An Bord Pleanála looks to appeal High Court's 'very significant' wind farm decision

High Court reporters

An Bord Pleanála wants to appeal a “very significant” High Court decision in which a judge accused it of effectively “sabotaging” the State’s compliance with climate commitments.

Lawyers for the planning authority are also asking Mr Justice Richard Humphreys to revisit his findings concerning its duty of candour to the court in the legal challenge brought by wind farm developer Coolglass.

In his ruling earlier this month, the judge overturned An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse to grant planning permission to Coolglass for its Co Laois wind farm proposal.

He proposed that the planning application should be reconsidered by the board.

The 13-turbine project is proposed in townlands for which the local development plan prohibits wind farms.

A development plan sets out a local council’s objectives for particular areas in its vicinity. An Bord Pleanála has the power not to follow aspects of a development plan depending on the circumstances of a case.

Mr Justice Humphreys held that the board has since late 2022 adopted a “fixed practice of supine submission” to local development bans on renewable energy and failed to act in a manner compliant, as far as practicable, with national climate objectives.

Some of his findings were based on an uncontradicted claim by Coolglass that there has been a “significant drop” in the board’s approval rating for wind energy projects.

The judge said the allegation provided an “extremely concerning and disturbing picture which establishes...a pattern of behaviour by the board that is in effect sabotaging the compliance by the State with national and international climate commitments”.

He also made comments regarding a public body’s “duty of candour to the court”, holding that the board “failed and is continuing to fail to disclose” the circumstances in which it adopted an “unlawfully fixed approach” to wind projects that contravene local development plants.

On Monday, Declan McGrath SC, for Coolglass Wind Farm Limited, said he thinks the parties agree the court’s judgment is a “significant one” and that, if there is to be an appeal, the issues should be decided by the Supreme Court.

David Browne, senior counsel for the board, said an appeal of the “very significant” High Court decision will probably end up in the Supreme Court.

He also wants to move an “unusual application” asking the court to revisit its findings relating to his client’s duty of candour and the level of information it put before the court during the hearing of the case.

The board took “serious issue” with this and has “reflected”, he said. It wants to submit an affidavit on the issue, the court heard.

Mr Justice Humphreys mused as to whether the board was going to now try to contradict what was Coolglass’s “uncontested evidence” during the hearing. He said he will “wait to see what happens” when the case returns on February 10th.