High Court refuses appeal certificate in wind farm planning challenge

The High Court has refused an application for leave to appeal in a judicial review challenge concerning an onshore wind farm approved by An Coimisiún Pleanála.

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 15 May 2026, concerned Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group and others v An Coimisiún Pleanála and others. The applicants had sought a certificate allowing them to appeal after their challenge to the planning approval had already been heard over two modules.

The case involved a renewable energy project that had been assessed by both an inspector and the Commission. The Court noted that the applicants had received a full hearing on the merits. They then sought to raise a series of proposed questions which they said were points of law of exceptional public importance.

Mr Justice Humphreys rejected the application. He held that the proposed questions were not proper points of law arising from the judgment, but were instead largely fact-specific arguments dressed up as legal questions. The Court said the points were “essayistic and confused” and did not meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal.

A key theme in the judgment was the distinction between predicted impacts assessed at the planning-consent stage and actual impacts arising during operation. The applicants had relied on an alleged tension between decisions upholding wind farm permissions and cases where wind farm operators had been found liable in nuisance. The Court rejected that comparison, saying there is a major difference between assessing anticipated impacts before a project is built and dealing with actual impacts after operation.

The Court also addressed the wider public interest in renewable energy. It endorsed submissions that the project, once completed, would provide significant renewable energy in line with local, regional, national and EU policy. The judgment also noted that EU law has recognised renewable energy projects as being in the overriding public interest.

Mr Justice Humphreys said there was no basis for leave to appeal. The applicants had not identified a point of law of exceptional public importance, and the Court noted the clear legislative intention that most planning judicial review cases should be final in the High Court.

The final order dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court also confirmed that the substantive proceedings were dismissed, with no order as to costs except in the event of a successful application for leapfrog leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The judgment is significant for planning and renewable energy litigation. It reflects the courts’ increasingly clear concern with finality, delay and the public interest in infrastructure delivery, especially where renewable energy projects are involved. It also shows that applicants seeking to appeal planning judicial review decisions must identify a genuine legal issue of exceptional public importance, not simply reframe disagreement with factual findings or the application of settled principles.

For communities, developers and public authorities, the ruling highlights the balance courts must strike. Local residents are entitled to challenge planning decisions where legal grounds exist. But where a case has been fully heard and no substantial legal point remains, the courts may be reluctant to allow further delay to projects that have already passed through the planning system.