Environment & Planning

EU

European Commission proposes measures to simplify environmental legislation

The European Commission has proposed a package of measures to simplify legislation relating to environmental assessments, industrial emissions, the circular economy and geospatial data. Single points of contact, digitalisation and faster procedures will be introduced for environmental assessments, and greater flexibility will be introduced for the implementation of environmental management systems under the Industrial Emissions Directive. Permitting for projects will be accelerated, particularly in areas such as affordable housing and the transition to a clean digital economy. The changes are intended to reduce the administrative burden for companies. The proposal will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for adoption.

Provisional agreement reached on postponement of the Deforestation Regulation

As mentioned in our Construction section, the European Parliament and Council reached provisional agreement on a one-year postponement of the Deforestation Regulation. Further detail is available in our insights post: EUDR: One year postponement agreed.

DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

Cabinet approves the Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan

The Plan is intended to address the need to progress infrastructure delivery, reducing blocks to planning and licencing decisions. It identifies 30 actions, most of which are intended to be implemented in 2026. Proposals include enacting the Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Powers and Civil Reform Bills, for which general schemes are not yet available. The report states that the first bill will accelerate consenting process for critical infrastructure. Under the second bill, the Government will be empowered to intervene to accelerate the consenting process for specific critical infrastructure projects in emergency situations.

The Civil Reform Bill is intended to introduce further amendments to the judicial review process for planning and environment decisions, following revisions under the Planning and Development Act 2024. Under the proposal, the legislature will determine the circumstances in which judicial review procedures can be utilised, and may limit challenges to one planning decision per project, rather than each licence, consent and condition. The Government plans to introduce cost caps prior to enacting the bill, and has opened a consultation on the scale of fees that will be introduced. The Government is also considering limiting judicial reviews to applicants likely to be directly impacted by a development.

Maritime Area Planning (Marine Protected Areas)(Amendment) Bill

The Government approved the preparation of the general scheme for this legislation on 13 November 2025. The bill will provide for the designation and management of marine protected areas (“MPAs”). The general scheme of the Marine Protected Areas Bill, which was approved in December 2022, will be set aside. This is a move away from the previous approach of creating a new system of spatial designations for MPAs. It is now proposed that MPAs will be designated using the DMAP framework under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. No timeframe has been indicated for the publication of the general scheme.

Housing Action Plan

Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030: An Action Plan on Housing Supply and Targeting Homelessness was published on 13 November 2025. The plan sets a target of delivering 3000,000 homes by 2030, and an average of 12,000 social homes per year. It has a strong focus on plan-led development, prioritising development near high-capacity transport areas and setting an intention to increase public-body cooperation in planning necessary infrastructure. For further information, our briefing is available here: Housing development: Update on government action plan for housing delivery.

DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS

Supreme Court clarifies rules on remittal

High Court proceedings concerned a challenge against the Commission’s grant of permission for three apartment blocks in Ashbourne, County Meath. The applicant appealed the High Court’s decision to order remittal of the decision to the Commission rather than to the planning authority which determined the application in the first instance.

The applicant argued that, since a new development plan had been adopted in between the Commission’s decision on appeal and the remittal of that decision, the application should be remitted to the planning authority. This gave rise to the underlying question of whether the Commission’s decision can be made by reference to a different development plan than that considered by the relevant planning authority.

The Supreme Court found that decisions must be remitted to the Commission when they are quashed following a judicial review. The Commission determines appeals de novo. Once an appeal is determined, the planning authority’s first instance decision is annulled. Therefore, there is no extant decision to remit to that body. Furthermore, the Commission’s decision can be made by reference to a different development plan than the plan considered at first instance by the planning authority. The Commission’s decision must be made by reference to the plan in force at the time. This is the case irrespective of whether an appeal is being determined on a first occasion, or on remittal after a decision has been quashed.

Grant of permission for large-scale residential development (“LRD”) quashed for breach of public notice requirements

This case concerned a challenge against the grant of permission for an LRD in Santry. The initial application was declared invalid as the respondent developer published a defective newspaper notice. The local authority instructed the developer to remove the site notice in respect of the invalid application, but she failed to do so. A second application which was made without a new site notice was deemed valid.

The applicant relied on the site notice and was not aware of the fresh application. This meant that he failed to participate in the planning process and would have been ineligible to appeal the decision to the Commission. The local authority conceded certiorari in respect of the grant of permission. Mr Justice Humphreys ordered certiorari , stating that remittal could not be lawful where the site notice is not valid.

Damages awarded in wind farm noise nuisance case

Ms Justice Emily Egan awarded damages in relation to a noise nuisance complaint against a wind farm operator. This is the third module of these proceedings. In the first module, the Court found that wind turbine noise (“WTN”) from a turbine operated by the defendant caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs during night hours and quiet waking hours. In the second module, it was determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to abate the nuisance during those periods.

Psychiatric injury and the breakdown of a marriage did not meet the threshold for damages in the proceedings, although Ms Justice Egan accepted that one plaintiff sustained a recognisable psychiatric injury caused by the WTN. Stigma damages were awarded in respect of property devaluation, due to the ongoing monitoring which will be required following abatement. However, the Court stated that mere proximity to a wind farm is not sufficient for an award of damages. Finally, retrospective annual damages were awarded to the plaintiffs for the duration of their residence near the wind farm.

Order of relief in respect of successful challenge against permission for a wind farm

In the substantive proceedings, the challenge succeeded on that basis that the public notice requirements for the application to the develop the wind farm were not complied with. This was because the grid connection works, which were to be subject to a subsequent planning application, were not referenced in the site notice. Mr Justice Quinn found the Court had no discretion but to grant an order of certiorari. The form of the order was to be decided at a later date.

In granting the relief order, the Judge considered that, although the error in the public notice was a “serious lacuna” in the environmental impact assessment report, it would be “disproportionate and artificial” to quash the permission. This was based on the developer’s submission that the wind farm works would not commence unless permission for the grid connection was granted. Following O’Grianna, the environmental assessment for the grid connection must relate to the entire project, including the wind farm. Since the public will be able to make observations and submissions on the entire project at that point, the harm caused by the failure to give proper notice of the original application will be remedied. Mr Justice Quinn cited case law which states that a judge has jurisdiction to revisit a judgment where there are strong reasons for doing so, and granted declaratory relief only.

Grant of permission quashed due to breach of duty to give reasons

The applicant appealed the Commission’s decision to grant permission for an office block next to a residential development that it manages. The Commission’s Inspector recommended refusing permission, finding the developer’s methodology was insufficient to enable impacts in terms of daylight/sunlight to be assessed. Section 34(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires the Commission to give reasons where it departs from the Inspector’s recommendations. There is also an administrative law requirement to do so.

Ms Justice Emily Egan also cited case law to the effect that anyone affected by a decision is entitled to know how it was made in general terms. Additionally, a person is entitled to sufficient information to consider whether they should seek to appeal or seek leave to judicially review a decision, and the reasons provided must allow a court hearing an appeal to engage properly. In practice, this means the Commission must provide “the main reasons on the main issues”. The decision was quashed on the basis that insufficient reasons for the departure from the Inspector’s recommendation were provided.