Carrig Wind Farm High Court Judicial Review goes against objectors

A HIGH Court Judicial Review (JR) concerning the granting of planning permission to Carrig Wind Farm has gone against the objectors.
The residents initiated JR proceedings in the High Court some months ago, because they were seeking to have the permission granted by An Coimisiún Pleanála (ACP) for the Wind Farm quashed.
Last July the seven turbine development was given the go-ahead by An Coimisiún Pleanála in spite of a huge level of local opposition.
In the JR proceedings the applicants opposing the Wind Farm, Sheila Hoctor, Patrick Carney, John Dooley, Michael Mahon and Regina Hoctor, argued that the planning process did not follow mandatory planning regulations, meaning the application should have been considered invalid from the start. They argued that if the correct legal steps aren’t followed, then the planning authority has no power to approve the project.
The applicants argued that ACP failed to properly assess property rights impacts, including turbary rights (cutting turf); rights of way and public access rights. They argued that the ACP decision allegedly ignored the impact on people's legal rights to land and access.
The applicants argued that the development interferes with a public road. They argued that the turbines and the associated infrastructure would interfere with public road rights, potentially restricting the right of the public to pass and repass freely. In other words they were saying that it is wrong to approve development that effectively blocks or interferes with a public road.
They also pointed out that the project would generate large amounts of excavated peat and soil, but this waste was not properly assessed. In other words, the excavated material should have been treated as a waste operation.
They said a key ecological report relied upon by the inspector was not uploaded to the planning file within the required time, which meant the public could not see or challenge a key report used in the decision. This was the one point the applicants succeeded on, though only declaratory relief was granted.
They also said that the noise limits might not sufficiently protect people living nearby.
The wind farm was proposed in an area designated as unsuitable for wind energy under the Tipperary Development Plan. The applicants argued ACP failed to justify properly why it ignored the plan.
The applicants argued the 2006 Wind Energy Guidelines should have undergone a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Because they did not, ACP should not have relied on them. In other words, the national wind guidelines themselves might be legally flawed.
They said the Environmental Impact Assessment was incomplete.
They said the Appropriate Assessment (Habitats Directive) was inadequate. They argued ACP could not rule out impacts on Natura 2000 sites beyond reasonable scientific doubt, which is required by EU law. Simply put, they argued that ACP must be 100% confident the project won’t harm protected habitats.
Justice Richard Humphreys emphasised that the judicial review is not about whether the wind farm is a good idea, but whether the planning process followed the law. He said the High Court would only intervene if there was a legal error; a procedural breach; or a failure to follow EU environmental law. He therefore said the High Court would not quash the wind farm permission. The five applicants had raised 133 separate legal arguments, but almost all failed.
The only issue the court accepted was that a document relied on by the planning inspector was uploaded late to the planning file. The court granted a declaration acknowledging that procedural error, but it was not serious enough to invalidate the planning permission.
The judge criticised the case for being overly complex, noting 133 grounds of challenge and extremely long submissions. He described the litigation as a “scholarly mudslide” where only one small procedural error was found. He said planning judgments belong to planning authorities. He said matters such as landscape impact; biodiversity effects; traffic impacts; suitability of the location are planning judgements, not legal ones. Unless those decisions are irrational or unlawful, the courts will not interfere.
Judge Humphreys pointed out that the courts must respect the separation of powers. He stressed that policy decisions about renewable energy are for government and planning authorities, not Judges.
The Wind Farm, overseen by Carrig Renewable Energy Limited, caused much controversy in the area when proposed in 2023 and Tipperary County Council received 39 objections from locals. The Council, on the back of this, decided to deny planning permission. Carrig Renewable Energy Limited appealed to An Coimisiún Pleanála, which then decided to overturn the Council's decision, a move which caused much shock and outrage in the area.
The seven turbines will have a blade tip height of 179.5 to 185 metres, and will be located on a 78.91 hectare site spanning a number of townlands to the west of Carrig, about seven or eight kilometres from Birr. The construction will take 12-18 months, and the farm will run for 35 years.
When Tipperary County Council refused permission in November 2023 it said it was because the site was unsuitable for a wind energy development, the development would have a negative impact on bird species in the area, and the company had not proved that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the roads in the area.
The 39 objections that were received can be viewed on the Tipperary County Council website. They are excellent submissions, some of them of a considerable length. In them, people voice their concerns about their turbary rights, the devaluation of their properties, a lack of consultation with local landowners about the development, and the impact it would have on tourism in the area.
Carrig Renewable Energy appealed the local authority’s refusal on the grounds that the proposed Wind Farm is strongly supported by the national policy on wind energy, and that it is government policy to rapidly increase the roll-out of renewable energy to help Ireland reach its climate targets.
In July 2025 An Coimisiún Pleanála said it was overturning the Council's decision for a number of reasons, including the government document called “Planning for a Climate Resilient Ireland 2024” and “the relevant approved sectoral adaptation plans as they relate to Biodiversity and Energy and in furtherance of the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.” An Coimisiún said that when making its decision it was keeping in mind the National Planning Framework 2018 to 2040 and the National Development Plan 2021 to 2030.
An Coimisiún did admit however that the introduction of the wind farm at this location “will result in local level impacts for the local population of whooper swans and the ornithological ecological value of the site.”
An Coimisiún also admitted that the “proposed development can be considered as being a material contravention of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022-2028.”
To view the proposed development see https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/318689

READ NEXT: New Offaly group formed to fight proposed Wind Farm