Supreme Court denies residents wind farm appeal
Stock photo
THE Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal to two local residents and an environmental group who challenged planning permission for a seven-turbine wind farm in the Killeshin Hills area of Co Carlow.
A three-judge Supreme Court panel ruled on 20 October that the proposed appeal by Stephen Keogh and the Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group did not meet the constitutional criteria required for a further appeal.
The case concerned a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála to grant permission to EDF Renewables Ireland Ltd in November 2025 for a wind farm development at Killeshin Hills, Ridge, Agharue, Coonakishna and Seskinrea.
The applicants’ challenge to the planning permission was dismissed by the High Court in May. In July, Mr Justice Humphreys refused leave to appeal, leaving the Supreme Court as the final source of challenge.
The Supreme Court said the application ultimately centred on a single issue: the interpretation of a provision in the dealing with separation distances between turbines. The applicants had argued that the spacing between the seven proposed turbines did not comply with the guidelines.
However, the court noted that the guidelines are not binding and that planning authorities are required only to ‘have regard’ to them.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Humphreys found that the relevant provision was intended to prevent a wind farm from restricting the development potential of neighbouring sites. He noted there was no evidence that another wind farm had been consented, proposed or envisaged on adjoining lands.
The Supreme Court agreed that the commission’s inspector had considered the guidelines and said the relevant provision required an ‘evaluative judgement’ on the part of the inspector and the commission.
It ruled that the dispute was ‘highly specific and fact specific’ and, therefore, did not raise a point of law of general public importance.
The court also found that the interests of justice did not require a further appeal, adding that the merits of the proposed case ‘must be adjudged to be weak’.
In its determination, the Supreme Court noted that a refusal of leave to appeal applies only to the parties involved and, save in exceptional circumstances, should not be relied on as a precedent in other cases.
