A challenge to a €120 million wind farm in Co Offaly by local residents – who claimed it would affect their mental health, property prices and the habitat of the Whooper swan – has been dismissed by the High Court.
Library filed under Legal from Ireland
Edward ‘Ned’ Buckley had agreed to a single turbine being erected on adjacent land as part of an overall €30m development of 22 wind turbines by Kilkenny–based Ecopower Developments Ltd. However, he was shocked to discover a subsequent planning application sought provision for a 75m road across his land. ...Mr Buckley conceded that he had signed a document facilitating access but said he later withdrew consent before any decision had been made.
A wind farm company has claimed that Mayo County Council and the National Roads Authority were ‘inconsistent’ in the reasons they gave for denying planning permission for eight wind turbines in bogland near Bangor Erris.
In May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal decided that the remaining 3 turbines had to be removed from the vicinity of Mr. R’s property. The lower court had ordered the removal of the closest turbine but allowed the other three to stay, hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The developer is apparently appealing the decision to the European Court. ...A bittersweet victory given that Mr R’s health is ruined and the family’s way of life destroyed. Money cannot fix that sort of damage. From a legal point of view what is important is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the expert evidence of the authors of this paper concerning the terrible toll that infrasound and low-frequency noise has on both humans and animals, whilst it rejected the opposing evidence led by the wind industry lawyers.
At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr Justice Robert Haughton said People Over Wind had raised a number of grounds of appeal of exceptional importance which it was desirable, in the public interest, for the Court of Appeal to determine. The appeal should be expedited, he added.
Moving the application David Browne BL for the applicants said the challenge is brought on grounds including that permission was granted after Mr Buckley withdrew his written consent for his lands to be used as part of the proposed development.
Moving the application, David Browne BL said the challenge is brought on grounds including that permission was granted after Mr Buckley had withdrawn his written consent for his lands to be used as part of the proposed development. The proposed development required Mr Buckley’s lands for an access road at Knocknameena, Upperchurch, he noted.