Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE HIGH COURT has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant planning permission to a subsidiary of Bord Na Móna to build a windfarm in the Midlands.
The proposed windfarm was located in bogland known as Mountdillon Peat Production Bog near Lanesborough, in Co Longford.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said he was satisfied to uphold a challenge brought by environmentalist Peter Sweetman against the proposed windfarm.
The judge agreed with Sweetman’s argument that the decision should be quashed because the application to build the windfarm did not contain the level of detail required to allow the planning authority grant permission.
The court noted that if constructed to the maximum dimensions, the height of the proposed windfarm’s 24 turbines would be the joint-tallest structure in Ireland, with a tip height of 185m.
Permission to construct the windfarm was granted in June 2020. As the proposed windfarm was deemed to be strategic infrastructure the developer made the application directly to An Bord Pleanála.
Sweetman’s judicial review action was against An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The arguments against the windfarm
Among his arguments, Sweetman claimed the board had erred in law in accepting an application without an appropriate level of detail in respect of design contrary to EU law and domestic Planning & Development Regulations 2001.
The plans and particulars lodged by the applicant in respect of the turbines – one of the largest series of structures ever to be constructed in Ireland – had no detail in terms of their design relative to their particular siting and were completely inadequate, it was also argued.
The documents lodged showed virtually no detail and no specific detail and given the scale and extent of the development, and the likely consequences and impacts, it was impossible to formulate any definitive findings in respect of the windfarm’s impact, it was further claimed.
The application was opposed. The developer of the proposed windfarm, Bord Na Móna Powergen Limited, was a notice party to the proceedings.
The judgement
In his judgement, Mr Justice Humphreys said that Swetman had complained that core elements of the proposed windfarm’s design had been left to the post-consent stage.
In particular, the judge noted that in the application the proposed turbine’s heights and blade lengths are expressed in terms of maxima, not the actual proposed dimensions.
That is equivalent to applying for planning permission for a house on the basis that it could be anything from a one-storey bungalow to a ten-storey mansion, and contending that proper details have been furnished as long as a maximum dimension is provide, the judge said.
The board, he said had accepted that typical details of aspects of the development are given rather than precise details, and that everything was assessed on a worst-case basis and that this was sufficient.
“Unfortunately, I don’t consider the ‘worst-case scenario’ defence as really being an answer. It amounts to saying that, to take one of the matters at issue, the blades are going to be of some length, totally unspecified apart from a maximum.
“Does that amount to providing ‘plans and particulars’ of the development? I think not,” he said, adding that specifying particulars of the works for which permission is sought is the statutory obligation.
It was not open for a party to seek permission for a project that is open-ended at one end of the scale and which could be anything up to a maximum specified, he added.
The court was also satisfied that the argument was adequately pleaded by Sweetman’s lawyers.
In all the circumstances the judge said that the board’s decision should be quashed.
The judge did dismiss several other grounds of Sweetman’s challenge against the decision, including that the decision was contrary to common sense, that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account, and that the decision was unconstitutional.
These arguments, the judge said, had not been established by Sweetman.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Let’s just stick with what we have oil coal and gas. No need for a this save the planet carry on.
@finbarr walsh: Fine particulate pollution from fossil fuels caused 8.7 million deaths globally in 2018, this includes the estimated death of 876 in children in North America, 747 in South America, and 605 in Europe aged 0–4 years old from lower respiratory tract infections worsened by air pollution from fossil fuels.
Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E.A., Sulprizio, M.P. and Mickley, L.J. 2021. Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environmental Research, 195, 110754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754.
@finbarr walsh: Kneejerk trouble? Carry on.
@David Jordan: exactly my point .we in this country continually object to alternative sources of energy. Wind is the greatest natural resource we have why not use it. On no I wouldn’t want it in my area is all we hear. Many parts of Europe have wind turbines in the city
You point is valid, however if you actually knew anything about the local area you’d know that they were going to be built on bog lands and by building such large structures in one area other areas of the locality were going to be prone to flooding, including peoples houses and farms. Bord na móna had absolutely no regard for the people living locally and for most of the time didn’t even engage members of the community.
@aidan mccormack: how would it cause flooding No one said anything about covering the entire bog
@finbarr walsh: Put a windfarm beside your gaff and see how you like it. That’s assuming you own a house
Sustainable energies are fine but they have to be compatible with the environment. There is a mantra that it is automatically good
@Pat Redmond: Yes I’m all for Green energy but living in the flicker shadow of one of those turbines on a sunny day must be annoying.
@Alan Byrne: The Environmental impact study modeled areas potentially affected by flicker shadow using computer modelling.
“Pager Power uses WindFarm software for its analysis, which is one of the industry standard models referenced within the Parsons Brinckerhoff – Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base(2011) guidance document.”
The model assume a worst case scenario i.e. every house has a window facing the windfarm, there’s 100% sunshine per year, the wind direction always turns the turbines in a direction that spreads the shadow onto every home in the vicinity, there’s no forest / vegetation obscuring the view of the turbines.
They found that 151 properties would experience at least some flicker shadow in this worse case scenario, and half of these would experience less than 30 minutes flicker for less than 30 hours a year – assuming no mitigation measures.
However, if any were affected by clicker, they will obscure the turbines (planting trees) or turn them off at times when the shadow falls on homes.
“The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, including a shutdown scheme to minimise any potential significant effects from the proposed development, will reduce the overall effect of the development to slight and long term. ”
See:
@David Jordan:
nice ,, i like the facts when they make the do-gooder’s sound like they have no concept of their point they standing on.
sidenote, had a good convo over beers with a friend to, over almond milk and the first model of the Pious .. sorry i meant the Prius
why not just ask the developers to clarify the contentious points? instead of quashing and requiring an entire process again?
seems here some dublin bloke is poking at stuff in longford, monaghan, clare, galway, and i don’t know where else, without really having a solution
@Ixtrix Net: The last I heard of this guy, Sweetman, he was living in the outback in North Mayo. He is a cash cow for lawyers objecting to every kind of development including commercial tree felling. The greens, when previously in government, brought in a lark that Coillte had to get a tree felling licence from, I think, the Dept of Agriculture, to cut down trees. One state body creating bureaucracy for another. Result: a shortage of timber for house building.
@Michael Reilly:
ooh, i thought he was still based in dublin, but yeah sounds about right
@Michael Reilly: Dead right——A professional serial objector!
@John Mc Donagh: indeed. An unelected, self-appointed serial objector who frankly, should have no right to hold this country to ransom. The Planning laws need changing to prevent this behaviour: including from An Taisce.
Unelected people appear to be running the country .Its very debatable that judge’s should have the power to hold up needed infrastructure . We need to have a referendum to take that power away from them and give it to the established planning bodies and I think the cranks of an Taisce should not be funded by the taxpayer
@Kevin Fahey: I wouldn’t be against the project and think that some of the delays on infrastructure projects as laughable but if they had followed the law then they wouldn’t have lost this case. Having a safety net of an independent judiciary is essential in this country, would you trust our politicians and official’s to do what’s right?
@The next small thing: what makes you think the judiciary who come from a small privileged minority are such saint like figures yes I would trust our politicians and planning bodies after all they are the people who we pick to represent our views.The judiciary always portray themselves as some kind of super intelligent being’s but I’m not so sure
@Kevin Fahey: But judges are appointed by politicians. Do those who come from a ‘ small privileged minority’ and professionals not have the same rights as those who come from ‘ a large under privileged majority’ Surely we need independent intelligent people to avoid the chaos of mass self interest
@Barrycelona: you seem to think that all intelligent fair minded people come from that small cohort of the population and I’m not on about rights I’m on about the right of that TINY SUPER INTELLIGENT minority to think they can tell the rest of us what’s good for us
@The next small thing: true: but you get to vote politicians in order out. Sweetman & Co are answerable to no-one. The funding of these expensive legal challenges needs to be looked at.
I thought it was accepted practice to apply based on worst case, maximum height etc. Historically it has taken so long to get planning permission for a windfarm that the model originally envisaged is out of production by the time planning is received.
@iBob101: Exactly. Also at issue is the developer’s ability to get a good deal on turbines. This could add another cost to our electricity bills.
Today is a good day! They are Destroying peoples homes
@Dino Manning: these were out in the middle of the bog. Nobody lives there.
@John Mulligan: Bogger’s do?
@Daniel Kelly: And bogger Peter Sweetman apparently. He’s described as the country’s foremost litigator in objecting to major development or infrastructure projects. Google him.
@lelookcoco: Also this project is in Longford while he’s based in Mayo but from Kildare. Whatever it is and wherever it is, he’s against it.
@lelookcoco: is he the same guy who’s a menace to the forestry business, blocking harvesting of mature crops?
@lelookcoco: where does he get the money?
Most commenters have missed the point. The wind developers failed to submit a planning application that contained the necessary environmental information to satisfy the correct level demanded by environmental law. The planning authority rubber stamped an invalid application, having failed to properly assess the windfarm application, thus erring in law. Mr Sweetman succeeded in pointing this out, being the only party either in full knowledge or in full compliance with the law. Thank you Peter Sweetman for a job well done. Developers and Planning Authorities have vast resources available to them to get this right, but don’t. That’s not acceptable. The laws around sustainable development are there to protect us and our environment and must be upheld.
@Dave Fingleton: where does Mr Sweetman get his ‘resources’ ? – legal isn’t cheap…..
@John Moylan: local communities raise money initially. Tractor runs, cake sales, race nights, raffles etc.. Legal teams work pro bono.. Rather than do all the necessary (and expensive) environmental assessments etc, wind developers chance on haphazard planning applications in the hope there’s no opposition to makebthem accountable. The local community with the help of Peter Sweetman made both the Planning Authority and developer accountable. A great victory for the community, environment and sustainable development.
Stop the lot of them. Subsidy harvesting scams. The more there are, the more expensive our electricity gets. All have to have fossil fuel back up ready all the time and who pays for all that. Us the consumers. Why else is it that it is the big fossil fuel corporates are buying them. A “Green ” block on fossil fuel exploration and exploitation is going to shove the oil price way back up. If we want cheap electricity, there is only one way to go. Ultra safe, modular, nuclear. Would have been up and running years ago, if it had got a fraction of the support that has been given to wind.
@Nicholas Grubb: Strange what you say about scams. Especially when the likes of Denmark get 47% of their total electricity production from Wind Farms.
Those turbines are a joke. Just think of the amount of electricity it costs to run them and all they do keep the bog cool by blowing the air around.
@John Cassin: I know, like the fans on the front of those small aeroplanes, just to keep the pilot cool.
Although when they stop, you can see them sweating.
All this decision means is that the construction is a bit delayed. The developer can apply for PP again with the required level of detail and then they’ll get built.
@Les Wynan: With any luck.
“joint-tallest”?
@J Flood: There’s 24 of them, all the same height.
@Tommy Roche: Exactly!
Judicial reviews are the death of the planning process. They can throw out applications for something as simple as a spelling mistake. People talk about ABP being undemocratic. Yet here stands this judge over all of us.
have your say