EU
EU ratifies Treaty of the High Seas to protect the ocean
The treaty aims to bring coherence across all EU policy areas linked to the oceans, boosting fisheries and aquaculture and ensuring good governance and sustainability. The EU is calling on parties who have not ratified the agreement to do so. The Irish Times has reported that the Taoiseach is asking relevant Ministers to short-circuit the ratification of the treaty. The treaty will enter into force after it has been ratified by 60 countries.
European Council and Parliament reach provisional agreement on revisions to the European Maritime Safety Agency's mandate
The European Maritime Safety Agency is tasked, among other things, with assisting the Commission and Member States to counter and handle pollution incidents at sea, protect the maritime environment, conduct maritime surveillance and provide digital services. A provisional agreement has been reached between the Council and the Parliament to update the legal basis for the Agency to carry out these roles, and to allow for it to take on additional tasks at the request of Member States and the Commission.
DOMESTIC UPDATES
Cabinet approves priority drafting of the new Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025
The Government has approved the priority drafting of a bill which will introduce time-limited amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2024 to facilitate the delivery of housing. Key proposals include a provision to enable the extension of permissions for housing developments that are nearing the end of their duration where work has not commenced. Extensions of up to three years will be granted. The Minister of State has said that the permission holder must apply for the extension within six months of the legislation commencing, and commence building within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation.
The 2024 Act will allow a developer to choose to suspend the duration of a permission which is subject to judicial review proceedings when it is commenced. The new bill would allow this provision to apply retrospectively to permissions that have already been (or are currently being) judicially reviewed and are subsequently permitted.
In its press release, the government stated it intends to enact the bill before the summer recess.
Order signed to enable local authorities to identify suitable sites for Urban Development Zones
The Planning and Development Act 2024 is being commenced in phases. The Minister has now signed a commencement order for certain provisions which enable planning authorities to identify suitable sites for designation as UDZs. These provisions do not allow UDZs to be designated yet.
Public Consultation opens on the Marine Planning Policy Statement
Ireland's first Marine Planning Policy Statement was published in November 2019. The Minister for Climate, Energy and Environment opened a consultation on the first review of this statement on 9 June 2025. The revised statement will remain in effect for at least three years. The revised Marine Planning Statement will outline Ireland's marine planning system and the hierarchy of marine policies, set out the principles of marine planning policy that the government expects relevant planning bodies to observe, outline Ireland's key marine planning priorities for the management of activities in the maritime space and outline how marine policy will be monitored and reviewed.
The consultation on Marine Planning Policy Statement (MPPS) (draft) will close on 7 July 2025.
DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS
High Court orders wind farm to shut down three turbines and pay compensatory and aggravated damages in respect of noise nuisance
The plaintiffs claimed that a neighbouring wind farm causes substantial interference with the enjoyment and use of their home near Gibbet Hill in Co. Wexford. The defendants admitted liability for causing a nuisance. They acknowledged that the noise impact was serious, and that it was an "outlier" in this regard. Furthermore, the defendants' only expert accepted that turning off certain turbines was the only way to abate the nuisance.
One of the central questions before the Court was whether noise nuisance caused by the wind farm should be fully abated through an order preventing the operation of the relevant turbines, or whether the defendants should be allowed to pay damages for committing an ongoing nuisance in circumstances where they are contributing to Ireland's efforts to meet its renewable energy targets as required by the Climate Action Plan. The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the defendants' activities generate renewable energy.
Justice Quinn considered that allowing the defendants to pay damages but continue the nuisance during the daytime and evenings was not appropriate in this case, stating that this was "principally on the grounds that the defendants have failed to put forward any proper evidential basis for mitigation measures that might have made some meaningful impact on the noise nuisance problem and would have allowed the machines to continue to operate, notwithstanding the factual and expert evidence that this could have been done." This was notwithstanding the hugely important public interest in maintaining and increasing the supply of renewable energy to the grid. The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and aggravated damages. The defendants were ordered to take all steps necessary to shut down the three turbines causing the nuisance.
High Court imposes injunction restricting operation of wind farm with variations for wind speeds and time of day or night
This is the second module of a case brought before the High Court in respect of noise nuisance caused by the operation of a wind farm near Ballyduff, Co. Wexford. In the first module, the Court held that one turbine (T2) caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs during sensitive periods (night hours and quiet waking hours). The parties were directed to attempt to agree appropriate mitigation measures to abate the nuisance before module 2 was heard. The defendant operated T2 in a lower power mode as a potential mitigation measure, but the plaintiffs maintained that the nuisance was not abated. They sought an order directing the shutdown of T2 during sensitive periods. The defendant argued that wind turbine noise does not pose a nuisance even in full power mode, and that mitigation was therefore not required. The defendant sought to introduce new evidence in this regard, which the Court declined to admit.
On the balance of probabilities, the Court found that the lower power mode trialled by the defendant did not ameliorate the nuisance, and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunctive remedy. Considering the benefit of renewable energy to the public, the Court was satisfied that the complete shutdown of T2 during sensitive periods was not required to abate the nuisance. The Court prepared a technical injunction which varied depending on time, current windspeeds and current wind directions. Justice Egan was critical of the defendant's failure to engage in the mitigation process, trialling only one mitigation measure. She stated that, had the defendant adduced more detailed technical evidence, the Court may have devised more nuanced abatement measures which would have been for the benefit of the defendant and the public.
High Court affirms that Board can grant permission on appeal for a development which differs from application refused by a planning authority
The High Court quashed the grant of permission by the Board for a mixed-use development in Donnybrook, Co. Dublin for its failure to comply with the Dublin City Development Plan's public open space policy. However, the first core ground of challenge was rejected by the Court. The developer applied to Dublin City Council (DCC) for a 12-storey unit, and appealed DCC's decision to refuse permission to the Board. In its appeal, the developer reduced the height of the proposed development to 10 storeys. The applicant argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine the appeal, as it was not an appeal from DCC's refusal. Furthermore, it contended that the public was deprived of the opportunity to make submissions on the new 10-storey proposal. However, the Court considered that section 37 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that applicants for permission can appeal a planning authority decision to the Board, which shall determine the appeal as if it was made to the Board in the first instance. The Court was satisfied that the Board had jurisdiction to grant permission for a development which differed from the application which had been refused by DCC. The appeal did not amount to the submission of a different proposed development.
The applicant succeeded on another ground of challenge, arguing that the decision was invalid because the Board failed to consider whether the proposed development was a material contravention of the Dublin City Development Plan.
Court of Appeal upholds Minister's Direction to remove an objective relating to noise insulation schemes from the Fingal County Council Development Plan
This case relates to a challenge against a Direction by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage which required Fingal County Council to remove text relating to a noise insulation scheme at Dublin Airport from its Development Plan 2023-2029. The challenge was dismissed on all grounds. The Court found that, although there were errors in the Direction and the documents in the process leading up to its adoption, these errors were non-material and did not hinder the appellants from making a submission on the draft development plan.
The Court found that the Minister acted lawfully in concluding that the impugned text relating to a noise insulation scheme was not in compliance with the Noise Action Plan. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that the aircraft noise competent authority (the "ANCA") was the only body with competency to make conditions relating to noise insulation schemes for Dublin Airport. Therefore, Fingal County Council was precluded from adopting an objective in its development plan which specified a decibel level at which the daa is required to insulate homes. ANCA has exclusive competency in this area. The appeal was rejected.
High Court dismisses challenge against grant of permission for strategic housing development ("SHD") in Dublin
The High Court dismissed a challenge by local residents against the grant of permission for an SHD in Dublin. The applicants claimed that the development materially contravened the development plan. The Court considered that the onus of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that the development plan had been materially contravened, but it had not discharged this obligation. The development plan required that "in general" at least one childcare facility should be provided for all new residential developments "subject to demographic and geographic needs." The Board's inspector considered that there were sufficient childcare facilities near the proposed development, and therefore did not recommend including a condition to provide an on-site crèche. The applicant pleaded that the Board failed to have regard to relevant considerations in declining to impose a condition requiring a crèche. The Court rejected the assertion that the Board's inspector accepted the developer's childcare assessment without consideration. In the absence of substantial evidence contradicting the assessment, the Court found that the Board was entitled to accept the material put forward by the developer, and that this does not constitute a failure to assess the application. Evidence is required to successfully assert that a developer's material was accepted without evidence.
The Court found that some bedrooms in the proposed development were not compliant with the development plan, which required rooms to conform with the minimum dimensions set out in the Apartments Guidelines (2020). The developer contended that it was permitted to avail of a 5% latitude in terms of the guidelines. 16% of bedrooms in the proposed development were below minimum floor area by an average of 2.5% and in a range of 0.1m (squared) to 0.6m (squared). The Court found that this contravention was not material. The Court dismissed the proceedings.
This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.
