Horizon Scanner: Energy Planning Infrastructure And Construction August 2026 - Environment And Planning

Irish developments

Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2026 signed into law

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026 was signed into law by the President on 20 July 2026. No provisions have been commenced. The Act extends the new judicial review procedures introduced by the Planning and Development Act 2024 to decisions made or acts done under the Planning and Development Act 2000, where the relevant procedure is commenced after the Act’s commencement. Costs rules under the 2000 Act will still apply in respect of these challenges.

The Act will also introduce a series of important changes for planning law. A definition of “material contravention” has been set out in the Act, which has not previously been defined in legislation. The definition varies depending on whether a permission is governed by a development plan made under the 2000 Act or the 2024 Act, but the concept of a “fundamental conflict” with planning strategy is central to both. Another impactful provision will permit existing planning permissions to be modified in line with the apartment design standards. The amendments also provide for the introduction of time limits for EIA screening determinations and scoping opinions by regulation.

Public consultation on the next update to the Climate Action Plan

The Government opened a public consultation on the next annual Climate Action Plan, closing on 17 August 2026. The consultation comes as Ireland transitions into the second carbon budget period (2026–2030) and follows the EPA’s projections showing Ireland remains off track to meet its 2030 targets. The new plan will have a direct bearing on sectoral obligations across areas such as transport, agriculture and energy generation.

Minister for Housing proposes National Parks Bill

The Minister for Housing placed a proposal for a National Parks Bill before Cabinet. The Bill would place the eight National Parks in Ireland on a statutory footing for the first time and establish nature conservation and restoration as their primary management purpose. The legislation will set out a transparent process for designating and expanding National Parks and confer powers to make byelaws regulating or restricting certain activities within them. A General Scheme is to be developed over the coming months in consultation with stakeholders.

Public consultation on textiles Extended Producer Responsibility Delivery Plan

The Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment opened a consultation on its draft Extended Producer Responsibility Delivery Plan for textiles, running until 9 September 2026. The scheme, required under the revised EU Waste Framework Directive, must be operational by April 2028. Producers placing textiles on the Irish market will be required to register with and pay eco-modulated fees to a new Producer Responsibility Organisation. The rules will be relevant to manufacturers, importers and distributors of textile products in Ireland.

EU developments

Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation enters into effect

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on Packaging and Packaging Waste (the “PPWR”) entered into effect on 12 August 2026, with phased obligations to 2040. The PPWR sets life-cycle rules for all packaging placed on the EU market, including packaging minimisation, recyclability and recycled-content requirements for plastic packaging, reuse and refill targets, harmonised labelling, deposit-and-return systems and extended producer responsibility fee modulation. A prohibition on placing food-contact packaging on the market where it contains PFAS above specified limit values entered into effect on 12 August 2026.

CJEU

CJEU judgment on site-specific conservation objectives as a precondition to Appropriate Assessment (Knocknamona and Massey)

The CJEU delivered its judgment in the joined cases of Knocknamona (C-27/25) and Massey (C-356/25) on 16 July 2026. The reference asked whether site-specific conservation objectives (“SSCOs”) are a precondition to a valid Appropriate Assessment (“AA”) under the Habitats Directive. The Court held that SSCOs are a necessary prerequisite to a valid AA.

For AA screening, it may be possible to identify the geographical area likely to be affected by a plan or project based on geographical factors, for example where distance from a protected site or the absence of a plausible impact pathway can be shown. However, AA screening concerning a protected site within the Zone of Influence cannot be carried out without taking account of the conservation objectives specific to that site.

Irish judgments

Court of Appeal refuses stay on wind turbine noise nuisance injunction pending appeal

The Court of Appeal has refused to stay a High Court injunction restricting the operation of a turbine at the Ballyduff Wind Farm, County Wexford, pending the appellant’s appeal against the High Court’s finding that wind turbine noise (“WTN”) amounted to an actionable nuisance. The High Court refused to stay the injunction but did stay the awards of damages and costs. The appellant sought a stay from the Court of Appeal pending determination of a four-day appeal listed for November 2026.

Costello P accepted that the appellant’s loss of revenue from the constrained operation of the relevant turbine, estimated at up to €320,000 over a year, was real, and that this loss was irrecoverable. Nonetheless, the Court found the risk of injustice to the respondent if a stay were granted and the appellant’s appeal ultimately failed to be of a greater order than the appellant’s irrecoverable loss.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the High Court had granted a permanent injunction only after an extremely lengthy trial (over 50 days) and had expressly found that damages were not an adequate remedy for the respondent, whose home life had been very seriously impacted by the nuisance in a way that involved far more than an intrusion on a bare legal right. Critically, Costello P held that the respondent’s continued exposure to WTN breached her constitutionally guaranteed rights to bodily integrity and the inviolability of the dwelling, and that it would be unjust to stay the carefully calibrated injunction pending appeal notwithstanding the risk of irrecoverable financial loss for the appellant.

High Court adjourns WFD and EIA screening questions in Glenealy housing judicial review

This case concerned a judicial review challenge to An Coimisiún Pleanála’s (the “Commission’s”) grant of permission for 19 houses in Glenealy, County Wicklow. The challenge raises issues of interpretation of the Water Framework Directive (“WFD”) and the EIA Directive. Wicklow County Council originally refused permission for wastewater capacity reasons, but the Commission granted permission on appeal. That grant was quashed and remitted on consent, and on reactivation the applicant drew the Commission’s attention to a separate, contemporaneous application 150m away. Inland Fisheries Ireland (“IFI”) and the Council’s own environmental scientist had raised water-quality concerns about the same wastewater treatment plant and a nearby stream in relation to this application. Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed four of the six pleaded grounds outright, but adjourned the two most significant grounds, on the WFD and on EIA screening, for further submissions, potential amicus curiae involvement from state agencies, and possible reference to the CJEU.

On the WFD ground, the Court found that the Commission had relied on outdated 2011 EPA data and a distant monitoring station, rather than more recent, localised Council monitoring evidence highlighted in IFI’s submission, despite being aware, or being in a position to be aware, of that evidence. The Court has invited further submissions on whether Article 4(1)(a) WFD obliges a competent authority to take reasonable steps to seek out and prefer the most up-to-date and comprehensive scientific data, particularly where a statutory body or third party has raised a reasonable doubt as to a possible adverse effect.

On the EIA ground, the applicant argued that Article 109(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, Ireland’s preliminary examination mechanism for sub-threshold EIA screening, mis-transposed Article 4(3) of the EIA Directive by permitting a discretionary, case-by-case assessment rather than fixed thresholds or criteria. The Court also raised a more fundamental question of its own motion: whether the EIA Directive applies to this housing development at all, given that housing is not itself listed in the Directive’s annexes and only falls within its scope as “urban development”. The Court’s provisional view was that Ireland may have gold-plated the EIA Directive by treating all housing above 500 units as automatically sub-threshold without tying that category back to the concept of urban development, such that a small rural or village scheme might not engage EU law at all. As mentioned above, the Court has requested further submissions from the parties on this point.