Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors

Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors concerned a judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission for a new Tesco supermarket store, drive-thru café and petrol station in Cavan Town. The applicant, an environmental group, sought to quash the decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Irish national planning authority) on a range of climate-related grounds, arguing that the Commission had failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended). A central issue was whether the Commission had complied with section 15 of the 2015 Act, which requires public bodies, insofar as practicable, to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the most recently approved Climate Action Plan and other specified climate policy instruments. The applicant contended that the planning decision was unlawful because it did not expressly reference the Climate Action Plan 2024 (CAP24), which had been adopted shortly before the planning decision was issued. It was argued that an explicit engagement with CAP24 was required in order to demonstrate compliance with section 15 and that the absence of such a reference rendered the decision invalid. The High Court rejected this approach. Humphreys J. held that section 15 does not impose a requirement that decision-makers explicitly cite or rehearse each relevant climate policy document in their reasoning. Instead, compliance is to be assessed substantively, having regard to whether the decision, read as a whole, demonstrates consistency with the applicable climate framework insofar as practicable. The Court accepted that the Commission was entitled to carry institutional knowledge of climate policy and that such knowledge need not be spelled out in express terms. The decision referred to national climate ambitions and to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, which embeds the Climate Action Plan framework, and it engaged with objectives in the relevant local authority climate action plan that mirrored those in CAP24. On that basis, the Court was satisfied that the Commission had complied with its obligations under the 2015 Act, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit reference to CAP24 itself. The case also involved a challenge to the validity of CAP24 itself. The applicant argued that deficiencies in the plan undermined its legal status and that reliance on an invalid plan tainted downstream administrative decision-making, including the grant of planning permission in this case. The Court dismissed this challenge, finding that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating invalidity. Humphreys J characterised the argument as impermissibly abstract and academic, rejecting the suggestion that planning decision-making could be suspended or nullified pending the adoption of a hypothetically superior climate plan. Following the dismissal of the substantive challenge, the applicant sought leave to appeal, proposing a number of points of law said to be of exceptional public importance, primarily relating to climate obligations in planning decision-making. The High Court refused leave to appeal. However, in an obiter statement, Humphreys J. sought to clarify his previous remarks made in the earlier Coolglass decision (in which he had emphasised the importance of of planning authorities integrating climate considerations into decisions), outlining three essential steps that planning authorities should consider when assessing projects that cause emissions. First, there is a need to identify and quantify the net greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the project, including scope 3 emissions. Second, where net emissions are identified, decision-makers should evaluate whether those emissions fall within the available national and sectoral headroom provided for under relevant climate policy instruments, including carbon budgets and sectoral ceilings. Third, if emissions exceed available headroom, the authority must consider whether non-compliance is justified by considerations of practicability, such as imperative public needs, including energy security or other overriding considerations recognised by the statutory scheme.