Wild Ireland Defence CLG v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 726
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2025.0000539]

In the Matter of Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and Section 3 of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011

Between

Wild Ireland Defence CLG

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland, The Attorney General and the Minister for Tourism Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media

Respondents

and

Gortyrahilly Wind DAC

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 726

[H.JR.2025.0000539]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Environmental impact assessment – Applicants seeking an order of certiorari quashing planning permission – Whether the environmental impact assessment was defective

Facts: The applicant, Wild Ireland Defence CLG, applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing a decision made by the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the commission), on or about 25 February 2025 to grant planning permission to the notice party, Gortyrahilly Wind DAC (the developer), for the construction of 13 wind turbines and ancillary works at Gortyrahilly and other townlands in Co. Cork and Derryreag, Cummeenavrick, Glashacormick, Clydaghroe and Cummeennabuddoge in Co. Kerry. The core grounds of challenge were as follows: (1) and (6) Irish language issues; (3) defective appropriate assessment (AA); (4) defective environmental impact assessment (EIA); and (5) lack of conservation objectives. Core ground 2 was not pursued.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) the pleading of core ground 4 was inadequate insofar as there was a lack of a route-map from any claimed issues to any claimed relief; (ii) there was no legal basis for the alleged breach of the language scheme because the scheme did not have binding effect at the material time due to the repeal of enabling provisions; (iii) the applicant had failed to discharge the onus to show any lack of consideration of relevant matters; (iv) the applicant had failed to discharge the evidential onus to show anything unlawful about the conservation measures or the exclusion of non-qualifying interest species as being non-significant, or about the carrying out of the AA or EIA; (v) it would be unworkable to interpret the autonomous obligations of the commission as requiring constant updating in real time of all technical material put forward by a developer, save by reference to a new standard of notability beyond the type of document represented by the NatureScot guidelines at issue; (vi) any non-compliance with language objectives, even if (counterfactually) binding, was minor and temporary and certiorari would be disproportionate; (vii) the challenge to the legislation could not properly arise because even if the repealing provision was invalid and thus the language scheme remained in force, it was complied with or alternatively any non-compliance did not warrant relief, and hence the validity of the legislation made no difference in a context where the applicant’s standing derived from participation in the process leading to the decision; and (viii) any error in relation to the Irish version of the order was effectively harmless and in any event relief on any of the pleaded issues would be disproportionate and should be refused as a matter of discretion even if counterfactually there was an error, having regard to the lack of submission on many of those points by the applicant and the importance of renewable energy infrastructure.

Humphreys J ordered that, by consent, there be a declaration that, contrary to their obligations under EU law, until the publication of the Gearagh SPA Site-Specific Conservation Objectives on 25 April 2025 (including at the time of the impugned decision), the second and third respondents failed to have in place site-specific conservation objectives for Gearagh SPA. He held that the proceedings would be otherwise dismissed save in relation to the balance of core ground 3 and the related standing issue.

Proceedings dismissed in part.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Wednesday the 17 ^th day of December 2025

1 . The applicant's central point is the whimsical notion that a commission decision permitting renewable energy infrastructure is wholly invalid and must be quashed because, despite there being clear bilingual policies in place, through human oversight there was a delay in issuing an Irish version. Without in any way diminishing the importance of the Irish language, this is the sort of overwrought fetishisation of technical quibbling in pursuit of certiorari and costs that appeals to few outside the applicant community and that gives judicial review a bad name in certain quarters. The fact that the applicant's pleadings and written and oral submissions relating to need for automatic certiorari based on offence to the Irish language were delivered entirely in English does little to diminish such an impression. The question here is whether a decision can be quashed on such a basis or on any other asserted basis, such as matters for which no proper evidential foundation has been laid.

Geographical context

2 . The proposed development ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/314602) is a strategic infrastructure development (SID) comprising, inter alia, a wind farm development of 13 turbines (with an overall ground to blade tip height range from 179 m to 185 m inclusive, with a rotor diameter ranging from 149 m to 155 m inclusive and a hub height ranging from 102.5 m to 110.5 m inclusive) with a 110 kV electrical substation and all related site works and ancillary development located within various townlands (Cahernacaha, Gortnabinna, Derryfineen, Gortyrahilly, Rath West, Derree, Fuhiry, Derreenaculling and other townlands, Co. Cork and Derryreag, Cummeenavrick, Glashacormick, Clydaghroe and Cummeennabuddoge, Co. Kerry).

Facts

3 . The planning application was made directly to the commission by the notice party under provisions of s. 37E of the 2000 Act on 9 September 2022. The application was made subsequent to the pre-application consultation with the commission under s. 37B of the 2000 Act (ABP-313440–22), where the commission determined that the proposed development would constitute SID.

4 . Pre-application consultation was also held with the commission for the same site, but for a proposed development of 12 turbines (ABP-308173–20). Having regard to the inclusion of two additional turbines the applicant for permission undertook separate pre-application consultation under ABP-313440–22.

5 . The SID planning application was accompanied by a range of supporting documentation, including an environmental impact assessment report (EIAR), and a screening for appropriate assessment (AA) and Natura impact statement (NIS).

6 . Ten third-party observations (including one by the applicant) were made to the commission on the application for permission (summarised at section 5.0 of the inspector's report, at §5.1.1 to §5.1.22). The applicant's submission was made in English language and in the Irish language. The other nine third-party submissions were made in English language only.

7 . Cork County Council (the council) submitted a report to the commission addressing the application (summarised at section 7.0 of the inspector's report at §7.1 to §7.2).

8 . Six other prescribed bodies made submissions/observations in response to the application (namely the Department of Housing, Local Government & Heritage, Development Applications Unit (DAU), Geological Survey of Ireland, Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Irish Aviation Authority, Uisce Éireann and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, which are summarised at section 6.0 of the inspector's report at §6.1 to §6.6.14).

9 . On or about 20 July 2023, the commission requested further information (RFI) from the notice party on a number of matters (summarised at section 8.2 of the inspector's report, at §8.2.1 to §8.2.36).

10 . The notice party submitted a response to the further information request on or about 29 September 2023 (the notice party having sought and been given additional time to respond). At section 8.4 of the inspector's report, the inspector records (at §8.4.2) that due to the absence of any significant new information in the notice party's submission, it was not considered necessary to undertake further public consultation on the information submitted. At §8.4.1, the inspector states that the further information that was submitted by the notice party was assessed by the commission on receipt of same and that it did not significantly amend the information in the original plans and particulars nor was there considered to be any new information of significance; rather, the additional information that was provided either clarified or expanded on information in the original information submitted to address the issues of concern raised in the commission's further information request.

11 . The applicant and another third-party observer requested that the commission hold an oral hearing in relation to the application. The commission considered that request and for stated reasons refused that request for an oral hearing.

12 . The commission appointed an inspector to prepare a report in relation to the subject SID application, and this was done. Two inspectors were assigned to the application and the report was prepared by the lead inspector, who is an assistant director of planning in the commission (a fact recorded at p. 304 of the inspector's report), having previously been a senior planning inspector for the commission. The inspector's report, which is dated 23 December 2024, records on p. 2 that site inspections were carried out on 16 June 2023, 2 July 2024 and 13 December 2024. The inspector (at section 13.0) recommended that permission be granted for the proposed development for stated reasons and considerations (at section 14.0) and subject to conditions (at section 15.0). Condition 4 as recommended/proposed by the inspector,...