Supreme Court dismisses appeal against solar energy farm in Portarlington

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against An Bord Pleanala's decision to grant planning permission for a solar energy-generating facility in Portarlington. 

The action was taken by a residents' group opposed to the board's decision of October 2021 to allow Elgin Energy Services Limited to develop and operate a solar powered electricity generating station and arrays of solar panels on a 90-hectare site at the townlands of Treascon and Clondooluck, Portarlington in Co Offaly.

In its action the 'Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk' group claimed the board's decision was invalid on grounds including that the decision contravenes EU directives on habitats, and on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).

In its judgement on Thursday a five judge Supreme Court dismissed all aspects of the appeal after finding that the substantive issues raised were either "misconceived" or "premature." 

Giving the court's decision Mr Justice Brian Murray said the appeal related to the proper interpretation and application of the EU Directive concerning Environmental Impact Assessment or (EIA), and its transposition into Irish law.  

Among the arguments raised in the appeal by the group was that as the proposed development involved the restructuring of rural land holdings, or in this case hedgerows, the entirety of the proposed development must be subject to EIA screening and if appropriate a full EIA.

The judge said that the fact hedgerows were removed did not trigger an obligation to have an EIA in respect of the whole project.

The Chief Justice Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe, Mr Justice Maurice Collins and Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly all concurred with Mr Justice Murray's decision. 

In its judicial review proceedings against An Bord Pleanala, Ireland and the Attorney General, the group sought an order quashing the board's decision to grant the proposed development planning permission.

Elgin Energy Services Ltd was a notice party to the action.
The group's High Court action was unsuccessful. 

However the Supreme Court agreed to hear the group's appeal on the grounds that it raised issues of public importance that required to be determined by the court.  

The respondents all opposed the appeal, and had vigorously contested that the issues raised in the appeal had not been pleaded by the group when it launched its judicial review.

Permission had never been given by the High Court to bring those claims, the respondents had further submitted.