except for one: the EIA made by the first respondent was defective in that the requirement to give public notice of the EIA of the project was not complied with. Quinn J stated that there would be a declaration that the assessment did not comply with the EIA Directive and that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to grant planning permission for the project, and he would grant an order of certiorari of the decision. The first respondent submitted that, without prejudice to its intended application for an appeal certificate, the order following the judgment should take the form of a declaration only.

Held by Quinn J that, referring to re McInerney Homes Ltd [2011] IEHC 25, there was clear authority for the proposition that it is open to the court to revisit its judgment before the making of final orders, and particularly where the court had invited the parties to make submissions before final orders were made. Referring to Nash v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] IESC 32, he held that a fair and just outcome to the case would not be achieved if he were to decline to consider submissions not only as to the wording of the order, but on the question of the form of relief. He held that the error he made was to state a conclusion on this question before hearing submissions on the point informed by the substantive judgment; accordingly, it was appropriate to consider the form of relief and the submission by the second notice party, Coole Windfarm Ltd, that the court should exercise its discretion to refuse certiorari.

Quinn J held that the planning permission, while declared to be in breach of the public participation requirement of the EIA Directive, should be saved from certiorari by the particular circumstance that none of the windfarm works would be undertaken unless and until planning permission for phase two had been granted, and that can only occur after a process which, once conducted validly, renders harmless the error which occurred in this case. He held that this was the consequence of what had occurred and of applying O’Grianna v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2014] IEHC 632. He was persuaded that certiorari was not warranted. He limited the order to declaratory relief.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Quinn delivered on the 10 ^th day of November 2025 (Form of Order and Relief)

1 . In these proceedings and in a related case ( Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. 2019/305JR) the applicants sought declarations that in granting planning permission for a 13 turbine windfarm located near the village of Coole, County Westmeath, and associated works the first named respondent failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 2014/52/EU (the EIA Directive) as transposed into Irish law, and a declaration that the proposed development was not validly assessed in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC as transposed (the Habitats Directive). The applicants sought also an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent to grant planning permission for the development.

2 . The applicants advanced the claims under a series of grounds referable to the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the EIA Directive and the Habitats Directive.

3 . The applicants pursued their claim under 19 separate grounds. In the related proceedings Mr. Sweetman identified 8 grounds. There was much overlap between the grounds relied on by the applicants in the separate proceedings. On 16 June 2025 this Court delivered its judgment ( [2025] IEHC 367). The application of Mr. Sweetman was dismissed entirely. The applicants' grounds were all dismissed except for one, which I found to be fundamental.

4 . The ground on which the applicants succeeded was that the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) made by the first named respondent, and which under the EIA Directive must be performed before planning permission can be granted for a project of this nature and scale was defective in that the requirement to give public notice of the environmental impact assessment of the project was not complied with.

5 . The detail of my reasoning for this conclusion is in Part 12 (6) of the judgment (paras. 505 to 599). The conclusion is stated in summary form also in Part 1 (paras. 10 to 12 and Part 14 (paras. 904 to 907).

6 . The defect in the assessment arose as follows. Firstly, as a matter of Irish law, environmental impact assessment of a windfarm project must, if it is to be valid, be an assessment of the integrated single project which comprises a first phase namely the windfarm and immediately associated works, and a second phase which is the works to connect it to the national power grid. Without a grid connection the windfarm can never be functional. Any EIA which does not assess all these works as one offends the well-established rule against project splitting as it applies to wind farm projects in Ireland. See O'Grianna v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2014] IEHC 632.

7 . Secondly in this case the developer, being the second named notice party, recognising this rule, submitted an environmental impact assessment report, and the respondent in its EIA all treated the obligation to make such an assessment of the project as extending to the entire project including the grid connection.

8 . Thirdly, environmental impact assessment is a process comprising a series of steps, one of which is the giving of public notice (Article 6.2 of the Directive and s. 171 (A) of the Act).

9 . The published notices in this case described in detail the works at the windfarm itself, being construction of turbines, on-site electrical substations, a construction compound, underground and electrical and communications cabling connecting the turbines to the on-site station, new site access roads and upgrade of existing access roads and associated drainage. These works were all to be located within five townlands namely Coole, Monktown, Camagh, Doon and Clonsura.

10 . The notice referred also to a proposed borrow pit to be located in a different town land at Mullagh, and the construction of a new link road between two regional roads at another location to facilitate turbine delivery. Finally, the notice referred to junction improvement works at two other locations in the separate townlands of Joanstown and Boherquill.

11 . The environmental impact assessment report submitted by the notice party and the assessment undertaken by the respondent's Inspector each considered in detail the works referred to above and the grid connection works, extending over a 26 km route through 21 townlands. But the notices published, having taken the care to identify not only the windfarm site works and works at four other locations, over 8 townlands, made no reference to the grid connection works over 21 townlands, through 21 kilometres. They therefore did not meet the requirement in Art. 6.2. to give public notice of the entire of the integrated project, per O'Grianna, being assessed.

12 . This omission may have arisen from the fact that planning permission was applied for only in respect of the wind farm site and immediately associated works. But for the purpose of environmental impact assessment, which requires the giving of public notice, the grid connection and references to its location were no less relevant than the references either to the wind farm itself or the various separate works including the borrow pit and junction improvement works all at various locations separated from the windfarm turbine site itself.

13 . Fifthly, the State having elected, as the EIA Directive contemplates, to incorporate compliance with the EIA Directive by utilising the processes and procedures to be followed for planning permission pursuant to the Act, that single process, including the giving of public notice, serves the dual purpose of compliance with domestic planning laws and the requirements of the Directive. No other or different notice of the EIA is required to be or was given in this case.

14 . I therefore concluded that since the notice omitted any reference to the grid connection or its location, it did not comply with the requirements of the Directive. In its essence, this is the combined effect of Article 6.2 of the Directive, s. 171 (A) of the Act as amended,...