Development of wind farm was in accordance with proper planning legislation

Application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent on the 2nd March, 2017 granting the notice party substitute consent for a wind farm - order is sought on the basis that the respondent failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with s.172 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as amended (the Act of 2000) as interpreted in accordance with the obligations imposed by Article 3 of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive) - planning history of the wind farm is complex and is fully set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal - on the 19th July, 2002 the respondent granted planning permission (PL 04.127137) (“ the 2002 planning permission”) to the developer for the wind farm - on the 16th March, 2016 the Court of Appeal held that the turbines as constructed were unauthorised development having regard to the extent of the deviation from the 2002 planning permission in terms of location - by order dated 21st April, 2015 the respondent granted the notice party leave to apply for substitute consent of the wind farm under s.177D of the Act of 2000 on the basis that exceptional circumstances existed and in particular that the developer could reasonably have had a belief that the development was not unauthorised - on the 14th October, 2015 the developer applied for substitute consent - the application for substitute consent was accompanied by a remedial Environmental Impact Statement (rEIS) - a revised rEIS was submitted to the respondent on the 29th July, 2016 - By order dated 2nd March, 2017 the respondent granted the notice party substitute consent for the wind farm - on the 24th April, 2017 the High Court granted the applicants leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the respondent of the 2nd March, 2017 - applicants work as a farmer and a music teacher respectively, and they lived just over 500m from the nearest turbine with their three children until they moved due to the noise of the wind farm - applicants complaints relate to the noise assessment carried out by the respondent - applicants have not established that the respondent did not consider their submissions - EIA Directive is not prescriptive in relation to the manner in which an EIA is to be conducted but merely requires that certain matters be assessed in an appropriate manner - specialist acoustic consultants created report which stated that the current operational noise levels did not exceed the baseline noise levels by a significant margin in any instance - obligation on respondent to make public their decision - environmental impact inspector was able to conclude that the noise emanating from the proposed development with the mitigation measures would not unduly impact on the established residential amenities - development for which substitute consent is sought has been and is therefore in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area - application for judicial review dismissed.