Leamlara Preservation Group and Anor v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants, a residents’ group and an affected local resident, challenged the Respondent’s decision of 19 February 2026 granting the Developer a ten-year permission for a solar farm and associated works, subject to 21 conditions. [1][2][3][4]

The local planning authority had refused permission on archaeological, visual-amenity and drainage grounds. The Developer appealed, and the Respondent’s inspector recommended permission, which the Respondent granted. [5][6][7][8][9]

The Applicants commenced judicial review proceedings on 15 April 2026 and obtained leave on 20 April 2026. The proceedings were heard on 8 September 2026. An application to cross-examine the inspector and members of the Respondent was refused. [10][11][12]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent unlawfully failed to treat the solar farm and a separate proposed solar farm as part of a larger project or to assess their cumulative and in-combination effects. [13][14][15][16]
2. Whether the Respondent’s EIA screening determination was unlawful, irrational or based on material errors, including alleged deficiencies concerning project interaction and the number of panels and energy output. [17][18][19][20]
3. Whether the Appropriate Assessment was invalid because of insufficient information or expertise, including alleged deficiencies concerning hydrology, ecology and the other proposed solar farm. [21][22][23][24]
4. Whether the EIA screening and Appropriate Assessment inadequately assessed effects on bats. [22][25][26]
5. Whether the Applicants’ grounds were adequately pleaded, raised at the appropriate time and supported by admissible evidence. [27][28][29]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants’ Arguments

• The solar farm and the other proposed solar farm formed part of a larger project because of their proximity, shared infrastructure, common developer and alleged functional interdependence. [30][31][32]
• The Respondent failed to conduct lawful EIA screening and failed to assess cumulative effects, panel numbers and energy output. [33][34][35]
• The Appropriate Assessment lacked sufficient information and expertise, particularly concerning ecology, hydrology and cumulative effects. [24][36]
• The assessments inadequately addressed bats and the adequacy of the ecological surveys. [37][38]
• The Applicants maintained that their grounds were sufficiently pleaded and that the relevant objections could be raised in judicial review proceedings. [39][40][41][42]

Respondent’s Arguments

• The grounds were inadequately particularised and did not identify the legal provisions, facts or materials relied upon with sufficient clarity. [43][44][45][46][47][48]
• The separate solar-farm application was invalid or incomplete and was not a live application when the decision was made; the Respondent therefore had no obligation to assess it. [49][50][51][52][53][54]
• Solar farms were not listed EIA projects, and project splitting could not avoid an EIA threshold that did not apply. [51][52]
• The Applicants had not established any evidential error, lack of expertise or deficiency in the Appropriate Assessment. [55][56][57]
• The Applicants had not raised relevant ecological or expertise complaints during the planning process and had not established an adverse impact on bats. [58][59][60][61]

Notice Party’s Arguments

• The Notice Party adopted the Respondent’s pleading objections and argued that the two developments were legally and functionally independent. [62][63][64][65]
• The Notice Party argued that the invalid application could not be treated as a live project and that no project-splitting issue arose. [66][67]
• The Notice Party relied on the ecological material, mitigation measures and expert evidence supporting the assessments, including the conclusion that there would be no adverse impact on bats. [68][69][70]
• Alternatively, the Notice Party argued that relief should be refused in the court’s discretion, having regard to the importance of renewable-energy development. [71][72][73]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Several grounds were inadequately pleaded because they asserted interactions, project splitting, ecological deficiencies or alleged omissions without identifying the supporting facts or the causal route to relief. Other grounds were sufficiently clear when read as a whole. [175][124][176][177][131][178][179][180][125][181]
2. The Applicants had not made a developed case during the planning process on most of the matters later relied upon. The court held that relief was inappropriate where the relevant material had not properly been put before the decision-maker. [182][183][184][185]
3. The solar farm was not an EIA project. The inspector’s reasoning incorrectly treated the removal of 55 metres of hedgerow as sub-threshold rural restructuring without finding that the works involved restructuring of rural land holdings. Properly analysed, the development did not fall within the relevant EIA category. [100][186][187][188][189][190]
4. Because no applicable EIA threshold existed for the solar farm, the Applicants could not establish that project splitting had avoided an EIA obligation. The court therefore rejected the project-splitting challenge. [191][145][146][192]
5. The separate solar-farm application was invalid or incomplete and was not live when the Respondent made its decision. The Applicants also failed to prove that the developments were a single project or functionally or legally interdependent merely because infrastructure might be shared or traversed. [193][194][195][196][197][198][199]
6. The court declined to decide whether foreseeable or non-live applications must generally be considered in EIA or AA cumulative assessments because that question was unnecessary to resolve the proceedings and therefore did not require a reference to the CJEU. [148][152][200][201][202]
7. The alleged residual EIA screening errors were not proved. The Applicants did not establish that the number of panels or precise energy output was legally material, and conflicting evidence was not displaced in the absence of cross-examination. [203][90][204]
8. The Appropriate Assessment challenge failed because it depended substantially on the rejected project-interaction arguments and because the Applicants did not establish insufficient information or expertise. The Respondent provided information concerning the expertise of its inspector and members, which the court considered sufficient. [205][133][135][136][137][206]
9. The bat challenge failed because the Applicants had not raised the alleged deficiencies during the planning process or provided evidence of significant impact. The inspector relied on the nocturnal nature of bats, retained and enhanced hedgerows and treelines, comparable nearby habitat and proposed bat boxes. [207][208][209][210][211][212][213][91]
10. Even if an error had been established, certiorari remained discretionary. The Applicants’ failure to make a developed case during the process and the importance of renewable-energy deployment weighed against relief. [163][113][164][165][214][215]

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The judicial review proceedings were dismissed. [216][217][218]

The proposed order was that there be no order as to costs unless a party made a contrary application within the specified timetable. [219][220][221]

The decision left the Respondent’s planning permission in effect. The court did not make the potentially broader EIA/AA reference concerning foreseeable future projects because that issue was unnecessary to the result. [152][222][200][202]