*Objections had been lodged by over 300 people.
THE High Court has dismissed objectors’ judicial review challenge against the green light for a 579 ft high eight turbine wind farm for lands in south east Clare.
Over 300 people from the area lodged objections against the Fahy Beg wind farm proposal and Clare County Council refused planning permission to RWE Renewables Ireland Ltd for the 38.4 MW wind-farm on lands 1.5km from Bridgetown, and 3.5km from O’Briensbridge in south-east Clare in May 2023.
As part of the proposal, the wind-farm developers are to establish a Community Benefit Fund which will distribute up to €3.12m over the first 15 years of the wind farm.
Documents lodged with the application state that the provision of the Community Benefit Fund “will have a significant long-term, positive effect on the socio-economic profile of the study area and wider area”.
The Council refused across five grounds including that the planned wind farm would depreciate the price of property as it would be visually over-bearing on those properties.
However, RWE Renewables Ireland appealed and An Bord Pleanála overturned the Council refusal to grant planning permission in March 2024.
In response, the Fahybeg Windfarm Opposition Group and Sean Conway launched High Court judicial review proceedings seeking to have the appeals board decision quashed for the wind farm which is to be located on a site 14km north of Limerick city.
However, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys – who presides over the Planning and Environment Division of the High Court – has dismissed all grounds of the judicial review challenge.
The applicants claimed that the decision should be quashed as the planned wind farm would materially contravene the Development Plan due to the loss of part of Ballymoloney Woods.
Mr Justice Humphreys stated that on the basis of the applicants’ analysis, the felling of any tree necessarily constitutes a material contravention of the Development Plan.
Mr Justice Humphreys stated that this approach represented an “excessively literalist and absolutist interpretation” of development plan objectives.
Mr Justice Humphreys stated that the application failed to engage with the specifics of the individual trees which are actually being felled, pointing 0.4 of a hectare or, or 0.2% of the total amount of long established woodland is being removed.
He said, “There is no absolute prohibition on the removal of trees, contrary to the applicants’ complaints, and a reasonably informed reader would not read such a preclusion into the Development Plan when same is read objectively and holistically”.
Mr Justice Humphreys also dismissed the objectors’ claim that planning permission should be quashed due to the impact that the wind farm would have on property prices in the area.
He said that there is no substantive evidence presented that would conclusively indicate a depreciation in property values directly attributable to the wind farm’s presence at this particular location.
Mr Justice Humphreys made no order in relation to costs.
