Supreme Court refuses appeal against Co Carlow wind turbines

The Supreme Court has refused to grant an appeal by two residents and an environmental group against the approval of planning permission for the construction of seven wind turbines in Co Carlow. Last May, the High Court dismissed a challenge to the grant of planning permission given by An Coimisiún Pleanála (ACP) to EDF Renewables Ireland Ltd for the turbines in an area of Carlow known as Killeshin Hills, Ridge, Agharue, Coonnakishna and Seskinrea.

The challenge had been brought by information technology professional Stephen Keogh, who lives a few kilometres from the proposed development, and by farmer Tom Quirke, who lives less than a kilometre from the site. A non-governmental organisation called the Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group also brought the challenge. Following its decision, the challengers then asked the High Court for leave to appeal its decision to the Court of Appeal, but this was refused.

The challengers then sought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds that the case raised matters of public importance or was in the interests of justice. ACP opposed granting leave to appeal while EDF was a notice party. A central point of the challengers’ argument was the application of the Government’s 2006 rules for wind farm developments, the Wind Energy Development Guidelines. These are not binding but are matters to which ACP is required to have regard in making its decisions.

The Supreme Court said the objectors had essentially maintained that the separation distances between the seven turbines did not comply with requirements of the guidelines. This provides that any proposed layout of wind turbines takes into account the development potential of an adjoining site for a similar development. The Supreme Court said the High Court, in its decision, had not misapplied the guidelines. In a written determination, the Supreme Court refused to grant an appeal.

The court did not consider that the application for an appeal met the constitutional criteria of public importance and interests of justice. It said it should be observed that the ACP inspector and ACP itself were only “to have regard” to the guidelines, “which they clearly did”.