Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group and Others v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 600
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000120]

In the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Between

Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, John Nolan and Catriona Nolan

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

And

White Hill Wind Limited

Notice Party (I)

[2025] IEHC 600

[H.JR.2024.0000120]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Planning permisson – Development – Judicial review – Applicants seeking to quash a decision granting planning permission to the notice party – Whether the applicants’ administrative law complaints were an impermissible merits-based attack

Facts: The applicants, Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group, Mr Nolan and Ms Nolan, applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing a decision of the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Board), of on or about 21 November 2023, pursuant to s. 37G of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to grant planning permission to the notice party, White Hill Wind Ltd, for development of a wind farm and associated infrastructure, described as being located in seven named townlands being: the four Co. Carlow townlands of Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue; and the three Co. Kilkenny townlands of Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) it is settled law that decisions should not be quashed because of an error that makes no difference; (ii) applying such law to the facts, the decision should not be quashed if the amendment decision was upheld, and the question of discretion did not arise until a final decision on that issue; (iii) it is settled law that the merits are a matter for the decision-maker and lawfulness is a matter for the court; (iv) applying such law to the facts, the applicants’ collection of administrative law complaints against the decision amounted in substance to an impermissible merits-based attack; (v) it is settled law that if a planning decision-taker is satisfied as to the adequacy of information for EIA purposes including by way of in-combination assessment, the onus is on an applicant to displace that; (vi) applying such law to the facts, the applicants had not overcome that onus; (vii) it is settled law that the Minister rather than the commission is responsible for the EIA central portal and that any relief in relation to that portal must involve joining the Minister; (viii) applying such law to the facts, the claim against the commission in respect of the central portal must fail, and any claim against the Minister must fail where the Minister had not been joined as a respondent; (ix) it is settled law that insofar as all stages of a project subject to EIA need to be considered for the purposes of cumulative and in-combination effects, the onus to displace the decision-taker’s assessment lies on an applicant; (x) applying such law to the facts, the applicants had failed to overcome that onus; (xi) it is settled law that if a planning decision-taker is satisfied as to the adequacy of information as to the environmental effects of reasonable alternatives for EIA purposes, the onus is on an applicant to displace that; and (xii) applying such law to the facts, the applicants had not overcome that onus.

Humphreys J ordered that the proceedings be dismissed insofar as concerned Module I (grounds other than the balance of core grounds 1 and 8A).

Proceedings dismissed.

Date of impugned decision: 21 November 2023

Date proceedings commenced: 24 January 2024

Application for a hearing date: 25 February 2025

Date of main hearing: 30 September – 1 October 2025

Date draft judgment circulated: 15 October 2025

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Thursday the 6 ^th day of November 2025

1 . The third named applicant lives 886 m from the nearest of a number of proposed wind turbines, most of which are significantly further away. While she fears noise impacts particularly on behalf of her son, that is equivalent to the distance as the crow files between Chancery Place and the GPO. At such a distance the noise of a turbine in terms of volume and quality should not be significantly more intrusive than a washing machine at a less vigorous stage of its cycle. That is not the sort of impact that public policy should accept as precluding the grant of permission or indeed on the face of things as giving rise to any actionable tort. In such matters it is just human nature that there can be a risk of fears running ahead of realities, so the commission in particular is there to bring objective assessment to bear on the situation. Stating the obvious, the consideration of the merits of a development are for the decision-taker, and the assessment of validity is for the court. The primary question here is whether the applicants have overcome the onus of proof to show invalidity of the decision at issue.

Geographical context

2 . The proposed development is a 7-turbine windfarm and associated works in the townlands of Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue, Co. Carlow and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East, Co. Kilkenny ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/315365).

Facts

3 . On 19 December 2022, an application for strategic infrastructure development (SID) under s. 37E of the Planning and Development Act 2000, ABP-315365–22, was lodged with the board (now commission) by Galetech Energy Services on behalf of White Hill Wind Limited for proposed development comprising a wind energy development (a 7-turbine wind farm with an electrical output of 50.4 MW) and all associated works at Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue, Co. Carlow; and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East, Co. Kilkenny.

4 . The notice party's application for strategic infrastructure development was accompanied by supporting documentation including an environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) and Natura impact statement (NIS).

5 . The application was the subject of public consultation. A number of prescribed bodies were notified by the notice party of the subject application. The following bodies each made a submission on the application: the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage Development Applications Unit, the Health Service Executive (HSE), Inland Fisheries Ireland, Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Seventy-seven third-party observations were made on the subject application, including by the first named applicant and the third named applicant. The second named applicant did not make a submission on his own behalf to the commission.

6 . The proposed windfarm is located across two planning jurisdictions with the western area of the site being located in Co. Kilkenny and the eastern area being located in Co. Carlow. A submission/report was received from each of the relevant planning authorities, Carlow County Council (dated 20 January 2023) and Kilkenny County Council (dated 21 February 2023), in accordance with s. 37E(4) of the 2000 Act. Both of the submissions/reports of the respective planning authorities were accompanied by resolutions of the elected members of each council, recording the views of the elected members on the subject application for permission.

7 . By way of letter dated 26 July 2023, the commission sought further information from the notice party, namely a response to matters raised in the submissions on the subject application. The notice party responded to that request for further information by way of response dated 18 August 2023. The further information received was not the subject of a further round of public consultation/submission.

8 . The commission decided not to hold an oral hearing (at a meeting held on 17 July 2023) in relation to the subject application, having considered that there was sufficient written evidence on file to enable an assessment of the issues raised.

9 . The commission appointed a planning inspector to prepare a report in relation to the subject application and this was done. The inspector's report, which is dated 30 September 2023, records that the inspector carried out a site inspection on 1 June 2023. The inspector recommended that permission should be granted for the proposed development, subject to conditions and for stated reasons and considerations (at section 8.0 of the report).

10 . The board direction (BD-014581–23) dated 15 November 2023 states, inter alia, that the commission decided to grant permission generally in accordance with the inspector's report and that same and the submissions on file were considered at a meeting held on 14 November 2023.

11 . By order dated 21 November 2023 (ABP-315365–22), the commission granted planning permission in respect of the proposed development subject to 22 conditions and for stated reasons and considerations.

12 . The applicant has brought two sets of proceedings, the present case being Rural Residents I challenging the parent permission, and a second case, Rural Residents II challenging an amendment to the permission.

Procedural history

13 . The first proceedings were issued on 24 January 2024.

14 . Leave was granted on 29 January 2024, with liberty to file an amended statement of grounds adding in a para. 9. An amended statement of grounds was filed on 2 February 2024.

15 . The matter was listed for mention on 12 February 2024, and default directions were agreed.

16 . The matter was listed for mention on 15 April 2024, but the first respondent's opposition papers were late. The notice party indicated that they would be seeking a date in the April List to Fix Dates.

17 . On 15 April 2024 a hearing date was fixed for December 2024 but this was later vacated in the context of the second, related set of proceedings having been instituted in November 2024.

18 . The issue of modularisation was also raised on the same date, with relief D3 and...