Although Justice Humphreys was sympathetic to the applicant’s climate-based concerns, he emphasised that the applicant did not participate adequately in the planning process and did not engage sufficiently with the developer’s GHG emissions analysis. The primary reason for the dismissal was that the applicant did not raise the grounds relied on in the legal challenge at the planning stage. Additional core reasons for refusal are below.

Decision was not inconsistent with section 15(1) of the Climate Act

The applicant argued that the decision to grant permission was inconsistent with section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended (the “Climate Act”). In Coolglass Wind Farm Limited -v- An Bord Pleanála [2026] IESC 5, the Supreme Court found that section 15(1) obligations involve a degree of flexibility, and therefore the Commission is entitled to make decisions within a spectrum of possible outcomes. Here, the applicant did not succeed in demonstrating the Commission acted outside this spectrum.

Failure to consider net emissions

The applicant also alleged errors in the GHG emissions calculation submitted by the developer. However, this point was not made out. Although the EIAR contended the project would replace less efficient power generation, the applicant ignored the baseline scenario by taking “the plant in isolation rather than in a system context.” This meant net emissions were not properly assessed.

In a recent challenge against the grant of permission for a data centre in Clare (Doyle & Ors -v- An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors [No. 3] [2026] IEHC 156), Justice Humphreys emphasised that net impacts as conditioned, mitigated and offset must be the focus of any legal challenge. In this case, the Commission accepted the developer’s assessment that the proposed development was the option with the lowest emissions profile of the alternatives considered and that for this reason, the project would have preference in dispatch over less efficient plants, generating GHG savings. The applicant did not demonstrate this conclusion was unlawful.

Taxonomy Regulation argument was legally misconceived

The applicant argued that the Taxonomy Regulation provides a Union-wide definition of what economic activities are “environmentally sustainable.” It considered that the Commission could not lawfully conclude the development was sustainable under Irish law if it did not meet this definition under EU law. Justice Humphreys described this as “an imaginative attempt” to read an EU-law obligation into Irish law via the Climate Act. The Taxonomy Regulation is a component of the EU’s sustainable finance framework. The Court ruled that it does not impose a substantive obligation on planning decision-takers to act in an environmentally friendly manner. 

EIA and AA grounds also failed as the applicant did not discharge the onus of proof to demonstrate inadequacy in assessments.