Judgment: 2026-03-20 · Court archive

High Court refuses residents leave to appeal solar farm ruling

High Court · [2026] IEHC 175

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Susan Moss
  • Anne Hoek
  • Anne Lacey
  • Francis Prendergast
  • Ned Barron
  • Paul Davies
  • An Coimisiún Pleanála
  • Lightsource Renewable Energy Ireland Limited
  • Mr Justice Richard Humphreys
What

High Court refuses residents leave to appeal solar farm ruling

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 10 February 2026

    Susan Moss, Anne Hoek, Anne Lacey, Francis Prendergast, Ned Barron and Paul Davies sought to appeal the High Court’s 10 February 2026 ruling in proceedings against An Coimisiún Pleanála. Lightsource Renewable Energy Ireland Limited is the developer and notice party.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

He held that the proposed question did not properly reflect the facts already determined in the substantive judgment. In particular, it described the development as involving a road and referred to a stone or tarmac finish, although the court had found that tarmac would not be used.

The High Court has refused six applicants permission to appeal an earlier judgment dismissing their challenge to planning approval for a solar farm.

Susan Moss, Anne Hoek, Anne Lacey, Francis Prendergast, Ned Barron and Paul Davies sought to appeal the High Court’s 10 February 2026 ruling in proceedings against An Coimisiún Pleanála. Lightsource Renewable Energy Ireland Limited is the developer and notice party.

The applicants proposed asking an appellate court whether about 5.3km of internal access track associated with the development should be treated as a road under planning regulations and therefore potentially bring the project within environmental impact assessment requirements.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys refused leave on 20 March 2026.

He held that the proposed question did not properly reflect the facts already determined in the substantive judgment. In particular, it described the development as involving a road and referred to a stone or tarmac finish, although the court had found that tarmac would not be used.

The judge also held that the proposed issue concerned applying established law to the specific facts rather than resolving a point of law of exceptional public importance.

The judgment noted that the Supreme Court had recently confirmed that solar farms are not themselves projects listed for environmental impact assessment. The applicants had identified no Irish or European authority supporting the proposition that internal access tracks transformed a solar farm into an EIA project.

The court also found that a further appeal was not in the public interest. It pointed to the statutory objective of finality in planning judicial reviews, the potential financial prejudice from delay and the public interest in renewable-energy infrastructure.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Unless the Supreme Court grants a direct, or leapfrog, appeal, there will be no order for the costs of this leave application. The High Court directed that its final orders be perfected without another listing.

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