Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment (delivered by Judge Humphreys) concerns a challenge by the Applicant to a decision dated 13 March 2025 of the planning decision-maker (the Respondent) granting planning permission for a 600 MW combined-cycle gas turbine power plant, a 120 MWh battery energy storage system and ancillary works at a coastal site on the estuary ("the Proposed Development"). The developer/notice party is identified in the record as Company A.

Key milestones in the administrative process included pre-application consultations in 2023-2024, an application lodged 19 April 2024, and a decision to grant permission on 13 March 2025. The Applicant filed judicial review proceedings (statement of grounds) on 7 May 2025 and was granted leave on 12 May 2025. The matter was listed for full hearing on 19 March 2026 and judgment was reserved and later circulated in draft to the parties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent's decision was consistent, "in so far as practicable", with the measures identified in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended).
2. Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure and the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) complied with Articles 1, 5 and Annex IV of the EIA Directive and whether public participation requirements were satisfied.
3. Whether the Appropriate Assessment (AA) under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive was lawfully carried out (screening/Stage 2 assessment and in‑combination/cumulative effects assessment).
4. Whether the Applicant failed, by not raising points in the administrative process, to place material before the decision-taker such that relief in judicial review is precluded or discretionary relief should be refused.
5. Whether any other domestic or EU law grounds pleaded (including arguments invoking the EU Taxonomy/Delegated Regulations or carbon budgeting in the 2015 Act context) established a legal error requiring quashing of the decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The decision is inconsistent with s.15(1) of the 2015 Act (failure to assess consistency with climate objectives, Carbon Budgets and Sectoral Emissions Ceilings).
• The EIAR miscalculated GHG emissions (used an incorrect factor), so the EIA was defective under Articles 5 and Annex IV of the EIA Directive and public participation was inadequate.
• The Respondent's Appropriate Assessment screening and conclusions were unlawful because site-specific conservation objectives/measures were absent and cumulative impacts (including loss of Annex I habitats) were not properly assessed.
• The decision relied on open-ended policy support for new gas generation contrary to the climate framework and may amount to unjustified approval of fossil-fuel infrastructure.

Respondent's Arguments

• Many of the Applicant's complaints were not raised during the administrative process; judicial review is not ordinarily a forum to introduce new evidence or arguments that could have been raised earlier.
• The decision-maker addressed climate policy and s.15(1) matters within the permissible spectrum of outcomes (Coolglass framework); conditions were imposed to limit operations in time and to require export for grid back-up only.
• The EIAR contained sufficient methodological disclosure (forecasting methods, modelling, emission factors) and any commercially confidential material was redacted legitimately; the EIA and EIA conclusion were lawful and reasonable.
• The Appropriate Assessment, Natura Impact Statement and Inspector's report addressed in‑combination effects; the Applicant has not discharged the onus to show reasonable scientific doubt from the materials before the decision-maker.

Company A / Developer's Arguments

• The EIAR and supporting modelling adequately considered operational efficiency, lifecycle and upstream emissions and complied with the EIA Directive requirements.
• The project was consistent with national policy (including the Climate Action Plan) and national needs for flexible generation; the Respondent lawfully adopted the Inspector's assessment and conclusions.
• Reliance on the EU Taxonomy to challenge a planning decision is misplaced because that Regulation targets financial market disclosure rather than planning consent decisions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied established judicial review principles (summarised as an eight-fold path). Central to the analysis were: (i) the requirement that challenges be assessed through the lens of the material that was before the decision-maker at the time of decision; (ii) the onus of proof resting on the Applicant to demonstrate legal error or to establish reasonable scientific doubt in AA/EIA contexts; (iii) the distinction between legality and merits — the court will not substitute its view for the expert evaluative judgments of the decision‑taker; and (iv) the discretionary nature of certiorari.

Applying those principles, the court emphasised the Supreme Court's guidance (Coolglass) that s.15(1) imposes a legally enforceable consistency duty but one that operates as a spectrum of permissible outcomes qualified by "in so far as practicable." The court held that the Respondent had addressed climate policy and s.15 matters and that the decision fell within the spectrum of permissible outcomes, particularly given the national policy context and the conditions imposed (time‑limited operation and grid-backup conditions).

The court further concluded that many of the Applicant's core complaints had not been raised during the administrative process. Absent autonomous obligations plainly engaged and in the absence of evidential material before the decision-maker creating reasonable scientific doubt, the court would not admit or decide de novo merits-based disagreements introduced for the first time in judicial review. The Applicant had not discharged the evidential onus to show that the EIAR/EIA or the AA were defective such that the Respondent's reasoned conclusions fell outside the margin of evaluation.

On specific points: alleged miscalculation of GHG emissions, alleged misuse of sectoral thresholds/Carbon Budgets, and alleged improper reliance on policy support for gas generation were treated as either merits disputes or matters that the Applicant failed to raise before the Respondent; the court found no demonstrable legal error on the face of the materials. Regarding habitat loss, the court accepted the Respondent's and Inspector's reasons that the limited, likely transient loss did not create a risk of lasting or irreparable harm to the SAC on the evidence before the decision-maker.

The court also observed that where a valid reading of the decision is available, a decision should be read as valid rather than parsed into invalidity by semantic quibbles. Finally, even if errors existed in points not raised in the process, the court indicated it would likely exercise its discretion against ordering certiorari in the circumstances described.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The proceedings are DISMISSED.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Respondent's decision granting permission stands subject to the conditions imposed (including time-limited operation to 31 December 2050 and restrictions requiring export to the national grid as back-up). The court found no legal error warranting quashing the decision on the pleaded grounds and noted that no new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles (including the Coolglass interpretation of s.15(1), the established onus and evidential rules in environmental judicial review, and the discretionary approach to certiorari where applicants failed to raise issues in the administrative process).