Coolglass Wind Farm Ltd v an Bord Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice O'Donnell
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IESC 5
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2025:000043

Between/

Coolglass Wind Farm Limited

Appellant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Ireland and The Attorney General

Notice Parties

[2026] IESC 5

O'Donnell C.J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

Woulfe J.

Hogan J.

Murray J.

S:AP:IE:2025:000043

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice O'Donnell, Chief Justice on the 4 ^th day of February 2026.

Contents

Part I – Introduction	4
Background	4
Summary of the High Court Judgment	5
Part II – The Inspector's Report and the Commission's Decision	9
Part III – The Case Made by Coolglass	15
Core Ground 1:	15
Core Ground 2:	15
Core Ground 3:	16
Core Ground 4:	16
Core Ground 6:	16
Core Ground 7:	17
Relevant Legislative Provisions	17
Part IV – The Judgment of the High Court	18
Core Ground 1: The Interpretation of s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act	19
Core Ground 5 – ECHR	23
Core Ground 6 – The Renewable Energy Regulation	25
Core Ground 7 – The EU Law Conforming Interpretation Argument	26
Scope of the Appeal	27
Part V – Summary of the Position of the Parties in Respect of the Principal Arguments	28
Section 15 of the 2015 Act (Core Grounds 1, 3 and 4, but Especially Core Ground 1)	28
Core Grounds 5 and 7 – The ECtHR Judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen and Conforming Interpretation of EU Law	31
The Interpretation of s.15 of the 2015 Act (as amended)	33
The Section	34
Part VI – The Interpretation of s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act	53
“Functions”	55
“Consistent with”	57
“In so far as practicable”	59
Application to this Case	65
Part VII – The Commission's Reference to the Wrong Statutory Power (Core Ground 4)	71
Part VIII – Whether the Commission Abdicated its Function to the OPR or to the Minister (Core Ground 3)	74
Part IX – Interprétation Conforme and EU Law	77
Part X – Breach of Council Regulation (EU) No. 2022/2577 (Core Ground 6)	83
Part XI – Alleged Breach of Article 8 ECHR (Core Ground 5)	84
Part XII – Conclusion	92

Part I – Introduction

Background

1 . This appeal comes directly to this Court from the High Court pursuant to Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution following the grant of leave on 16 May 2025: see [2025] IESCDET 65. It arises from a judgment and Order of the High Court which quashed a decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála (“the Commission”) of 23 August 2024. 1 By that decision the Commission refused to grant Coolglass Wind Farm Ltd. (“Coolglass”), planning permission in respect of a development of a 13-turbine wind farm and associated works in Timahoe, Co. Laois. The site itself lies some 2km from the Kilkenny border and is situated about 11km southeast of Portlaoise.

2 . The significance of the appeal cannot be overstated, since it presents this Court with its first opportunity to consider the implications of s. 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) following important amendments made to that section effected by s. 17 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development ( Amendment) Act 2021 (“the 2021 Act”).

3 . The application by Coolglass was for a strategic infrastructure development, so it fell to be made directly to the Commission in the first instance under The Planning and Development

Act 2000 as amended by The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. In its decision of 23 August 2024, the Commission had noted that the Laois County Development Plan 2021–2027 (“the development plan”) was generally favourable to wind development. It concluded, however, that the proposed development by Coolglass would materially contravene objective CM RE 7 of the development plan. This prohibits the development of wind farms in “ areas not open for consideration”. The greater part of the actual site which is the subject of the application is located within such an excluded area. The Commission concluded that the proposed development would also contravene Policy Objective WES 7 of the Laois County Wind Energy Strategy which identified areas not considered suitable for windfarm development due to their overall sensitivity arising from landscape, ecological, recreational and/or cultural and built heritage resources

4 . In this respect the Commission expressly followed the approach that had been recommended by its Inspector in a report dated 16 May 2024. The Inspector had concluded that the development plan must take precedence over national climate policy saying (at para. 12.5.33) that national climate policy “ cannot override the clear policy directives set by the County Development Plan.” The Inspector concluded (at para. 12.5.33) that national energy policies – while of considerable importance – “ must be realised in a manner that respects local landscape sensitivities and planning policies.”

Summary of the High Court Judgment

5 . Coolglass challenged this decision of the Commission in the High Court, succeeding on a number of grounds: see Coolglass Wind Farm Ltd. v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 1. The central feature of the judgment revolved around the construction of s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act (as amended) (“Core Ground 1”). The High Court noted that this sub-section had itself been amended by the 2021 Act so that it now imposed a more elevated duty to perform functions of the Board (and other relevant bodies) (“ so far as practicable… in a manner consistent with”) the most recently approved climate action plans (“CAPs”) climate action strategy, national adaptation strategy and approved sectoral adaptation plans in furtherance of the national climate objective (defined by section 3(1) of the Act) and the “ objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.”

6 . The High Court – subject to a point which subsequently arose in relation to Core Ground 2 – accepted all of the evidence adduced by Coolglass, save where this was expressly disputed by the Commission (para. 15 of the judgment). That evidence was that the Climate Action Plan 2024 (“CAP 24”) sets targets for wind energy including 9GW of onshore wind, 8GW of solar power and 80% share of renewables for the electricity market by 2030. Coolglass also emphasised that Ireland is “ not on track” with regard to meeting its renewable energy targets, greenhouse gas emissions and broader climate plans and objectives. Finally, it urged that the proposed development at issue here comprises a renewable energy project with a total predicted output of some 85.8MW to 93.6MW which, if sanctioned by the grant of planning permission, would obviously contribute to the achievement of climate plans and objectives and would itself provide 1% of the total target contained in CAP 24. Indeed, the Commission's Inspector had concluded that the proposal would, if sanctioned, mean that when taken together with other wind energy projects currently operating in that county, County Laois would contribute nearly 1.5% of the total national output by 2030: see paragraph 11.2.3 of the Inspector's report.

7 . In the course of a detailed examination of these legislative changes, the High Court concluded (at para. 72) that the amended Act “ imposes sweeping obligations across the public sector from the Government down.” The judge reinforced this conclusion by reference to EU law considerations and (in the context of ss. 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003) (“the 2003 Act”) the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland [2024] ECHR 304 ([GC] No. 53600/20 9 April 2024) (“ KlimaSeniorinnen”). Noting that the Commission's decision did not mention s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act at all, the judgment concluded (at para. 150) that it had failed to act “ consistently insofar as practicable with those goals and policies” contained in the 2015 Act.

8 . In effect, the judge thus concluded that in view of the requirements of s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act, the Commission ought to have exercised its statutory powers under s. 37G(6) of The Planning and Development Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) to grant permission in respect of this development, even though this would otherwise have represented a material contravention of the development plan.

9 . In addition to the foregoing, it was accepted by all the parties that at one point in his report the Inspector fell into error by referring in this context to the wrong statutory provision empowering the Commission to depart from the provisions of the development plan (s. 37(2) of the 2000 Act) and that he ought to have referred instead to the Commission's somewhat more ample powers in this respect provided for in s. 37G(6) of that Act. Section 37(2) – as explained later in this judgment — applied when the Commission was dealing with an appeal from a planning authority, rather than determining an application for the first time.

10 . The High Court took the view that had the correct and more permissive test in s. 37G(6) been applied by the Inspector, the Commission would have had greater freedom to depart from the terms of a development plan in order to comply with the requirements of s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act. The High Court concluded (at para. 46) that the “[ I] nspector's report here is an utterly flawed document in key respects, even on the most orthodox and established administrative law basis.”

11 . The High Court judge also appears to have concluded that the Commission had failed to act in a manner compatible with the requirements of the 2003 Act having regard to the manner in which Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR were interpreted by ECtHR in KlimaSeniorinnen: see paragraphs 151 to 153 of the judgment.

12 . By order dated 14 March 2025, Humphreys J. granted an order of certiora...