Judgment: 2026-03-02 · Court archive

Supreme Court sends Coolglass windfarm application back to planning body for fresh climate-law consideration

Supreme Court · [2026] IESC 000

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Coolglass Wind Farm Limited
  • An Coimisiún Pleanála
  • Attorney General
  • Supreme Court
What

Supreme Court sends Coolglass windfarm application back to planning body for fresh climate-law consideration

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 5 February 2026

    The ruling follows the court's substantive judgment of 5 February 2026 in a dispute between Coolglass Wind Farm Limited and the planning commission. The High Court had previously quashed the Commission's refusal of planning permission, and the Commission appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court found that the Commission had erred by failing to consider the effect of section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as significantly amended in 2021. In particular, it should have considered whether those climate obligations required it to use its powers under section 37G(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to depart from the Laois Development Plan.

By Ruth Mercer

The Supreme Court has sent a planning application for a 13-turbine windfarm at Timahoe, County Laois, back to An Coimisiún Pleanála for further consideration of the State's climate legislation.

The ruling follows the court's substantive judgment of 5 February 2026 in a dispute between Coolglass Wind Farm Limited and the planning commission. The High Court had previously quashed the Commission's refusal of planning permission, and the Commission appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the Commission had erred by failing to consider the effect of section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as significantly amended in 2021. In particular, it should have considered whether those climate obligations required it to use its powers under section 37G(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to depart from the Laois Development Plan.

In its 2 March ruling on costs and the form of the final order, the court directed that the case return to the planning process at the stage immediately after the original inspector's report and before the Commission's decision.

The Commission may appoint an inspector to prepare a supplemental report addressing whether it should depart from the development plan in light of the climate legislation, together with any relevant up-to-date material.

The Supreme Court declined Coolglass's request to prescribe the detailed procedure to be followed on remittal, saying the Commission must be presumed to comply with fair procedures and the law.

Coolglass was awarded 50% of its High Court and Supreme Court costs against the Commission. The court said it had won on the most important ground but had failed, or largely failed, on several others. No costs order was made for or against the Attorney General.

The ruling does not grant planning permission. The application must now be reconsidered by the Commission on the remitted issue.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review