Moss and Ors v an Coimisiún pleanála and Anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 10 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 62
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2025.0001080]

In the Matter of An Application Pursuant to Section 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and in the Matter of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and in the Matter of An Application

Between

Susan Moss, Anne Hoek, Anne Lacey, Francis Prendergast, Ned Barron and Paul Davis

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Lightsource Renewable Energy Ireland Limited

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 62

[H.JR.2025.0001080]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Tuesday the 10 ^th day of February 2026

1 . The project here was found acceptable by the county council, the inspector and the commission. Multiple decisions over recent years have emphasised that solar farms are not envrionmental impact assessment (EIA) projects ( Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 28 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Murray J., 4 July 2024) citing Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 39 (Unreported, High Court, McDonald J., 31 January 2020), Kavanagh v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 259 (Unreported, High Court, O'Moore J., 29 May 2020)). The applicants try to upset that conclusion by a side-wind – because projects like solar farms inevitably require internal access tracks, the applicants characterise those as “roads” in a way that would engage EIA. The applicants are undeterred by the previous rejection of that argument in caselaw, and the question here is whether this or any other argument advanced furnished grounds to quash the permission here.

Geographical context

2 . The project ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/318433) concerns a 10-year planning permission for a solar photovoltaic (PV) energy development. The proposed development consists of a solar PV energy development with associated battery storage compound with a total site area of c. 103.64 ha. to include solar panels mounted on steel support structures, associated cabling and ducting, inverters, transformers, switchgear substations, auxiliary transformer, permanent storage container, monitoring houses, composting toilet, BESS customer substation, battery blocks, BESS inverters, BESS interface cabinets, BESS MV skids, temporary construction compounds, tracks, boundary security fencing and security gates, CCTV, landscaping and ancillary works, with a 40 year operational period. It is proposed that the proposed development will be accessed from three separate access points: site access 1 will be a newly created access point of the L4205 and site access 2 and 3 will utilise two existing access points of an unnamed local road which runs along the northern boundary of the application site, both site access 2 and 3 will require upgrading, all on lands within the townlands of Castlegarden and Cloghscregg, Thomastown, County Kilkenny.

Facts

3 . Kilkenny County Council (the council) made the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan on 3 September 2021. The plan came into effect on 15 October 2021.

4 . On 15 October 2021, the Minister of State at the Department of the Housing, Local Government and Heritage, consequent to a recommendation made to him by the Office of the Planning Regulator under s. 31AM(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (the 2000 Act), notified the council of his intention to issue a direction to the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan 2021–2027 (see https://www.kilkennycoco.ie/eng/services/planning/development-plans/city-and-county-development-plan/adopted-city-and-county-development-plan.html). The final direction has yet to issue.

5 . The notice party developer lodged an application for permission with the council on 27 February 2023.

6 . The application was accompanied by an environmental impact assessment screening report (EIAR) as well as a Natura impact assessment (NIS). Other documents accompanying the application included inter alia a planning statement, noise impact assessment, an ecological appraisal, a biodiversity management plan as well as maps and drawings.

7 . In or around April 2023, some of the applicants made submissions in respect of the proposed development, identifying concerns in respect of what was being proposed, and received acknowledgements in respect of those submissions as they related to the proposed development.

8 . The council made a request for further information (RFI) on 20 April 2023, and a response to that RFI was submitted on behalf of the developer on 19 September 2023. Two planners' reports were prepared by officials of the council, dated 20 April and 13 October 2023, respectively, on the planning application.

9 . On 11 October 2023, the council's environment section issued a memorandum stating that it had no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions.

10 . On 13 October 2023, the council issued a notification of a decision to grant permission for the proposed development, subject to 25 conditions.

11 . A third-party appeal was made to the commission on 9 November 2023 by BPS Planning & Development Consultants on behalf of a number of persons including the applicants.

12 . Lightsource submitted a response to the appeal dated 8 December 2023.

13 . The council also made a response to the appeal by submission dated 11 December 2023.

14 . The commission appointed inspector Liam Bowe to prepare a report and recommendation in respect of the proposed development.

15 . On 8 July 2024, a memorandum was prepared by the inspector stating that he considered that the proposed development would require the submission of an EIAR.

16 . On 31 July 2024, the commission wrote to the applicants pursuant to s. 132 of the 2000 Act, requiring Lightsource to submit an EIAR within a period of six months. A copy of the s. 132 notice was circulated to all of the parties to the appeal on 1 August 2024.

17 . On 27 August 2024, Lightsource responded to the s. 132 notice and set out its view that the proposed development did not require the submission of an EIAR and further submitted that the commission should withdraw the request made in the s. 132 notice.

18 . On 4 September 2024, a memorandum was prepared by an executive officer of the commission, which noted that a response had been received from Lightsource and recommended that the provisions of s. 131 of the 2000 Act should not be invoked in respect of the council's response. Following a recommendation from the inspector (made in two memoranda dated 17 September 2024) to circulate Lightsource's responses to the s. 132 notice pursuant to s. 131 of the 2000 Act, the submission was circulated to the other parties to the appeal (including the applicants) on 17 September 2024.

19 . Thereafter, a submission was made by BPS Planning & Development Consultants on behalf of the applicants in respect of Lightsource's response to the s. 132 notice dated 10 October 2024. A separate submission was made on behalf of Willem Hoek, who is not a party to these proceedings, dated 10 October 2024.

20 . The inspector prepared a report dated 4 December 2024 in respect of the appeal, which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

21 . The commission's direction (BD-019181-25) is dated 12 March 2025.

22 . By commission order dated 20 May 2025 (ABP-318433-23), the commission granted planning permission for the proposed development, subject to 21 conditions.

Procedural history

23 . The statement of grounds and verifying affidavit were filed in the Central Office of the High Court on 14 July 2025.

24 . On 21 July 2025, Farrell J. granted leave to apply for judicial review, except for core ground 5.

25 . On 15 September 2025, a hearing date was fixed for 13 January 2026.

26 . On 29 September 2025, the matter was listed at request of parties to discuss an issue with directions.

27 . The respondent filed its statement of opposition and verifying affidavit on 23 October 2025.

28 . The notice party filed its statement of opposition and verifying affidavit on 30 October 2025.

29 . On 1 December 2025, the matter was listed for callover.

30 . On Monday 8 December 2025, the matter was listed for mention with new directions to be agreed by Friday 12 December 2025.

31 . The applicants' submissions were filed on 9 December 2025.

32 . The respondent's submissions were filed on 16 December 2025.

33 . On 15 December 2025, the matter was listed for callover and papers were in order on that date.

34 . The notice party's submissions were filed on 18 December 2025.

35 . On 9 January 2026, the applicants indicated that they would not be pursuing core ground 6.

36 . On 12 January 2026, a corrective affidavit of Brigitta Lannen, dated 9 January 2026, was filed.

37 . The matter was heard on 13 January 2026. Judgment was reserved at the end of that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of the lawyers involved for their unfailingly courteous, professional and helpful assistance. As I have previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points advanced are not being accepted in this or any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the inherent merits of such points and is no reflection on those instructed to convey such points, a distinction that most certainly should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all concerned.

38 . On 16 January 2026, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with whatever content it considers appropriate.

39 . Any comments must be emailed to the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to ShareFile in writing within the specified time, and should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be disregarded) but are confined to matters such as:

• (a) informing the court as to whether a formal judgment is...