Northern Ireland Planning and Environment update

Welcome to the third edition of TLT’s Northern Ireland Planning and Environment update, where our experts share insight into planning and environmental law and policy developments relevant to Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, the Republic of Ireland. This issue focuses on Energy.

Policy/consultation updates

Renewable Energy Price Guarantee

For those of us waiting for more detail on Northern Ireland's proposed new support scheme for large-scale renewable energy generation, we will have to wait longer. The Renewable Energy Price Guarantee (REPG) scheme had originally been due to start in 2026, but the latest revised timetable indicates that even a 2027 start might be ambitious. The legislation required to implement the scheme, the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill was introduced to Stormont in July of this year. This sets the legislative framework for the detail of the REPG, but detailed terms and conditions will need to be published on how the scheme will operate and – crucially – what projects will qualify. Without this detail, many pre-development projects remain essentially in limbo, and this risks investment drifting elsewhere. As matters stand, 2028 is starting to appear more realistic for the first auction to establish which projects will qualify for support.

Of course, late is better than never, but Northern Ireland's statutory target of 80% renewable generation by 2030 is looking more of an aspiration rather than reality.

NI's Flexibility Needs Assessment

Last month, the Utility Regulator published its first Flexibility Needs Assessment, examining the flexibility required to integrate increasing levels of renewable generation whilst maintaining a secure, reliable and affordable electricity system. Such assessment will happen once every two years under electricity regulation requirements.

The report found that NI is not currently on track to achieve its 2030 renewable electricity target under the Climate Change Act (NI) 2022 (CCANI). It notes that, under the base scenario, available renewable generation would provide around only 57% compared to the 80% target.

The assessment also identifies network constraints as the primary driver of renewable curtailment. It highlights that network reinforcement, particularly transmission upgrades, should progress alongside the deployment of energy storage, demand-side response, digitalisation and local flexibility procurement to facilitate greater renewable integration.

The immediate policy consequence following this report is the development of an indicative national objective for non-fossil flexibility by 25 January 2027. Stakeholders should review the assessment to consider how flexibility markets, support schemes and regulatory reforms may impact upon project development and investment decisions.

SPPS2

It is almost a year since the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for NI Edition 2 (SPPS2) was published in December 2025 . It set out revised policy provisions on renewable and low carbon energy at pages 86-91, with all other policy provisions within the former SPPS2 remaining unchanged.

With Planning Policy Statement 18 cancelled, and the SPPS provisions material to all planning applications and appeals, how has the updated SPPS fared?

There are some notable differences, for example colocation of technologies is now encouraged and significant weight will be given to re-powering wind and solar farms. However, the use of the term "appropriate weight" in reference to balancing adverse impacts against the benefits of a project has been used in relation to climate considerations:

6.221 “In plan-making and decision-taking, planning authorities must give appropriate weight to climate considerations (including the target to generate 80% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030) and to supporting efforts to protect and enhance biodiversity. Planning authorities must help facilitate delivery of the necessary increase in appropriate renewable and low carbon energy developments (electricity and heat) so that the contribution of this sector to the transition to a net zero energy is optimised. This requires careful balancing of the local impacts with the wider environmental, economic, and social benefits”.

Many in the renewable sector view this as a missed opportunity; the preference for this policy test would have been for "significant weight" to be applied to such wider benefits of clean energy projects. As it stands, "appropriate weight" could be "significant", but without a clearer (and more positive) policy steer, developers may face a greater challenge to argue that a project is acceptable.

Coupled with the above, in our view one key area of contention that remains is the language used for landscape and visual effects. Back in 2022, the High Court grappled with weighing unacceptable adverse impacts on visual amenity and landscape character against wider environmental, economic and social benefits at a wind farm in Armoy. The Court concluded that "the applicant might legitimately expect planning authorities to be given a greater steer in regional policy as to how [the weighing exercise] should be answered".

Fast forward to 2026 and see in particular paragraph 6.233 as to whether the SPPS provides a greater steer:

• The siting and cumulative landscape and visual impact of all energy developments (including existing development, extant permissions, and valid but undetermined applications) is of great importance and must be carefully considered.
• The cumulative impact will increase, for example, as the number of wind turbines and/or solar farms in an area increases.
• Considerations will include the impact on the character and quality of the landscape, its sensitivity, and the level to which the proposed development will become a significant or dominant characteristic of the landscape.
• For large scale developments, developers should seek to avoid areas close to key vantage points from roads, viewpoints, and settlements.

The proposition that cumulative impact increases as additional renewable energy developments are constructed is self-evident. However, there is a risk that the policy creates a self-reinforcing constraint whereby the successful delivery of renewable energy infrastructure becomes the principal reason for resisting further renewable development. Unless balanced by appropriate recognition of climate and energy objectives, the provision could operate as a de facto cap on development in areas most suitable for renewable energy generation.

Whilst the policy elaborates on the factors to be considered in assessing landscape and visual effects, it stops short of explaining how those impacts are to be balanced against the weight attached to climate considerations. As a result, many of the same tensions identified by the Court in 2022 may persist in practice. The interpretation of concepts such as "dominant characteristic", "key vantage points" and "cumulative impact" will therefore be critical, and may become fertile ground for planning appeals and, potentially, judicial review challenges as decision-makers continue to grapple with the interpretation of SPPS2.

Lastly, don’t be caught out by the wording of the SPPS2 in relation to ETSU-R-97. As of June 2026, it has now been superseded as the UK’s standard methodology with Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise. In particular, the updated noise guidance provides clearer treatment of amplitude modulation, and improved definition and handling of tonality which is relevant to many renewable wind projects.

Appeal updates

A recent appeal before the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) regarding a replacement wind turbine in Banbridge was allowed and full permission granted (reference 2025/A0116).

The need for a balancing exercise arose specifically in relation to heritage. The Commissioner found that the proposed larger turbine would cause an increased degree of visual prominence and distraction upon the setting of the protected rath from a critical viewpoint and inside the rath itself, meaning the appeal development did not fully meet Policy BH1 of PPS6. The Commissioner proceeded to weigh this heritage harm against the benefits of the proposed turbine under SPPS2.

The Commissioner concluded that the limited adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of the scheduled monument would not, in this case, constitute an unacceptable adverse impact, and that it was outweighed by the significant benefits identified.

This is an example of the new SPPS2 in practice in the renewables sector. For developers of such projects, the practical lesson is clear: significant emphasis should be placed on assembling robust, evidence-based material on the climate, energy security and decarbonisation benefits of a proposal at an early stage, as those benefits may prove decisive in the overall planning balance.

Case law updates

The long-awaited Court of Appeal judgment in the Alternative A5 Alliance case was delivered on 6 October albeit at the time of writing only the summary judgment has been published. The challenge is the third time that the A5 road upgrade project has been taken to the court over the years but unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court, it seems that the road scheme will now proceed.

The main focus of the A5’s latest challenge was the CCANI, specifically the duty under section 52 for departments to exercise their functions in “a manner that is consistent with” achieving carbon reduction targets. The High Court concluded in 2025 that the Department for Infrastructure had not complied with this duty. However, the Court of Appeal decided that the Department for Infrastructure had, in making its decision to proceed with the A5, complied with this function and therefore overturned the High Court's decision to quash the scheme.

The Court was satisfied that:

"…the legal obligations created by the 2022 Act to achieve net zero by 2050 are not a prohibition upon the authorisation for a new road where it has been assessed, as far as possible, to be consistent with emission reduction obligations. Nor does it require that the precise GHG contribution of every project which may be authorised between now and 2050 should be specified upon a precise and quantified pathway prior to authorisation".

Whilst the Court acknowledged that it may have been better if a Climate Action Plan (as required by the CCANI) has been published prior to the decision it decided:

"…it would place too high a burden upon departments to ensure that individual projects fit within climate action plans specifically. That would stymie all major development in Northern Ireland".

This judgment will be broadly welcomed by developers who were concerned that the High Court's ruling made it harder to secure planning approval for major infrastructure projects within the legislative climate regime. That said, as ever the devil will be in the detail of the decision and the extent to which broad principles are established that apply outside the confines of a decision on a major road scheme. This will not be the last time litigation arises on the s52 duty and the CCANI more generally.

The section 52 duty under the CCANI states that it applies to NI "departments" and is silent on the relevance of the duty to Councils or the Planning Appeals Commission. This contrasts with the position in the Republic of Ireland. The landmark Irish Supreme Court decision in Coolglass of February this year examined section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, which requires public bodies to perform their functions insofar as practicable consistently with national climate plans and objectives. Those proceedings related to a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála. While clarifying that state bodies have strict legal climate obligations under the 2015 Act, the Supreme Court rejected a wider presumption in favour of renewable developments (as had been applied in the High Court).

Notably, legal proceedings against Newry Mourne and Down District Council have recently been granted leave in the High Court to consider whether the Council properly considered its obligations arising from the CCANI and the Climate Change (Reporting Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 when granting planning permission for the development of Abbey Way civic hub in Newry.

Judge McLaughlin accepted that the challenge on this ground raised a novel point as there has been no previous challenge to any local authorities’ responsibilities in respect of climate change in NI. The matter will now proceed to a full hearing.

Whilst the Court of Appeal's decision will be critical in defining the scope of section 52 for NI departments, the Abbey Way proceedings may also prove significant in determining whether, and to what extent, climate-change considerations can constrain decision-making by local councils.

Looking ahead

The recent A5 case and the upcoming Abbey Way proceedings, plus the Coolglass judgment are almost certainly the tip of the (melting) iceberg in terms of climate litigation across the island of Ireland. Coupled with the need to grapple with the new SPPS, there is plenty of work to be done in navigating this new policy and legislative landscape. Meanwhile, the much vaunted 80% renewable target seems to be slipping away from its 2030 date, but this should not temper the ambition to meet it. Inevitably the final introduction of the REPG will help to accelerate progress, but what developers and funders really need is certainty. At this point, however, the certainty that developers and funders need seems difficult to find. That said, the Northern Ireland energy industry is remarkably resilient and innovative, and that at least is some comfort in these uncertain times.

To receive future Northern Ireland planning and environment updates, sign up to the mailing list.

To receive future GB Infrastructure Planning Blogs, you can subscribe to the mailing list.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at October 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.