Environment and Planning
Ireland
COST CAPS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Planning and Development (Costs of Part 9 Judicial Review Proceedings) Regulations 2026, which came into operation on 18 May 2026, introduce a fixed statutory schedule of costs caps governing the legal costs recoverable by a successful applicant in planning judicial review proceedings taken under the Planning and Development Act 2024. The new regime provides monetary limits broken down by practitioner category (solicitor, junior counsel and senior counsel), by stage of the proceedings, and by one of three court-certified complexity tiers - standard, complex or very complex. In aggregate, the maximum recoverable by a full legal team across all stages is approximately €33,250 (standard), €44,875 (complex) and €56,500 (very complex), exclusive of VAT. Distinct flat-rate schedules apply to Supreme Court appeals and Article 267 TFEU references.
In terms of immediate practical impact, the Regulations have no operational effect on ongoing planning litigation. They apply exclusively to “Part 9 judicial review proceedings” - that is, challenges to decisions of relevant bodies under the 2024 Act itself - and the principal consenting provisions of that Act have not yet commenced.
MANDATORY EIA SCOPING OBLIGATIONS (RED III) EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 2026
The rollout of the Revised Renewable Energy Directive (“RED III”) in Ireland continues to evolve, with the Government confirming a further delay (PDF 138 KB) to the introduction of mandatory EIA scoping for certain renewables and repowering projects.
Under the original 2025 Regulations transposing RED III, mandatory scoping by the competent authority was due to apply from 1 October 2025, subsequently deferred to 1 May 2026. This requirement has now been postponed again to 1 November 2026. While RED III will not alter which authority determines applications, it will introduce amendments to the planning procedure. Where renewables or repowering projects require EIA, the rules require the consenting authority (An Coimisiún Pleanála (“ACP”) or a local authority as the case may be) to issue a formal scoping opinion on the content of the EIAR, marking a procedural shift from the previous voluntary regime. The extension provides additional time for authorities and applicants to test and refine scoping approaches on a voluntary basis, while simultaneously highlighting the ongoing uncertainty in the practical operation of the new process, particularly in relation to timelines, documentation requirements and the nature of scoping outputs.
MAPPING IRELAND’S OFFSHORE TERRITORY
The Government approved completion of a full mapping programme of Ireland’s offshore territory. The Integrated Mapping for the Sustainable Development of Ireland’s Marine Resource (INFOMAR), Ireland’s national programme to map all offshore waters, has had its final phase approved by Government, with a target completion date of 2029.
INFOMAR, led jointly by the Geological Survey Ireland and the Marine Institute, will ultimately map an area of almost 1 million km² (approximately ten times the size of Ireland’s landmass). The final phase (2027–2029) will focus on the most technically challenging remaining areas, completing what has been described as the “Real Map of Ireland”.
In practical terms, this data will support the identification of optimal locations for offshore wind, subsea cables and tidal energy infrastructure, directly underpinning Ireland’s target of 37GW of offshore wind capacity by 2050.
Beyond energy, the mapping programme is also positioned as a strategic enabler of marine spatial planning, improving decision‑making by providing detailed, evidence‑based insights into seabed conditions, habitats and infrastructure constraints. The programme is consistent with broader reforms under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 and RED III.
GUIDE TO IRELAND’S MARITIME CONSENTING SYSTEM
ACP published a new guide to navigating Ireland’s maritime consenting system (PDF 3.2MB). It provides a high-level overview of the consenting and regulatory authorities’ roles and responsibilities for maritime developments and usage. The new guide was developed by the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, in partnership with ACP, the County and City Management Association, the Coastal Planning Forum, and the Office for the Planning Regulator. It explains how these key authorities work together under Ireland’s evolving maritime planning framework. The guide addresses maritime development under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, along with applicable maritime planning requirements set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Planning and Development Act 2024. The guide outlines the consultation, consenting, compliance, and enforcement functions of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, ACP, and Coastal Planning Authorities, and sets out guidance to those engaging with Ireland’s maritime consenting framework.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BILL PROGRESSES
As mentioned in other sections, the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026 has been passed by Dáil Éireann, paving the way for the Seanad to consider it. We understand that the target enactment date is mid-June 2026. Secondary regulation and guidance are also expected to give practical effect to the Bill. Our briefing is available here: Accelerating Infrastructure: Critical Infrastructure Bill and Circulars.
EU
SIMPLIFICATION REPORT OF THE EU DEFORESTATION REGULATION
The European Commission published a report following a formal simplification review (PDF 51 KB) of the EU Deforestation Regulation, together with a package of accompanying measures intended to reduce administrative burden while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental objectives. The package is intended to address practical issues raised by stakeholders as part of the public consultation.
The Commission estimates that the cumulative effect of the simplification measures will result in an approximate 75% reduction in annual compliance costs for in-scope companies. While the reforms do not reopen the Regulation itself, they rely on subordinate instruments (guidance, FAQs, delegated, and implementing acts) to streamline compliance. This approach preserves legal obligations while shaping how they will be applied in practice.
INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IRELAND - OFFSHORE ECOLOGY AND SINGLE-USE PLASTICS
The European Commission has opened two infringement procedures against Ireland by sending letters of formal notice. First, it alleges incomplete transposition of the Single-Use Plastics Directive, citing gaps on cost obligations for producers, authorised representatives for non-Irish operators, collection targets, and extended producer responsibility scheme deadlines. Second, it says Ireland has failed to complete its marine Natura 2000 network under the Habitats and Birds Directives by not proposing sufficient marine Sites of Community Importance and Special Protection Areas. The Commission argues this undermines biodiversity protection and creates legal uncertainty for offshore renewable energy projects. Ireland now has two months to respond. Otherwise, the Commission may issue reasoned opinions in both cases.
Domestic judgments
COSTS PROTECTION UNDER AARHUS CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NOTICE PARTIES OR DEVELOPERS
In the High Court, Ms Justice Farrell delivered a judgment refusing a notice party’s application for a pre-emptive protective costs order in a judicial review concerning conceded planning permission. Glaister and Ors v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IEHC 264 concerned a challenge to planning permission granted to DN Farm Limited, the notice party, for the construction of a poultry house, service yard, manure shed, silos and associated works at a site in Co. Mayo. ACP departed from its Inspector’s recommendation to refuse planning permission due to potential effects on Special Areas of Conservation and granted permission, subject to 12 conditions.
ACP subsequently conceded that it had failed to provide adequate reasons for disagreeing with the Inspector’s recommendation, in breach of section 34(10) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Despite ACP’s concession, the notice party exercised its right to defend the impugned planning permission. The notice party sought a pre-emptive protective costs order, seeking either no costs order against it, or confirmation that any costs awarded would be assessed on a not-prohibitively expensive basis pursuant to section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Aarhus Convention.
The Court held that it cannot be determined in advance that any party is immune from an adverse costs order. The Court found that the Aarhus Convention’s ‘not-prohibitively expensive’ requirement applies only to those who bring challenges. It does not extend to notice parties or developers seeking to defend administrative decisions. The notice party’s application was refused in its entirety.
IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER FROM SUPERMARKET AND FILLING STATION
On 8 May, the High Court dismissed a judicial review of ACP’s decision to grant retention and completion permission for a commercial development in Mountbellew, Co. Galway. The development comprised a supermarket and fuel filling station, together with water and wastewater connections and the removal of a condition relating to an onsite wastewater treatment plant.
Mr Duffy argued that the Appropriate Assessment screening was flawed because of the proposed wastewater connections and that the site notices were legally invalid. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings in their entirety due to the applicant’s lack of standing (because of his failure to participate in the planning process), inadequate specificity in his pleadings, and failure to adduce adequate evidence to prove his claims.
EIRGRID AND DUBLIN BAY FISHERS REACH A SETTLEMENT
On 28 April, EirGrid secured an interim injunction against fishers who were allegedly disrupting its survey vessels in Dublin Bay. EirGrid is carrying out studies as part of its Powering Up Dublin programme of grid reinforcement. Justice Holland adjourned the case for a week to allow for mediation, but this did not resolve the matter. A hearing took place, following which the matter settled. Under the settlement agreement, all fishing gear in the survey area was to be removed by 4 p.m. on 9 May, in return for compensation.
Discussions in court covered several topics of interest for offshore developers including whether EirGrid had exclusive rights to occupy the survey area and questions concerning the administration of compensation schemes. In a further development, on 19 May, an additional fisher was joined to the case, and got an order restricting EirGrid from removing his fishing gear from the survey area on the basis that it had been there since December 2025.
GUIDELINES, ZONING AND COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLANS
The applicants owned lands impacted by Fingal County Council’s decision to re-zone part of the site from ‘Residential Area’ to ‘Open Space’ and to pass a map-based objective limiting housing density to 110–115 dwellings per hectare. They argued that these measures amounted to an unlawful de-zoning and an unjustified restriction on density, in breach of the Council’s duties under section 28(1A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to have regard to ministerial guidelines (PDF 13.8 MB).
On the de-zoning issue, Justice Humphreys held that there had been “no breach of the statutory requirement to show ‘how’ the ministerial guidelines had been implemented”. The Court found that the Council did not have to explain blow-by-blow how it complied with the guidelines. He also found that the duty to have regard to the guidelines under section 28(1A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 remained just that, a duty to have regard, and that the Council’s decision did not objectively contravene the guidelines.
JR DELAY TO BUSCONNECTS (BLANCHARDSTOWN TO CITY CENTRE BUS CORRIDOR)
In the High Court, Justice Holland quashed An Bord Pleanála’s approval of a major bus corridor scheme. The applicants, Lissan Coal, own and operate a filling station on a road where proposed “bus gates” are expected to remove around 90% of passing traffic, threatening the business’s commercial viability.
The judge quashed ACP’s approval under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 and ordered it be remitted (sent) back to ACP for a new decision. The reason was that ACP made a material error in determining that Lissan Coal’s filling station could continue in business following the implementation of BusConnects, notwithstanding evidence in the underlying environmental assessments that the business “would no longer be able to operate successfully”.
The parties are making submissions on what the remittal to ACP will look like. Holland J provisionally indicated that the section 51 approval should be remitted only as it relates to the effect of the bus gates on the filling station, meaning that ACP would only have to reconsider and make a new decision on that point (rather than reopening the entire Roads Act approval).
The Court refused to quash the CPO or Roads Act approval on the basis that an oral hearing was required. On this, he found the applicants’ pleadings to be inadequate. That said, Justice Holland did criticise ACP’s lack of reasons given in their refusal and left open the possibility of declaratory relief on this point. It remains to be seen whether this judgment will be appealed.
© 2026 Arthur Cox LLP | All rights reserved
