Planning and the legal system in Ireland

Will the lower courts reasoning extend to Windfarm construction destroying climate buffering and carbon sequestering peatlands I wonder?? So far the Irish state does not have a good record on such things with BNM in particular targetting such areas despite their climate, biodiversity etc. importance

I doubt they'd be so logical.

Statkraft brought this on themselves. CDP's set guidelines for this reason, plenty of areas open to consideration across the country but Statkraft chose one that literally wasn't, and are now crying all the way up to the high courts, (as these profiteering developers tend to). They'd pierce through your grandparents grave with a turbine if they could, because... climate...

ACP can still refuse, even with heavier consideration to climate plan.

Isn't that just updating the CDP, therefore remaining relevant? They're not going against it

Would depend if my application was for a site confirmed for rezoning, in that case yes.

This situation is a different matter altogether, given no retrospective update to the Laois CDP on wind

We seem to be in agreement that the decision remains with ACP. And you absolutely can you have proper planning and sustainable development whilst apparently choosing to ignore the effects of climate change. ACP permitted a good number of wind, and just about every solar farm on their desk over the past few years, not bad for a body that apparently doesn't consider climate change?

FWIW the people of Ireland did not vote to declare a climate emergency, this was a symbolic change by politicians at the tail end of their term, no referendum. Last November's exit polls had climate resonating with just 4% of voters.

As for the key driver in making climate issues more important than planning itself, that was none other than Eamon Ryan. We all know how that turned out (although he has miraculously landed well in Europe). Same person wrote to planners that Gas plants "are a national priority and should be permitted" (making the country a blank, limitless canvas) and is now writing in the newspapers that we need to stop burning gas for energy - is it any wonder that ACP are scratching their heads.

Windfarms certainly have (and are) being approved - it's just up to the developer to submit a sound application. Of course, WEI lobby extraordinaire Noel Cunniffe would have us believe otherwise.

• ACP Wind farms from 2025 so far:

7 Approved

0 Refused

• ACP Wind farms from 2023 & 2024:

11 Approved

5 Refused (mainly for CDP conformity)

30 Appealed Applications decided in 2023-2024:

15 Approved (despite 7 having been initially refused by local council)

15 Refused (9 for multiple reasons, 6 for CDP conformity)

That seems like a very good hit rate if you ask me, certainly can't be claimed that they're not being approved. Time we got serious? Just this week the EU just committed to US LNG - nobody in power is (or ever will be) genuinely serious about climate. This is reflected in the voting population. It all comes down to economics. Even this Statkraft case is a litigious economic strategy. All of these developers have their solicitors and high court on speed dial. We won't see any benefit in our bills anyway and Statkraft will sell on as per.

I know this judge doesn't agree with me on this, and I expect ACP to ultimately reconsider given his tone. That said, I (and ACP) have the right to disagree with him. I think he's far too subjective. He certainly nailed his colours to the mast with his hyperbole around our landscape's rising sea levels and "the road to climate hell is paved with good intentions" 😂 (tell that last one to those in Derrybrien)

I also think his interpretation of 15(1)A is a stretch beyond its legislative intent, expanding “have regard to” into almost mandatory climate compliance. As said before, this only reduces ACP's discretion and conflicts with statutory balancing obligations. He leans on overgeneralized climate narratives rather than robust technical evidence specific to the project.

He also offers no guidance for balancing competing objectives in more complicated cases. No alternatives, no analysis of the "do nothing scenario" versus 2030, he comes a hair short of automating wind farm approvals as he doesn't think the current approval rates will get us there (7 approved, 0 rejected this year). You'd swear this is the most important wind farm to ever grace the EU

Where are you getting 50/50 from? It's 78% success on original ACP wind farm applications alone.

The 50/50 is just on appeals, with the greater share previously been denied by other planning bodies for various issues anyway. We can't drop planning standards by rewarding inadequate applications.

FWIW, the solar hit rate is 96% for the same time period. Again, the idea that we need to up the ante is a myth peddled by lobbyists, and this particular Statkraft case is nothing more than a litigious economic strategy. These developers have the finances to appeal to whichever authority suits their agenda (i.e. ACP, High Court, CRU, EirGrid, SEMC, or WEI) repeatedly crying foul to manipulate the system in their favour, regardless of merit.

It's disengenuous and deflective to ignore the original renewable energy application approvals. You're accusing ACP of not being serious about climate, yet 96% of solar and 78% of wind approved first time in the past three years would say otherwise. That is extremely high for enormous infrastructural projects that industrialise what was typically a different previous land use.

Appeals are appeals for a reason - they're naturally contentious and come riddled with planning issues (CDP, SACs, SPAs, TII, inadequate EIARs, AAs, NIS, project splitting etc.). To blindly claim their approval should be greater than 50/50 "because climate", without addressing the actual issues of each case is a very high level, biased view to have.

Does anyone know what the latest on this is?

The thing with Sweetman is he actually wins lots of cases because technically he's often right. The real issue is just the way our whole system is structured, a single unintentional technicality or oversight from the applicant can lead to years of delays and make projects unviable or just be completely struck out over some minor issue nobody really cares about.

If we had busybodies and the legal system applying the same fanatically strict enforcement to the rest of society basically everyone would have a criminal record and most aspects of society would probably have to shut down because there's always something that can be argued as not 100% compliant with every paragraph of the law.

I don't know what the solution is but the current system just doesn't do what it's supposed to, which ultimately should be to facilitate a functional society