Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group and Ors v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Ors [II] [No. 2]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 136
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0001380]

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, The Attorney General and The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Respondents

and

White Hill Wind Limited (II) (No. 2)

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 136

[H.JR.2024.0001380]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Declaratory relief – Applicants seeking to quash a decision granting planning permission – Whether the fourth respondent acted contrary to reg. 24 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011

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 quashing a decision of the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála, pursuant to s. 146B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to grant permission to the notice party, White Hill Wind Ltd, for proposed amendments to the previously authorised White Hill Wind Farm; and various declarations.

Held by Humphreys J that: the applicants’ proposed point about an alleged obligation to designate an SPA when designating an SAC was not pleaded; public participation only arises under the habitats directive when AA is required - this was not such a case; if AA had been required, the legislation can be read conformingly so as to facilitate the commission in allowing public participation; any bird-related actions allegedly required in relation to Annex I species in an SAC designated under the habitats directive can only arise as steps under the birds directive and not, as pleaded, by way of designating measures/objectives for the SAC, the procedure for which arises under the habitats directive; and any error by the fourth respondent, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, in not establishing conservation measures for the additional pleaded bird species was not capable of affecting the robustness of the permission due to the evidential conclusion arising from the lack of impact of the project on such species.

Humphreys J ordered that the proceedings be dismissed save in respect of the following elements of the amended statement of grounds: relief 2 (general declaration); the following elements of relief 3 - “A Declaration that the Fourth Respondent erred and acted contrary to reg 24 of [the] European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 by failing to establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the Gray Heron and the Mallard in the River Nore SPA...integrated into other development plans and appropriate statutory, administrative, or contractual measures which correspond with the ecological requirements of those species that ought to be subject to the conservation objectives of the site, and…by failing to exercise their functions relating to nature conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the...Birds Directive by establishing conservation objectives and measures for the Gray Heron and Mallard on the River Nore SPA...and acted contrary to reg. 7(b) by failing to identify additional species referred to in Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Birds Directive for inclusion in the conservation objectives of the site”; the same elements of core ground 6; relief 5 (costs) (only in respect of parties participating in the further module); and the following elements of sub-ground 24 - “The Minister acted contrary to EU law as clarified in the judgment of the CJEU in Case C-66/2023 Elliniki Ornithologiki delivered on 12 September 2024, by failing to establish the necessary conservation objectives and measures and or failing to apply the appropriate level of protection to the Heron and the Mallard birds that rely on and or are associated with the River Nore SPA but for whom the site was not designated”.

Proceedings dismissed in part.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 6 ^th day of March 2026

1 . The applicants raise questions about the extent of obligations under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (the birds directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the habitats directive) when setting conservation objectives for European sites. Those questions can't however affect the validity of the development consent here, having regard to the conclusion based on the evidence of the notice party as to a lack of impact of the project on the relevant species. The primary question now is the extent to which such issues warrant consideration in the context of a claim for declaratory relief.

Judgment history

2 . In ( [2025] IEHC 600 Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (I) Unreported, High Court, 6 November 2025), proceedings challenging the parent permission were dismissed in respect of grounds other than the balance of core grounds 1 and 8A.

3 . In ( [2025] IEHC 601 Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (II) Unreported, High Court, 6 November 2025), these proceedings which challenge the amending permission were dismissed in respect of grounds other than core grounds 6 and 7.

Geographical context

4 . The project ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/319903) consists of proposed amendments to the previously authorised White Hill Wind Farm (ABP-315365–22) to alter the location of two wind turbines located at Ridge, Knocknabranagh and Knockbaun, Baunreagh, and Agharue, Co. Carlow and Coolcullen, Cloneen and Coan East, Co. Kilkenny.

Facts

5 . On 7 June 2024, the notice party made a request to the first named respondent, pursuant to s. 146B of the 2000 Act, to alter the terms of the grant of permission for the proposed wind farm development granted permission by the first named respondent on 21 November 2023 (ABP-315365–22). The proposed alterations to permitted strategic infrastructure development (SID) in essence related to the relocation of two of the permitted turbines (T6 and T7) from their permitted locations to new locations by reason of the withdrawal of involvement by two landowners from the permitted wind farm project (in circumstances where turbines T6 and T7 were permitted within those landholdings). More particularly, the proposed alterations consisted of the following:

• (i) relocation of turbine T6 – c. 170 m to the southwest of its permitted position;

• (ii) relocation of turbine T7 – c. 220 m to the south of its permitted position;

• (iii) alteration of the location on ancillary wind turbine infrastructure including foundations and crane hardstanding;

• (iv) alteration of the alignment of access tracks and underground electricity and communications cabling associated with turbines T6 and T7; and

• (v) undertaking all associated ancillary site development works related to the above alterations including excavations and groundworks, drainage infrastructure, felling of existing commercial forestry plantation, watercourse crossing, landscaping and site reinstatement.

6 . The notice party's s. 146B request was accompanied by the following supporting documentation: a planning statement, environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening — Schedule 7A information, addendum to appropriate assessment (AA) screening and Natura impact statement (NIS), environmental report and associated annexes (Annex 1 to Annex 10), and certain drawings, plans and particulars.

7 . Mr Peter Sweetman attempted to make an unsolicited third-party submission on the s. 146B request. That submission was treated as invalid by the first named respondent, and this was communicated to Mr Sweetman by the first named respondent by letter dated 19 July 2024.

8 . The commission appointed an inspector to prepare a report in relation to the notice party's s. 146B request and this was done. The inspector's report, dated 13 August 2024, records on p. 1 that the inspector carried out a site inspection on 25 July 2024.

9 . The commission decided, in accordance with s. 146B(2)(b) of the 2000 Act, not to invite submissions or observations in relation to whether the proposed alterations would constitute the making of a material alteration to the terms of the development concerned.

10 . The first named respondent's meeting record (ABP-319903–24) records, inter alia, that the commission met on 4 September 2024 in relation to the s. 146B request at issue.

11 . By order dated 10 September 2024, bearing reference ABP-319903–24, the commission determined that the proposed alterations would not result in a material alteration of the terms of the development, the subject of the permission and, in accordance with s. 146B(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, made the said alterations. The decision of the commission is impugned in the second proceedings.

Procedural history

12 . The proceedings were filed on 4 November 2024. The No. II case was first mentioned to the court on 11 November 2024. Leave was granted subject to an amended statement of grounds to be filed.

13 . While there was some shifting of position on whether ground E6 against the State should be modularised it was eventually decided that this ground would be modularised – ultimately the fact that there wasn't time before the hearing to allow a full joinder of issue on this and the fact that certain matters were being modularised anyway, and having regard to the applicants' preferences as expressed on their behalf.

14 . Module I was heard on 30 September and 1 October 2025 in tandem with Rural Residents I.

15 . The matter was then listed for mention on 23 October 2025.

16 . Judgment in Module I was delivered on 6 November 2025.

...