Climate rules must factor into planning decisions

Last week saw the outcome of a long-awaited Supreme Court judgement which could have implications for energy, transport, housing and farm infrastructure going forward.

The court has confirmed that Ireland’s national planning authority must meaningfully consider climate objectives when making planning decisions, after upholding a High Court ruling that quashed the refusal of permission for a proposed wind farm in Co Laois.

The case concerned a 13-turbine wind farm at Coolglass, near Timahoe, proposed by wind developer Statkraft

However, it does not necessarily mean that climate objectives now supersede Local Development Plans, and it certainly won’t open the floodgates for renewable developments.

The case concerned a 13-turbine wind farm at Coolglass, near Timahoe, proposed by wind developer Statkraft.

While the Supreme Court emphasised that it was reaching its conclusion on narrower grounds than the High Court, it found that An Bord Pleanála (now called An Coimisiún Pleanála) failed, as a matter of law, to properly consider its obligations under climate legislation.

Background

Statkraft applied to An Bord Pleanála in 2023 for permission to develop the wind farm. The project was refused in 2024 on the basis that it conflicted with the Laois Local Development Plan, which did not permit wind energy development in that location.

The planning board’s inspector essentially concluded that the development plan took precedence over national climate policy. Statkraft challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the refusal did not comply with Ireland’s climate obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.

In January 2025, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled in favour of Statkraft, finding that the planning board had failed to perform its functions, “as far as practicable”, in a manner consistent with climate objectives. He described the Climate Act as imposing “sweeping obligations across the public sector”.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

An Bord Pleanála appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, with the State supporting the board as a notice party.

The Supreme Court rejected that concern, while nonetheless agreeing that the planning board’s original decision could not stand

The State argued that the High Court’s interpretation of the Climate Act risked creating a near-automatic preference for climate-friendly projects, with potentially far-reaching consequences for other forms of development.

The Supreme Court rejected that concern, while nonetheless agreeing that the planning board’s original decision could not stand.

In a judgement delivered by Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell, the seven-judge court held that section 15 of the 2015 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act creates a binding legal obligation on public bodies, including An Coimisiún Pleanála.

It “creates a legal obligation binding upon the Commission and enforceable, if necessary, by action, to ensure that any decision it makes to grant or refuse permission is consistent with the climate objectives set out” in the Act, the court ruled.

Failure to engage with climate objectives

The Supreme Court found that An Bord Pleanála did not adequately examine whether it could approve the wind farm despite the conflict with the county development plan, particularly in light of climate targets and national climate policy.

“It is not apparent that the commission ever engaged with that question in a real and substantive way,” the court said, concluding that this amounted to “an error of law”.

While the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order quashing the refusal, it stressed that it was doing so “for reasons other than those upon which the High Court based its conclusion”.

Limits of the ruling

Importantly, the Supreme Court stopped short of endorsing the High Court’s broader interpretation that climate objectives should generally override development plans unless doing so is impracticable.

The court said the Climate Act allows for “a range of possible outcomes” and a degree of discretion for public bodies.

It rejected the idea of a simple hierarchy in which renewable energy projects must always be approved.

The judgement stated that the question of consistency of an individual planning decision with the section 15 objectives is “much more complex than a traffic light system of climate-friendly ‘go’ (unless impracticable) and climate-unfriendly ‘stop’”.

The court noted that planning authorities may still refuse permission for renewable energy developments that conflict with local plans, but only after considering whether those plans themselves align with climate obligations.

Broader implications

The ruling reinforces the legal force of Ireland’s climate legislation and confirms that it must be actively considered in planning decisions, rather than treated as a background policy objective.

While the Supreme Court’s narrower reasoning limits the immediate impact of the High Court judgement, the decision is likely to influence how public bodies assess projects with climate implications, including energy infrastructure and other large-scale developments.

The Coolglass wind farm proposal will now return to An Coimisiún Pleanála for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court’s findings.

The Supreme Court stated the significance of the appeal cannot be overstated since it gave the court its first opportunity to consider the implications of Section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 as amended. This is according to James Staines of Staines Law.

An Bord Pleanála, in its decision noted that Laois County Council was generally favourable to wind development but that the proposed development by Coolglass would materially contravene the objectives of the Development Plan as the proposed construction was in an area not open for consideration, he said.

The issue was how far An Bord Pleanála shall in so far as practical to perform its functions in a manner consistent with the climate plans and objectives include CAP24. However, An Bord Pleanála had rejected the application as it never got past its position that the application contravened the Local Development Plan.

The court held that this was an error of judgement as An Bord Pleanála is required to consider whether the climate benefits of the project required or justified a grant of permission notwithstanding the material convention of the Development Plan.

The Supreme Court gave a narrower interpretation than the High Court of the obligations under Section 15 of the 2015 Act as amended. It does not, as some suggested following the High Court hearing, allow a planning application for renewable project to automatically override Local Development Plans. The court noted that the pursuit and achievement of climate objective was already woven into the planning process to a significant degree. However, the Commission must now give further consideration to balancing the obligations of Section 15 when dealing with a potential contravention of a Local Development Plan, explained Staines.

The decision weighs the balance somewhat more in favour of the developers but does not open the flood gate as had been suggested following the High Court decision, he concluded.