Massey v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

In early 2016, Company B commenced land acquisition and environmental assessments for a proposed windfarm spanning two locations in The State. By May 2018, the developer requested a determination from the planning authority as to whether the project qualified as strategic infrastructure development (SID) under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Pre-planning meetings occurred in August 2018 and June 2019. In March 2020, the developer sought conclusion of the SID status process, referencing a reduced proposal of 17 turbines split between two counties. An inspector recommended classifying the development as SID in April 2020, and the planning authority formally granted SID status in May 2020. The Applicant subsequently sought judicial review challenging this preliminary SID status decision. The court noted that the challenge was premature given the substantive planning decision had not yet been made but proceeded to hear the matter at the request of the notice party. Relief against the State was adjourned pending potential future necessity.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the proposed development constitutes "an installation" under the Planning and Development Act 2000 despite being spread over two separate locations.
2. Whether the development has a total output greater than 50 megawatts, satisfying the SID threshold.
3. Whether the Applicant submitted sufficient information to support the SID status determination.
4. Whether the planning authority correctly applied the statutory test to the information supplied.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed whether the development constituted a single "installation" despite spanning two locations. It found that the statutory framework contemplates developments straddling multiple local authorities and that the physical connection via a 2.12 km cable linking the two turbine clusters, along with the shared substation, established a meaningful physical connection making the project a single system and thus a single installation. Abstract connections such as shared management or contractors were insufficient, but a direct physical link was determinative.

Regarding the output threshold, the court distinguished between energy and power, noting that the statute refers to power output in megawatts (MW), not energy generation over time. The court accepted expert affidavit evidence that industry practice calculates output by summing the rated power of turbines rather than actual energy produced. The 17 turbines, each with at least 3 MW rated output, exceeded the 50 MW threshold, validating the SID classification.

The sufficiency of information was assessed in light of the preliminary nature of the SID determination. The court held that the developer’s submissions, including details of turbine numbers, rated power, and site connections, were adequate for the jurisdictional assessment. The board was not required to have final detailed turbine specifications at this stage.

Finally, the court rejected the Applicant's contention that the planning authority failed to properly apply the test or provide adequate reasons. It reasoned that the decision-maker need not engage in exhaustive legal analysis or anticipate every potential objection. The board’s implicit acceptance of the installation status and reliance on developer material was lawful, especially given the Applicant’s failure to challenge or explore the evidential basis.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS the proceedings except for the case against the State, which was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. The direct effect is that the planning authority’s preliminary determination granting SID status to the proposed windfarm stands. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision underscores that preliminary SID determinations require only sufficient information to satisfy jurisdictional criteria, that physical connection between separate sites can constitute a single installation, and that decision-makers are not obliged to preemptively address every legal argument in their reasons.