Planning and the legal system in Ireland

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123995858#Comment_123995858

It sounds like there's a lot that's good in that, but the devil is in the detail. Talk about "nuclear options" and "emergency powers" doesn't create a good impression of specific, targeted measures though. Rather, broad sweeping new powers that will attract a lot of attention from the courts and run the risk of being unconstitutional.

Capping recoverable costs seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly for cases where the state wins, or does it include cases where the state loses? The latter would be a huge change to the way costs are awarded here. In the US, people mostly pay their own costs whether they win or lose, which is a simple and straight forward system. If we're going to end up with some confusing hybrid, it would need to be very well justified, to get it past the courts (who can be presumed to be sceptical of the notion). Why have one rule for "environmental" cases and a different one for everything else? Depends on the details obviously, but it's probably just as well that these are three different bills.

magicbastarder

did i read correctly that even if someone takes an action against a development, and wins, they could still have to pay their own legal costs, under the new legislation?

i've seen comments about the high costs of judicial reviews being one problem - but the seeming fact that so many JRs uphold complaints suggests that it's not the complainants at fault regularly.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979425#Comment_123979425

they didn't include this point in the clickbaity headline:

The commission also refused planning permission as the Dublin City Development Plan requires that large-scale developments over 10,000 sqm must provide a minimum of 5pc community, arts and culture spaces as part of the development.

The commission found the scheme does not provide for any such floor area and as a result the application materially contravenes an objective of the Dublin City Development Plan.

emphasis mine.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124003474#Comment_124003474

Could that not have been made a condition of approval? Or the old business of some form of levy in lieu.

Is it even an appropriate measure in the present climate, and should the planning regulator have stepped in to remove it? What does it aim to achieve exactly? What does the planning regulator do for that matter?

Either way, I listened to some environmentalists waxing lyrical yesterday about limiting urban sprawl (in the context of climate change). That's never going to happen while the planning system makes it so difficult for infill developments like this.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124003388#Comment_124003388

Its merely the latest clumsy attempt to curtail the public's rights under the Aarhaus Directive - which will probably be struck down again in due course

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124005235#Comment_124005235

Not sure about that. The Aarhus convention requires the state to give the public access to justice on environmental matters. That doesn't necessarily mean the state funding those cases in their entirety, unless the state loses.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124005235#Comment_124005235

Which suggests that our judiciary has a vastly different interpretation of the Aarhus convention than the rest of Europe.

CatInABox

So, it's finally happened, the recent changes in the planning laws have been referenced in a case. I've been waiting on it, but didn't think that it'd happen this quickly, albeit this isn't actually something that was ruled on, the judge definitely went out of their way to highlight some of the issues, and how they would consider it.

A developer got planning permission to build an office block, which was then JR'd. The JR succeeded, which was all fairly standard. ACP then tried to get a reduction in costs, as the court only ruled on one of the grounds, not all of the many grounds taken. Judge wasn't really having any of it, so denied ACP.

However, she does mention the recent changes that were brought in:

14. In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to decide whether Order 103 Rule 39 applies retrospectively to proceedings instituted prior to the coming into operation of S.I. 246 of 2025, Rules of the Superior Courts (Planning & Environment) 2025, or whether it applies in a case, such as this, where the parties agreed that costs protection applied and no order to that effect was made by the Court.

15. I note that Regulation 2 of the S.I. provides that “These Rules shall apply in proceedings commenced both before and from the date on which these Rules come into operation.” Judgment was reserved prior to the coming into operation of Order 103 RSC on 18th June 2025. Therefore, it was not possible for the parties to alter the manner in which they conducted the proceedings to take account of the provisions of Order 103. That is a factor on which I consider it would be appropriate to place weight if it were necessary to decide whether to depart from sub-rule (1)(c), on which the Commission relies.

Not major at all, but it's good to see that any JR taken now on a project that's been winding it's way through planning will be under the new laws.

https://www2.courts.ie/view/Judgments/91f71972-69de-47f0-a303-646ebd0eeeb4/e5413028-34b5-45de-91ba-80c6ae60dd18/2025_IEHC_607.pdf/pdf

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124005551#Comment_124005551

And your evidence for that is??

Ozymandius2011

The government plan to allow builders build their own water supply for housing is a good idea. Might cut down on bureaucracy.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008028#Comment_124008028

I cannot imagine where a builder is to get water from to supply a housing estate? Will the builder to be responsible for the water quality, and its long term availability?

If Irish Water cannot supply the water, what chance has Bob the builder got?

Ozymandius2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008469#Comment_124008469

Maybe the private sector would be more efficient, but we should avoid going down the UK role of privatising water overall. But maybe more competition alongside the State. I think a difference with connecting it to housing is that it would be a better than having to wait years to connect an estate with supply.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008489#Comment_124008489

Local Authorities did OK with water provision for much of the existence of the State. Irish Water has not been a success so far. Hopefully, they can get their act together soon.

Ozymandius2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008494#Comment_124008494

I don't know. A fragmented system where you had to get the fiefdom in the next town or country to agree to pipe water from A to B would have slowed things down.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124007989#Comment_124007989

There is nothing being proposed that does not already exist elsewhere in Europe, it is still quite timid in comparison in places.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008494#Comment_124008494

As long as they are stuck in planning hell with regard to building water treatment there is not a lot they can do.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008680#Comment_124008680

Planning standards and adherence to relevant EU Directives is higher in most of the EU, hence less of the need for citizens to challenge flawed deceisons

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124008494#Comment_124008494

Irish Water basically is the local authorities (most of it's staff tranferred from the LAs), but with greater, and generally more hostile, media scrutiny.

From talking to someone who did the job, it's clear that many local authorities did not "do OK" with water. New connections were done (with varying effectiveness) but in general the LAs underinvested in water maintenance because, in a universally underfunded system, water infrastructure was invisible, unlike roads, footpaths or public spaces.

Irish Water is now having to deal with the results of this neglect, but with every populist gobshite ready to publicise any mistake they might make, of course it looks like they're not doing a good job.

Busman Paddy Lasty

That's very true, Irish Water has been a convenient media punchbag.

Anyway regarding the private built infrastructure is there a detail available on it? I can't find any. It will likely mean people can just lay their own supply pipe to the public main. Not build full-on treatment systems.

Hotblack Desiato

There was never the slightest possibility of water in Ireland being privatised. It was a straight-up lie concocted by the far left and a lot of people, who really should have known better, bought it.

Hotblack Desiato

The local authorities did a crap job to be frank. Poor treatment of fresh water in many places, and poor or even no treatment of waste water in far too many places. It's a disgrace that in a supposedly developed country there are still places where sewage is discharged into the sea untreated.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124011605#Comment_124011605

You are quite right about under provision of LA, and the LA then under provisioned water and sewerage.

But that was going on for ever. Septic tanks were never inspected, and either there was no requirement for LAs to do so, or if there was, it was ignored. How we were not all poisoned, I do not know.

However, it is the sewerage that needs attention. Water pollution in rivers will cost us all dear.

However, letting Bob the builder do it is not the solution.

gjim

Regarding sewage treatment - do we have anything like this horror show south of the border?

There's a lot of unglamorous infrastructure catch-up to be done with water and sewage on a national scale and it would have been folly to try to do it through 31 different local authorities instead of setting up a single water&sewage authority for the country. Sewage and water (like national roads) do not align well with arbitrary administrative areas on maps.

Hotblack Desiato

Lough Neagh is in absolute bits as well.

Meanwhile in the Republic, we're looking for an extended exemption from the EU nitrates directive, because our farmers are special and should be allowed to pollute as much as they want

AndrewJRenko

Some interesting pushback from Orla Hegarty on the industry-led lobbying on planning failings in the Irish Times politics podcast;
https://www.irishtimes.com/podcasts/inside-politics/2025/11/12/what-is-wrong-with-irelands-housing-and-planning-system/

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124012466#Comment_124012466

we have plenty of raw sewage discharges in the south, though im not aware of any special beaches like that one.

Im not sure about NI, but we actually have a few areas where sewage is always discharged raw into waterways (not an overflow, just no treatment exists). I cant say for sure if thats the case in NI too

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124011974#Comment_124011974

Yes, the lie ludicrously went as far as calls for a constitutional amendment to stop something that was never going to happen, from happening.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124012937#Comment_124012937

Interesting podcast and worth listening to.

I think she's right that simply short circuiting the planning system is the wrong answer. Pushing strategic developments straight to ABP was a mistake. And some of the new legislation could be taking the same approach.

What I don't agree is where she conflates the planning corruption of the past, with the spectre of that happening again if we change anything that smells like deregulation. That's exactly the best point of what John Collison made. That we are paralysed by the need to promote transparency above everything else.

Not sure what her point is about the planning case in Raheny with the Brent Geese. They were clearly mentioned in two of the three reasons for refusal. Sure enough, one of the two also related to zoning constraints as well, but the stated reason for the zoning was the geese. So, to say that the reasons for refusal "were completely different" seems wrong to me.

The discussion between herself and the thinktank guy (Sean?) was interesting in parts. Though she came across to me as quite hostile towards him.

She mentioned the speculative model for land development several times. I'd like to have heard exactly what she means by it, and what she wants to replace it with.

plodder

There was an interesting interview on Joe Lynam's Breakfast Business program this morning with Sean O'Driscoll, the chair of the taskforce on Infrastructure. What he had to say about Judicial Reviews was credible and clearly requires urgent action. JRs being taken at all stages of planning process, not just the end result, at zero risk to the applicant. Lawyers taking the cases on a no foal, no fee basis, because they know they are going to be paid by the state. Say someone takes a case on ten grounds, if even one of them is environmental then all their costs are paid by the state, whether they win or lose.

You wonder did this come about after the state getting a kicking at the ECJ in some legal case relating to the Aarhus convention and deciding to take a no risk approach in future. Open the cheque book to all and sundry, and this was the unintended (though hardly unpredictable) consequence.

KrisW1001

The speculative model of land development starts like this:

1. Buy farmland near to a city
2. Rent it back to local farmers (often the ones you bought it from) to offset the purchase cost
3. Hope the land becomes zoned for housing.

There’s a problem with this that the jump from step 2 to step 3 may never happen, leaving capital tied up in an asset (farmland) that cannot be disposed for the profit you expected.

If you do get zoning, then the next phase comes into play: play a waiting game to maximise your eventual profit when you develop the site. The idea is to time your planning application, and then the start of construction, so that you hit a peak in house prices by the time you’ve got units to sell. During this waiting time, no services or other work is done: that only happens once you decide to build houses. This is high risk, but potentially high reward, and it’s mainly a feature of how smaller, private developers operate - unfortunately, this sector handles the bulk of our housebuilding.

Developers of this size can’t just build straight away and then strategically release units onto the market to increase profit because they usually lack the capital to build everything upfront; worse, they often need to borrow large sums to build, which is another cost and risk that gets passed to the purchaser. I know more than one person who bought their houses from developers who were clearly dangerously cash constrained (this shows up as delays in delivery, and especially for any kind of remedial work, or trying to back out of promises to include “your choice of …” kitchen/bathroom or other fixed furniture)

The small size of many developers makes development a financially risky operation even in times of rising prices: the Irish model of starting with a field and not selling anything until there are finished houses forces all build costs onto the one entity (the developer). On the continent, there are “land developers” and “house builders” who split this task. The former buys the site, obtains the planning and then arranges for all necessary services to be in place. They then sell the serviced site to a house builder, who can start construction immediately. This significantly lowers the risk, which reduces the need to engage in speculation to recover previous losses.

One way to deal with the speculative model is that both zonings and planning permissions should come with strict “**** or get off the pot” clauses: start the process of development quickly, or sell to someone who will do it, or lose the permission.