It began with a clash: a Norwegian wind company versus a local county council\u2019s ban on turbines. But the battle over Coolglass Wind Farm has become a question of who decides Ireland\u2019s future: the courts or the Government? <\/p>\n
In August 2023, Statkraft applied to build 13 wind turbines in Timahoe, Co Laois. A year later, An Bord Plean\u00e1la (now An Coimisi\u00fan Plean\u00e1la)<\/a> refused the application. The reason? Laois County Council<\/a> had designated the area as \u201cnot open for consideration\u201d for wind farms.<\/p>\n Statkraft were having none of it. They fought back and made the argument in the High Court<\/a> that the council had ignored its obligations under climate<\/a> law, which said public bodies should act in accordance with climate objectives \u2013 in this case, Ireland\u2019s goal of generating onshore wind energy. Could climate law trump what local councils wanted?<\/p>\n In January 2025, Judge Richard Humphreys of the High Court delivered his judgment, finding in favour of Statkraft. Climate law, he ruled, was powerful enough to override a local council\u2019s ban. For the first time, an Irish court said clearly: the climate emergency and our need to decarbonise and generate renewable energy trump ideas about keeping turbines out of view. <\/p>\n The judgment forced An Bord Plean\u00e1la to wrestle with future decisions. What were they to do? Should climate law be one consideration among many \u2013 local concerns, nature restoration, community wishes? Or should it nearly always win? Should developments causing emissions \u2013 be they wind farms, hospitals, schools or housing \u2013 be refused? The ramifications for development were huge.<\/p>\n [\u00a0Grief, anger and lack of trust expressed in community meetings on Nature Restoration PlanOpens in new window<\/a>\u00a0]<\/p>\n Take, for instance, a bog. This natural feature can do something almost no other ecosystems can \u2013 a triple function that is potentially of enormous benefit. Bogs absorb and slowly release floodwater during increasingly chaotic winter inundations, provide a home for critically endangered species and lock away vast quantities of carbon. Should they be drained and developed as industrial wind farms? Is our need for renewables greater than our need to restore nature?<\/p>\n In May 2025, the Statkraft case was in the Supreme Court<\/a>. Last month, the seven judges issued their verdict: Humphreys was right to quash the refusal for the wind farm, and climate law does create real obligations. But they disagreed on how much discretion planners should keep. Humphreys saw near black-and-white: climate law should almost always require approval of renewables. The Supreme Court saw shades of grey and effectively said: not so fast.<\/p>\n The Coolglass judgment\u2019s value lies in what it acknowledges: the climate law isn\u2019t a solution for Ireland\u2019s climate policy failures<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not like a traffic light, the judges said, where climate automatically gives the green light. Instead, climate law forms a \u201cwider framework\u201d of planning considerations. Planners must genuinely engage with climate objectives, but they can still refuse permission if they explain their reasoning with reference to climate goals.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not a subtle difference \u2013 it has significant consequences. Climate law isn\u2019t a silver bullet, nor is it just one factor among many. It really matters. But so do other genuine policy concerns, such as protecting nature and listening to communities.<\/p>\n And so we get to the real crisis: Ireland\u2019s land-use policy is a fragmented, siloed, splintered mess. We have national-level planning frameworks, county-level plans, biodiversity rules, and European nature directives from the 1990s that don\u2019t even mention climate change. In many ways, it\u2019s like having five different-shaped maps of Ireland, none of them relating to each other in any meaningful, coherent way. Departments of Housing, Agriculture and Climate work separately; the EU<\/a> level mirrors the same silos. In this thicket, the courts have essentially said: this isn\u2019t a legal problem, it\u2019s a political and policy one. <\/p>\n\n