A seven-judge Supreme Court will give judgment on Wednesday on a significant appeal concerning the extent of the climate law obligations of planning authorities.
The appeal was taken regarding the High Court’s quashing of a refusal of permission by An Bord Pleanála, now An Coimisiún Pleanála, for a wind farm in Co Laois.
Permission was refused because the 13-turbine development by Coolglass Wind Farm Ltd was to be located across town lands where wind farm developments are prohibited by the Laois county development plan, due to visual concerns.
In its challenge to the refusal, Coolglass alleged the board had failed to approve enough green energy infrastructure projects to meet 2030 environmental targets.
READ MORE
The High Court ruled in early 2025 that the board failed to act in line with climate objectives in the 2015 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act when it refused permission.
[ Judicial system is on the front line of the fight to avert climate catastropheOpens in new window ]
Section 15 of the Act requires the board, as far as practicable, to perform its functions in a manner consistent with the most recently approved climate action plans and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.
Judge Richard Humphreys held that the board particularly failed to exercise its discretion to materially contravene the development plan in light of its section 15 obligations, unless it was not practicable for it to do so.
That failure, he found, breached EU law obligations and the board’s duty under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
In a May 2025 determination agreeing to hear the appeal, a panel of three Supreme Court judges said it had “potentially far-reaching consequences” and was of “systemic importance for the entire planning process”.
The issues in the appeal included the extent to which the board, in deciding on Coolglass’s application, could depart from the terms of the development plan. The High Court’s application of the European Convention on Human Rights Act was another issue.
The board said the precise nature of the obligations imposed by the 2015 Act must be clarified, as that affected its daily decision-making functions.
