‘Welcome clarity’ for renewable-energy firms
A lawyer at Pinsent Masons says that a recent Supreme Court ruling highlights that projects aligned with the aims of climate law in Ireland are not automatically guaranteed to obtain planning permission.
Senior associate Louise McQuaid was commenting on the court’s ruling on a planning decision taken by An Coimisiún Pleanála in a case involving developer Coolglass Wind Farm Limited (Coolglass).
The board had previously refused Coolglass planning permission for a 13-turbine wind farm in County Laois.
It did so after determining that the proposed development would materially contravene the county’s development plan 2021-2027.
Climate duties
Coolglass lodged an appeal against that decision and, last January, the High Court ruled in the developer’s favour.
The High Court found that the duties that public bodies in Ireland have under climate legislation trump the development-plan provisions and determined that the planning body had been wrong to refuse Coolglass planning permission.
McQuaid says that, while the Supreme Court has now upheld the High Court’s decision, it has done so on narrower grounds.
Error of law
The Supreme Court held that the board had erred by not genuinely considering using its powers to grant planning permission, notwithstanding what the development plan provided. The authority had failed to weigh the project’s climate benefits at all, which the court said was an error of law.
Section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended in 2021, imposes a real and enforceable duty on public bodies to act “insofar as practicable” in a manner consistent with national climate objectives.
McQuaid says that the High Court interpreted this duty as, in practice, requiring planning authorities to “almost always” grant planning permission for renewable-energy projects.
‘Watered down’
“This near-absolute obligation to follow the aims of the climate law has, however, been watered down by the Supreme Court in its new ruling,” she adds.
“While the Supreme Court acknowledged that the duty arising under section 15(1) is significant, it confirmed it is qualified: it said public bodies must act ‘consistent with’ climate plans but that this does not amount to a strict ‘comply with’ obligation,” McQuaid states.
“Section 15(1) remains a powerful tool, but this decision makes clear it’s not a silver bullet,” she says, adding that the ruling provides “welcome clarity” for developers of renewable energy.
“Developers will need to engage more strategically with local development plans and ensure their climate arguments are robust, contextualised, and supported by planning policy,” she concludes.