Background
Perigus Energy Ireland Midco Limited applied to build a solar farm with a 40-year operational life across five parcels of land in County Laois. Tom and Claire Milner objected during the planning process, raising concerns that included drinking-water impacts, environmental effects and the development’s effect on their home. Laois County Council granted permission subject to conditions, and the Milners appealed.
An Coimisiún Pleanála accepted its inspector’s recommendation and granted permission on 16 February 2026, subject to 14 conditions. The Milners then brought judicial-review proceedings challenging, among other matters, the treatment of existing land use, the project’s size and cumulative effects, its characterization as temporary, compliance with the county development plan and the treatment of three proposed Natural Heritage Areas.
The Court’s Holding
Humphreys J. dismissed the proceedings. The Court held that a solar farm is not a project listed under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and therefore is not an EIA project. The Commission’s decision to conduct a precautionary EIA screening did not make the Directive applicable, so the applicants’ complaints about alleged defects in that screening failed at the outset.
The Court also held that the applicants’ pleadings did not adequately articulate the broader legal grounds on which they sought relief and that they had not discharged the burden of proving a defect in the environmental assessment. No irrationality or other reviewable error was established in the Commission’s planning judgments. The development-plan policy expressing a preference for brownfield sites allowed evaluative flexibility and was not contravened, and the decision-making materials supplied adequate reasons, including an ecological rationale for finding no impact on proposed Natural Heritage Areas.
The Court further concluded that, even if a breach had been established, it would have refused relief as a matter of discretion. Relevant considerations included the absence of evidence of tangible environmental harm, the project’s contribution to renewable-energy and energy-security objectives, the likelihood that the planning outcome would not have changed and the lack of any useful purpose in quashing permission as though the development were subject to EIA obligations that did not apply.
Key Takeaways
- Solar farms are not listed EIA projects, and voluntarily undertaking precautionary EIA screening does not bring them within the EIA Directive.
- Environmental judicial-review claims, particularly complex EU-law arguments, must be clearly pleaded and supported by evidence establishing the alleged assessment defect.
- Even where illegality is shown, certiorari remains discretionary; courts may consider substantial compliance, prejudice, practical utility, proportionality and countervailing legal or public interests.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the settled Irish position that solar farms do not become subject to the EIA Directive merely because a planning authority performs screening. It also underscores the importance of precise pleadings and proof when challenging technical environmental and planning assessments.
For renewable-energy developers and planning authorities, the decision confirms that flexible development-plan policies remain matters of evaluative planning judgment, while demonstrating that the public importance of renewable infrastructure and the practical consequences of quashing permission may affect the Court’s remedial discretion.