Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanala

The case concerned an application by a wind farm company for planning permission to construct a wind farm in Co. Laois. An Bord Pleanála (the national planning authority) rejected permission for the wind farm, citing visual impacts and local development plan designations for wind turbines. Under the local Laois County Development Plan, wind farms would not be constructed in the relevant area based on the alleged visual concerns. Still, as the national planning authority, An Bord Pleanála could grant permission for the wind farm regardless of any alleged material contravention of the County Development Plan. In this instance, however, the planning permission was refused in line with the visual concerns outlined in the original County Development Plan. The company sought to appeal the decision before the High Court, arguing inter alia that under S15(1) of the Climate Act, as well as in line with EU law and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the planning authority had an obligation to interpret its planning decisions such that climate considerations would take priority over the visual concerns and that the authority had therefore taken inadequate account of S15(1) of the Climate Act. The planning authority argued in response that a narrow interpretation of this provision was appropriate, obliging the authority only to give regard to climate considerations and that the authority had, therefore, acted within its powers in refusing permission for the wind farm. The High Court, in a ruling by Humphreys J. upheld the appeal, finding that An Bord Pleanála had acted unlawfully by failing to exercise its powers in a manner compliant as far as practicable with the climate objectives and policies set out in the Climate Act, and had also breached its duties under EU law and European human rights law. The Court noted that "if climate goals take precedence over visual impacts [as had been found in a previous case of Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603 (Unreported, High Court, 1st November 2024)] and the like, then logically they must take precedence over development plan provisions that are motivated by visual impacts.” The High Court further noted that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland demonstrated that the requirement to read legislation in an ECHR-compliant manner supported an interpretation of S15 that went beyond the board’s approach and that the interpretation should ensure that ECHR obligations are complied with in practice, including compliance in practice with stated goals in relation to renewable energy infrastructure. The failure to properly consider the climate benefits of allowing the project, therefore, constituted a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Taking the importance of climate action into account, the Court held that the authority had not adequately considered S15(1) in its considerations of whether to grant permission in light of the need to consider climate objectives in contrast to the visual impacts and local planning concerns expressed by those opposed to the wind farms. It stated that "the need for an imperative reading of S15(1) in line with what it says, namely that the board and any other relevant body is required to act in conformity with the climate plans and objectives set out in the subsection unless it is impracticable to do so." [117] The Court, therefore, granted the appeal and ordered that the application be remitted to An Bord Pleanála for further consideration in accordance with the judgment. On Feb 4 2025, the Irish Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the High Court, but significantly narrowed the grounds on which the decision was upheld. The Court concluded that “The section [S15 Climate Act] creates a legal obligation binding upon [An Coimisiún Pleanála] 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 section 15. Given that An Coimisiún Pleanála had never engaged in a real and substantive way with the question of the climate benefit of the proposed development when considering whether to grant permission, this was an error of law. However, the Court dismissed the view of the High Court that S15 created an imperative obligation to prioritize climate action when considering planning permission, instead noting that that there is a" range of possible outcomes” open to public bodies in acting consistently with climate objectives “and a degree of tolerance” in how this is achieved. The further 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 further dismissed the European rights elements to the claim, contending that, as a corporation, the plaintiffs lacked standing under the Klimaseniorinnen standard for climate litigation to assert that there had been a violation of the European Convention. Thus, while the Court confirmed that An Coimisiún Pleanála could consider climate benefits when assessing whether to overrule a local development plan, this was one of a range of possibilities and should largely only be considered where the plan itself (as opposed to the individual wind farm project) had not taken account of s15.