judgment

Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors - judgment

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Filing Year For Action

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.

Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Activities that involve planning, designing and building infrastructure, residential, and commercial structures.

This sector includes firms and individuals offering specialised expertise in fields such as law, accounting, consulting, science and engineering.

Activities involving the catching, processing, and selling of fish for food, recreation, and industry.

Oil is a combustible liquid fossil fuel composed mainly of hydrocarbons, occurring as crude oil and refined into petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and kerosene.

The release of heat-trapping gases, primarily from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industry.

The processes through which enterprises can identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their actual and potential adverse impacts. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable precautions should be taken to avoid causing harm to people, the environment, or society. It also involves identifying and mitigating risks before they occur.

Social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society—improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity.

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.

Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors - judgment

Policy instrument

Impacted group

Just transition

Fossil fuel

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Finance