High Court reiterates that Solar projects do not need EIA

This case concerned a challenge by local residents (PDF 558 KB) to An Coimisiún Pleanála’s grant of planning permission for a solar farm development in County Tipperary. The applicants argued that the “private roads” proposed as part of the development exceeded the thresholds set out in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, thereby triggering a mandatory EIA which had not been carried out. The respondents disputed that the “access tracks” serving a solar farm fit into the definition of a “private road”. The respondents further relied on several previously unsuccessful attempts to bring solar farms into the EIA sphere via a “side-wind” by characterising access tracks as roads. As an alternative to the applicants’ position, a preliminary reference to the CJEU was proposed to definitively determine the correct interpretation of this provision, particularly in light of the “forestry road” definition in the European Communities (Forest Consent and Assessment) Regulations 2010.

Humphreys J concluded that there was no demonstrated basis for doubt of the general principle that EIA applies only to listed projects (which do not include solar farms) and that the word “road” should not be given an extremely wide meaning that would undo the careful distinctions drawn by the EIA Directive as to what is and is not covered. Additionally, the Court determined that there was no meaningful doubt arising as to the correct interpretation of the word “road” at an EU level, therefore refusing the preliminary reference.

2006 Wind Guidelines remain relevant but planning judge encourages setting of new guidelines

The project at the centre of this judicial review was a seven-turbine wind farm in Co. Carlow. Humphreys J dismissed the challenge on all grounds. Among their grounds of challenge, the applicants argued that the Commission should not have relied on the Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006 on the basis that those guidelines were out of date. The Court dismissed this ground, reiterating that there is a legal obligation placed upon the Commission, by virtue of subsection 28(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to ‘have regard to’ the guidelines. As an aside, Humphreys J encouraged the early conclusion of work at government level on national planning statements under the Planning and Development Act 2024, including the anticipated public consultation on a draft national planning statement to replace the 2006 guidelines.

Judgment on contempt of court in Planning enforcement case

This judgment relates to the well-documented demolition of an unauthorised home in Bohermeen, County Meath. Justice Humphreys found the respondents to be in contempt of court. The decision addresses the imperative of equality before the law in planning enforcement, the limited domestic legal effect of an European Court of Human Rights application, and the weight to be given to the public interest in the integrity of the planning system.

Objectors refused leave to appeal in respect of the Art Data Centre development

In this judgment Humphreys J dealt with an application for leave to appeal his decision to uphold the grant of permission for a data centre development. The applicants argued that the Court had based its decision on the incorrect idea that the data centre was directly powered by renewable energy. Humphreys J refused to grant leave to appeal and criticised the attempt by the applicant to leverage an appeal from an overly narrow reading of the main judgment. He held that his ruling on the nature and effects of corporate power purchase agreements was clear from the whole of his judgment.

Unauthorised works on protected land

This decision concerned an appeal of a section 160 injunction granted by the Dublin Circuit Court. Humphreys J dismissed the appeal and upheld the Circuit Court orders. Humphreys J emphasised the “almost unbelievable chutzpah of the developers” and egregious disregard of planning law. The developers constructed unauthorised works on lands which were zoned with the objective of protecting and enhancing the natural character of the Dublin Mountains Area. The unauthorised works included the demolition of existing mobile home structures, the clearing of significant areas of the site and the construction of new modular dwellings. The Court held that the works did not constitute an exempted development and rejected the respondents’ defence that you can create a new development as long as you keep the old footprint and dimensions. The Court highlighted that “the fact that a property is used as a dwelling does not give rise to an exemption from planning law, any more than the existence of housing shortages renders the law unenforceable against dwellings constructed without permission”.

Challenge to Revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

In October 2025, Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association Limited and Alliance of Medicines for Ireland CLG lodged judicial review proceedings in the Irish Planning and Environment Court concerning the transposition and implementation of the Revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. The Directive requires Member States to progressively introduce new quaternary treatment at urban wastewater plants to remove micropollutants from urban wastewater. It requires producers of human medicines and cosmetics to cover at least 80% of the costs of this quaternary treatment, through an Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) Scheme. The Directive does not extend this obligation to the producers of other products. Member States are required to transpose the Directive by 31 July 2027 and the national EPR Schemes must be operational by 31 December 2028. The applicants argue that the EPR Scheme is invalid as a matter of EU law because human medicine and cosmetic products are being treated differently from comparable sectors which also give rise to micropollutants in urban wastewater. Following an application for a preliminary reference, the Irish High Court has decided to refer a question (PDF 197 KB) as to the validity of the EPR system under the Directive to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Leave to appeal denied in Wind Farm challenge

In two recent judgments (the first of which is available here (PDF 305 KB) and the second of which is available here (PDF 264 KB)) in the same proceedings, Humphreys J denied the applicants leave to appeal his dismissal of their judicial review challenge to the Court of Appeal. The underlying project is a wind energy development consisting of seven turbines, situated in Counties Carlow and Kilkenny. These judgments reflect a broader trend in the Planning and Environment Court where the court is slow to grant leave to parties to appeal their cases to the Court of Appeal.