Background
Ballysallagh Solar Farm Limited sought permission for a solar farm and associated works on approximately 179 hectares in County Cork. Cork County Council refused permission in September 2025, citing concerns about archaeological and cultural heritage, visual impact and surface-water runoff. On appeal, An Coimisiún Pleanála granted permission on 19 February 2026, subject to 21 conditions. A related 220kV substation had already received separate approval.
Leamlara Preservation Group and its chairperson, Califf Delaney, brought judicial-review proceedings seeking to quash the permission. They alleged, among other things, that the Commission had failed to treat the proposed development and the nearby Ballinure Solar Farm as parts of a larger project, had conducted an unlawful environmental-impact-assessment screening, and had inadequately assessed effects on European sites and bats.
The Court’s Holding
Humphreys J dismissed the proceedings. The Court held that several arguments had not been pleaded with the clarity required for complex EU-law claims and that the applicants had not made developed submissions on most of those matters during the planning process. It further held that the proposed solar farm was not a project to which the EIA Directive applied and that the applicants had not proved the alleged errors or omissions in the Commission’s decision.
The Court also held that conflicts in the evidence had to be resolved against the applicants because they bore the burden of proof and had not cross-examined the relevant witnesses. In any event, the Court said it would have refused certiorari as a matter of discretion, principally because the applicants had not developed their complaints before the decision-maker and because EU and domestic law attach critical importance to accelerating renewable-energy development.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial-review applicants must plead complex EU environmental-law grounds clearly and connect them to the facts of the particular project.
- Failure to raise a developed objection during the planning process may weigh heavily against relief where the decision-maker was not otherwise obliged to address the issue autonomously.
- The Court found that the solar farm was not an EIA Directive project and that the applicants had not proved defects warranting certiorari.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that a merits-based disagreement with planning permission does not itself establish unlawfulness. Objectors must place relevant material before the planning authority, plead their later challenge precisely and produce evidence sufficient to establish each alleged legal defect.
It also signals that, even where an error is assumed, Irish courts may consider the statutory and EU policy favoring renewable-energy deployment when deciding whether the discretionary remedy of certiorari is proportionate.