The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk against planning permission for a solar farm in County Offaly, ruling that the main environmental assessment arguments were not properly pleaded and rejecting two of them on their merits.
The case concerned An Bord Pleanála’s October 2021 decision to grant Elgin Energy Services Limited permission, subject to conditions, to build and operate a photovoltaic solar farm on a site of about 90 hectares. The proposed works included removing 770 metres of hedgerow and removing and relocating another 140 metres. The Court recorded that the developer would have to apply to the Minister for Agriculture for an environmental impact assessment screening decision before carrying out that work.
The residents argued that because the hedgerow works amounted to a project for the restructuring of rural land holdings under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the entire solar farm should be screened for assessment and assessed if required. The Court rejected that argument. It held that the relevant project under the Directive was the rural land restructuring, not the wider solar farm, which is not listed in the Directive’s assessment categories. However, screening or assessment of the restructuring must take account of its cumulative effects with the wider development, including the solar farm.
The Court also rejected the residents’ argument that Ireland’s two-consent system failed to implement the Directive because the Minister does not decide whether planning permission should be granted or set its conditions. The judgment said planning permission alone does not authorise work requiring separate ministerial consent. The Minister may refuse that consent or attach conditions, and the developer would have to comply with them as well as the planning conditions.
A further argument was that the Minister could not conduct a compliant assessment after planning permission had already been granted. The Court said that question could not properly be decided before an actual ministerial assessment had taken place, so it was premature. It did not determine whether a future assessment in this case would comply with the Directive.
The Court noted that these substantive grounds had not been pleaded in the judicial review proceedings. It nevertheless addressed the first and third issues after full argument, concluding that they were misconceived. The High Court’s dismissal of the challenge therefore stands. The Supreme Court did not quash the planning permission or decide the outcome of any ministerial screening or consent process.