A Duty on Public Bodies to Prioritize Climate Action? Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanala – Climate Law Blog

Planning law has proven to be a useful tool for climate activists seeking to block or challenge new fossil fuel developments. However, it has also been used to frustrate efforts to accelerate the renewable energy transition by delaying the construction of new renewable energy infrastructure (see here). Ireland has been a particular victim of this latter problem, with developers citing concerns over current planning laws as a reason for delays in constructing onshore wind farms, among other facilities.

On January 10, 2025, the Irish High Court decided in Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanala how planning considerations should be interpreted in light of Ireland’s domestic climate framework, European Union (EU) law, and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations. In particular, it considered whether Ireland’s climate obligations should take priority over the alleged visual impacts of a proposed new wind farm. In a striking and climate-centric judgment, Justice Humphreys examined the nature and scope of the obligations of public bodies under section 15(1) of the 2015 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act (as amended) (“The Climate Act”) which provides that Irish public bodies should carry out their duties consistent with climate plans and objectives in so far as practicable. Ireland has legally binding climate targets under domestic and EU law, (see here for an explanation of Ireland’s overall national climate strategy). A vast expansion in wind energy capacity will be needed for Ireland to meet its targets and contribute to overall efforts to address climate change. In a highly encouraging judgment, the Court found that the national planning authority had given insufficient consideration to the climate implications of refusing the project and ordered the authority to reconsider its decision to take into account these implications. This blog post will analyze the judgment and its implications for public bodies in their current and future consideration of climate change when dealing with challenges to attempts to accelerate the renewable energy transition.

The case concerned an application by a wind farm developer for planning permission to construct a wind farm in Co. Laois (a county in the middle of Ireland). On August 9, 2024, An Bord Pleanála (the national planning authority) rejected permission for the wind farm, citing visual impacts and local development plan designations for wind turbines. Under the local Laois County Development Plan, wind farms were not to be constructed in the relevant area based on “their overall sensitivity arising from landscape, ecological, recreational and/or cultural and built heritage resources as well as their limited wind regime.” Still, as the national planning authority,  An Bord Pleanála could grant permission for the wind farm regardless of any alleged material contravention of the County Development Plan. However, An Bord Pleanála refused the planning permission based on the local and visual concerns outlined in the original County Development Plan.

On October 14, 2024, the company sought and was granted leave to appeal the decision before the High Court, arguing inter alia that under section 15(1) of the Climate Act, the planning authority had an obligation to interpret its planning decisions such that climate considerations would take priority over the local and visual concerns. Section 15(1) of the Climate Act obligates public authorities to, in so far as is practicable, performs its functions in a manner consistent with Ireland’s climate action goals, including the most recently approved national climate action plan, the most recently approved long-term climate action strategy, the most recently approved national adaptation framework, the furtherance of Ireland’s national climate targets (a 51% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050) and the overall goal of climate mitigation and adaptation. Section 15(1) had previously only required public authorities to “have regard to” these objectives, but, following the landmark judgment in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland, which required greater specificity within the government’s plans to achieve its climate targets, the section had been amended to mandate that public authorities ensure their functions are “consistent with” national climate action. Therefore, the company argued that the authority had taken inadequate account of section 15(1) of the Climate Act. The planning authority argued in response that a narrower interpretation of this provision was appropriate, obliging the authority to consider climate change but not to displace other obligations, and that the authority had, therefore, acted within its powers in refusing permission for the wind farm.

On January 10, 2025, the High Court, in a ruling by Justice Humphreys, upheld the appeal, finding that An Bord Pleanála had acted unlawfully by failing to exercise its powers in a manner compliant as far as practicable with the climate objectives and policies set out in the Climate Act, and had breached its duties under EU law and European human rights law. The Court noted that “if climate goals take precedence over visual impacts [as had been found in a previous case of  Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603 (Unreported, High Court, 1st November 2024)] and the like, then logically they must take precedence over development plan provisions that are motivated by visual impacts.”

The High Court further noted that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland demonstrated that the requirement to read legislation in an ECHR-compliant manner supported an interpretation of section 15 that went beyond the board’s approach and that the interpretation should ensure that ECHR obligations are complied with in practice, including with stated goals in relation to renewable energy infrastructure. Therefore, the failure to properly consider the climate benefits of allowing the project constituted a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Referring to climate change as a “climate emergency” (in line with the climate emergency declaration issued by the Irish Parliament in 2019), Justice Humphreys noted that “we have a massive and unexplained contradiction between the State’s opening rhetorical acceptance of the climate emergency as the supreme challenge of our times, combined with quibbling rejection and inadequacy of intention when it comes to actually operationalising that to its logical conclusions.” The Court was thus highly critical of the reluctance of the state to give adequate effect to its domestic climate legislation. In turn, it disapproved of the planning authorities’ proposition that local landscape sensitivities and planning would take precedence over actions needed to address the climate emergency and meet Ireland’s legally binding targets. It stated that “the board (largely supported by the State) recoils in horror from the logical implications of this [the imposition of legally binding targets and strengthening of Irish domestic climate litigation following the Friends of the Irish Environment ruling] and demands the right to continue business as usual. But an immediate end to business as usual is a precondition for planetary survival.”

Taking these factors into account, the Court held that the authority had not adequately considered section 15(1) in its considerations of whether to grant permission in light of the need to consider climate objectives in contrast to the visual impacts and local planning concerns expressed by those opposed to the wind farms. It stated that “the need for an imperative reading of [section] 15(1) in line with what it says, namely that the board and any other relevant body is required to act in conformity with the climate plans and objectives set out in the subsection unless it is impracticable to do so.”

Therefore, the Court granted the appeal and ordered that the application be remitted to An Bord Pleanála for further consideration in accordance with the judgment.

The case is a welcome statement in favor of a pro-climate approach to planning decisions for renewable energy projects. Based on the evidence provided during proceedings, Justice Humphreys noted that there had been a marked increase in the number of wind farm projects being refused permission by the planning authority in recent years, citing “a pattern of behaviour by the board that is in effect sabotaging the compliance by the State with national and international climate commitments, although no doubt that isn’t the subjective intention.” While it is not necessarily the case that each project was refused because climate considerations were not given adequate consideration, Cooleglass should halt this fixed approach to, at the very least, require that the full extent of the climate emergency be considered before refusing permission for renewable energy infrastructure.

Recognition of climate change as a climate emergency with associated domestic, EU, and ECHR obligations places the planning process in perspective, adding a “common sense” lens to considerations of local visual impacts over identified climate benefits, which would generally favor the latter in the case of a renewable energy project. The decision, in and of itself, does not guarantee that the Cooleglass wind farm project will proceed, as the Court has referred it back to the planning authority. Still, it ensures climate objectives will be given due consideration within this and future decisions by the planning authority.

The case also represents one of the first interpretations of KlimaSeniorinnen by a domestic court. In this regard, it is welcome to note that the Court used the case to bolster the argument that the state merely possessing a climate framework was not enough. The provisions of Article 8 demanded that this framework also translates into compliance with climate obligations in practice. Adding a layer of additional burdens on the state to ensure this compliance aligns with the general obligation outlined in KlimaSeniorinnen that a state not only has a relevant climate legislative and administrative framework but also be applied effectively in practice.

The Court’s engagement with the language of the climate emergency and its analysis of the need to breach local planning requirements to achieve wind energy targets reflects a broader acknowledgment by the Court of the scale of the threat posed by climate change, and how this threat may require further prioritization of climate action. This is perhaps reflected most starkly in the Court’s assertion that “an immediate end to business as usual is a precondition for planetary survival” and its criticism of the attempt by the state to water down the extent to which climate change should take priority in these types of considerations. This may lead the state to reconsider its approach to section 15(1) and its overall interpretation of climate decisions and objectives, particularly in light of pending litigation against the state for inadequate climate ambition within its existing climate policies.

Thus, the decision has implications for all Irish public bodies with regard to their interpretation of relevant matters. Mandating that a climate-centric approach to planning decisions be adopted by the relevant authority for renewable energy projects adds “teeth” to the provisions of section 15(1), which builds on the potential offered by the legally binding nature of the existing domestic climate framework.

While the Court has signaled its interest in authorities favoring projects which support renewable energy infrastructure, that does not mean the Court has stated that obligations can be extended so that public bodies would automatically reject new high-emitting projects based on their climate impacts. Justice Humphreys noted that there may be a need for some projects that do not support climate goals in isolation, but are nonetheless necessary, such as the pursuit of energy security. Furthermore, in some cases, refusing to allow a project to go ahead in Ireland may simply result in the project being relocated to another country with lower environmental standards, thereby doing nothing to reduce overall global greenhouse gas emissions. This still leaves open a window to challenge future high-emitting projects but places a higher burden on those objecting the projects to show that broader public policy concerns do not justify its approval.

Regardless, the case is a welcome precedent that can be built upon in the future to ensure arcane planning laws do not clash with the much-needed energy transition.

Eoin Jackson

Eoin Jackson is a Legal Fellow at the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development focusing on climate litigation and climate governance. He is a Peer Review Network rapporteur for Ireland.