Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Planning and the legal system in Ireland

24567

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Bodan


    THE CEO OF Uisce Éireann has said the judicial review process is holding up the building of water treatment plants because it is being used by “serial objectors” who raise environmental concerns, which are costing the state “billions”. Citing a number of cases in which projects have been delayed for years due to objections, Niall Gleeson said, “I don’t think the common good is being delivered”. 

    “There is a process there for people to object to systems. But again, as the Taoiseach said, I think people are using the judicial review system when they don’t like the answer from An Bord Pleanála, and I don’t think that’s working for the state.” Gleeson drew a comparison between the new Arklow plant, which was opened today at an event attended by Taoiseach Micheál Martin, and delays to the Greater Dublin Drainage project in north Dublin, which he said has been “stymied”. “We are the environmental improvers here, you know, we’re improving the environment,” he said, while noting that environmental concerns can be raised during public consultations and through the Bord Pleanála process. 

    Gleeson said that of the 18 cases where a judicial review was sought regarding the Greater Dublin Drainage project, “only one of them was upheld”. “So, you know, what is that telling you about the judicial review system how effective is it?”The Taoiseach signalled his support for comments made by the chair of Uisce Éireann in relation to judicial reviews delaying important developments.The Fianna Fáil leader said today that he does not believe the courts are where planning applications should be determined. 

    https://www.thejournal.ie/micheal-martin-judicial-reviews-planning-6700506-May2025/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,273 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    We need to get this Martin character elected to high office pronto.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Aye if someone like him had been in power for the last number of years I'm sure the planning system would be a million times better than it is right now!

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,674 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    While Irish Water aren't exactly popular with the public, this needed to be said and I hope the public take note.

    A billion euro and a decade delay for a handful of NIMBYs. From a very quick Google the submissions are public record and one of the objectors isn't media shy at all.

    The fact that people with their locality as a vested interest, in my opinion, can cost the state a billion is an absolute disgrace.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    Was the drainage project not held up by the niece of an alcoholic poet?

    I believe it's not the only project she has allegedly objected to.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    The state should try to take litigators like them to court for blocking necessary improvements to public health.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Bodan


    Fine Gael Cllr Danny Byrne says he is looking to set up a GoFundMe page to help raise the cash for an application.Councillor proposes 5km rail tunnel to avoid D4 level crossings. The National Transport Authority has claimed a planning application for a potential Dublin rail project would cost up to €50m to complete – over 140 times the cost a local councillor was quoted.

    The estimated cost from the NTA highlights the significant challenges of upgrading crucial public infrastructure in Ireland, as warnings over the slow pace of delivery and massive cost overruns continue to mount, eroding the country’s competitiveness. Councillor Danny Byrne had earlier received an estimate of €350,000 for the application. The proposal would create a tunnel, eliminating the need for five level-crossings throughout the area and easing traffic problems created when roads are closed by barriers for passing trains. Byrne sent a letter to the NTA with details about the project, seeking a cost estimate for the funding required to prepare and submit a planning application.

    The councillor said he had received a “fair idea” of the cost from consultant engineers around the city, who indicated submitting the application within six months was “more than achievable”. In response, Hugh Creegan, interim chief executive of the NTA, informed Byrne that the proposal would necessitate the submission of a “Railway Order application” to An Bord Pleanála, which would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR). “I note that you have been told that the planning consent application could be ‘submitted within six months of funding approval’,” Creegan wrote. “That is just not possible and whoever has provided this information to you is simply incorrect.

    “The reason I mention the EIAR above is that the EIAR forms part of the application. It will normally require various environmental surveys that span the four seasons to correctly evaluate the likely environmental impacts. “Having been involved with a number of railway order applications, a time period of three years is more realistic.” Creegan said the funding to carry out the necessary environmental and geotechnical surveys for the tunnel project would likely “be in the €25m to €50m range”.

    Byrne criticised the response from the NTA, telling the Sunday Independent that Ireland had become a “country of red tape”. Byrne noted recent estimates indicated the State was expected to have spent over €400m on metro projects before the full-scale construction of the new Metrolink line began. Much of the figure was based on the amount to be spent on the design, planning and procurement phase of the current Metrolink project – which would stretch from Swords to Dublin city centre via the airport – before a shovel even enters the ground.

    “That really irks me now as a taxpayer and someone involved in politics,” he said. “It is embarrassing really, to be honest.” Byrne claimed to have received several quotes from consultant engineers throughout Dublin, with the most comprehensive valued at €350,000. He described the discrepancy between the quotes as “striking”. A source involved in planning construction projects said the figures provided by the NTA sounded “exorbitant”. He questioned if the figure included the costs of compulsory purchase orders, negotiations with relevant parties and potential transport closures.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/red-tape-alone-for-potential-rail-tunnel-at-notorious-merrion-gates-junction-would-cost-up-to-50m-says-nta/a1516040972.html

    It costs 50 million and 3 years just to get the ball rolling. I think we are getting to a situation where the current system is unsustainable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,657 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Never one to agree with Hugh Creegan but he is exactly right here. It would be a railway works order application which requires a mountain of preparation and need the RO as that gets you the CPO powers. You couldn't even get a planning application submitted as you would need a legal undertaking from all property owners the development would touch.

    Now CIE did look into a tunnel in the 70's from Sandymount but all the green space that you could have used to launch a tunnel is now built over. CIE had expected Dublin Corporation to bridge Merrion Gates, but they spent all the money on the Stillorgan Rd

    We really should pushing the NTA on why it chickened out on the bridge over Merrion Gates



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Creegan is right. Sure you could complete a planning application in six months for €350k, but it would be summarily rejected because it lacked all of the documentation, all of the site surveys, all of the preliminary work etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 691 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    I don't think the timeline is unreasonable as it sounds. My understanding of the EIAR is that it may sound like a lot of red tape (and to be fair at times it can be) but it is very important in proving both that the project wont be unnecessarily harmful to its surroundings(nature, housing, transportation), but also that the project itself wont be impacted (flooding, weather, etc).

    3 Years definetly is a long time and I would think that streamlining of the RO process it could be shortened, but that would require legislative changes. However the 6 month figure is comical and would probably just barely be enough time for the two required rounds of public consultation.

    I think it is also just an insane plan. It would likely be very disruptive to rail services and be a multi-billion euro project comparable to the D+ Tunnel. However the CBA of the D+ Tunnel already is already a bit shakey, and that is a project which will allow the DART network to operate at very high frequencies(>20tph), allow for much better connections through CC, and overall completely transform the rail network. This tunnel concept would only be to avoid the closure of a few LCs. Looking at it from a planning perspective I don't think there is anyway a CBA report, Feasibility study, or EIAR would make it look good.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,057 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Upgrades to existing railways should not require a RO, or go near ABP.

    Re-doubling / electrifiying / new stations / installing ETCS, on an existing line should not go next or near ABP.

    Indeed, the only part that should even need PP are the new stations.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    All require the construction of new infrastructure outside of the existing lines. Re doubling generally requires upgraded or replacement bridges and for level crossings to be upgraded or closed. ETCS installation requires control buildings to be built. Electrification requires multiple electrical substations, grid connections and the overhead catenary works (which will also require modification to existing structures).

    That all needs planning permission and for railways that's an RO.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,273 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Councillor from one of our ruling parties blames red tape, but not his own party. 🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    There are 5 level crossings, close 1 Cycling/Ped underpass 2, Car bridge 1, sorted…

    Build the Merrion gates pedestrian and cycling underpass, same at Landsdowne, close Serpentine (STC will have a conniption) and ped underpass at Sydney Parade (Ped access sorted via the station)

    Car Bridge at Sandymout Avenue

    Gives you all the space from before Landsdown Station to beyond Merrion to raise the track to Sandymount for car bridge clearance.

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    Landstown Road already has a pedestrian underpass that's used on matchdays (separate to the one in the station itself), I'm sure an agreement could be worked out with the stadium owners to have that passageway usable by the public



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I suspect that the powers that be in that ruling party will be having quiet words from the Councillor, making it clear that if he ever hopes to get a single poster or press release or position beside the Minster in the news or any of the other goodies that parties will dish out, he'd better bury this quickly.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Typical low quality Indo article quoting a councillor who has gone off script.

    Three years and €50M sounds fine to me to prepare planning for a large tunnelling project - there is no way you could do what he proposed for less than several billion. In which case a lot of consultation and environmental clearance needed.

    Post edited by spacetweek on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,300 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Yeah, let’s save 0.5% of the projected cost by not checking what's in the ground before we start tunnelling through it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭gjim


    Makes complete sense but that isn't the motivation here which seems to be to get the government to spend billions to improve things for car drivers (level crossings are so annoying) in way that doesn't annoy wealthy homeowners (remember the Merrion Gates fiasco).



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Look, there was an extensive plan to close Merrion Gates by building a bridge next to Merrion Church (Our Lady, Queen of the Sea) taking traffic off Strand Road up to a T junction on Merrion Road. It would be better if it was an underpass, but still. Merrion Gates would be replaced by an extensive pedestrian underpass (right next to the sea - with climate change predicting rising sea levels!). That would work.

    The result would reduce the need for the gates at Sydney Parade, with pedestrians using the nice new bridge at the station, or a new one at the crossing.

    So two of the five catered for, so what of the other three? Well Serpentine Ave is halfway between Lansdown and Sandymount, and by raising the track by a few metres (say 3 m) and dropping the road by a similar amount, the gate could be dispensed with, leaving just two gates. Replacing those with pedestrian underpasses might be enough.

    Not great, but the Lansdown one should have be dealt with when the new stadium was built.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,829 ✭✭✭plodder


    I saw this the other day. It's surprising that these are not exempt. Question that maybe someone knows answer to. Can the (surprisingly extensive) list of exempted development types, be updated by ministerial regulation? Or does it require a change to primary law?

    I know they don't look great, but they could easily be specified to be exempt on certain conditions, like they are removed or made less visible when not in use.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/dublin/2025/07/02/ranelagh-electric-car-owner-ordered-to-remove-unauthorised-charging-arm-by-council/

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 45,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    That is an awful looking thing.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    A case in the supreme court today that'll have ramifications throughout the planning system, depending upon the result. The state have appealed Justice Humphreys ruling that climate change laws actually mean something, and it's being heard today.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Found a couple of articles about this, SBP, so they're behind a paywall.

    John Kennedy, barrister for Comisiún Pleanála, said that if the planning body were to make a decision to grant permission to every project that is “carbon positive”, it would have to omit every project that is carbon negative by default.

    In the first hearing of the case on Tuesday, Kennedy said Statkraft had argued that section 15 of the Climate Act – which asks public bodies to consider and climate targets within national development decisions and plans – should trump the board’s other considerations that it must take into account when deciding to grant or refuse planning permission.

    Kennedy argued that as a result projects that are made from concrete, including extensions to family homes and garden rooms, would not get permission.

    He said that Statkraft’s argument that climate policy should “trump” other considerations would likely have unintended consequences, and argued that the board had considered climate policy matters when it made the decision to refuse permission for the windfarm.

    Another article from the SBP says this:

    Declan McGrath SC, for Statkraft, led in Ireland by Kevin O’Donovan, said that the commission did adequately not consider the Climate Act.

    Throughout the case, other directives and laws that need to be considered by in inspector and commission members were spoken about – the EU habitats directive and the constitutional right to a safe family home.

    McGrath argued the state’s take on the role the Climate Act was merely a “legislative post-it note” that reminded decision makers of their “public sector duty” and doesn’t go far enough.

    Taken from here and here.

    Honestly, that's exactly how I thought that ACP would argue the case, but it's not a very impressive argument. Once again it completely ignores the climate crisis, in the hope that their interpretation of the law makes it easier for them to do their jobs. Yes, it's going to be more difficult to take account of emissions, but the idea that they're limited to "increased emissions mean rejection, decreased emissions mean approval" is a totally wrong take.

    Significant, I think, that the judges keep asking this:

    Over the three days of hearings, the judges repeatedly asked the same two questions: what constitutes proper planning and sustainable development? And, how does that marry with the amended section 15 of the Climate Act?

    How can you have a proper planning and sustainable development regime if you ignore the climate crisis? Hopefully the solicitor for Statkraft picked up on this major hint from the justices and kept hammering that point.

    I have admit that I'm always shocked at how useless the Irish media are on cases like this. This case has the potential to transform Irish life, with even the court itself saying this (sitting with the full seven justices is a major clue in itself), the only only people writing about it are the Sunday Business Post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The reasoning by John Kennedy will be thrown out. That dichotomy isn't real. Carbon negative projects can be considered and approved, so long as there are other carbon positive projects and/or there are other sufficient reasons for the project, whether health and safety etc. However, the reasoning of the interpretation of the Climate Act by the lower court seems sound - there should be a presumption in favour of carbon positive projects given the climate challenge and the hurdles to reject them should be far higher.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,282 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Getting confused now.

    Brewdog describe themselves as a "Carbon Negative Brewery" i.e. they claim plant enough trees, etc. etc. so that their operations are a net negative emitter of CO2

    The article seems to use the phrase in entirely the opposite sense?!?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Agreed. Brewdog ‘s use is correct, the article is not.
    We want to reduce carbon and make everything less carbon intensive, so the goal is to be carbon negative.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Cat in a box, I disagree. I don’t think the climate crisis should be ignored but planning applications should definitely not be rejected on the basis that they might emit some carbon. If that was the case, it would have totally absurd consequences. Metrolink is going to require a massive amount of concrete so maybe we should not build that either?
    We’re going to decarbonise concrete in the future, but we are some way off cost competitiveness there. We cannot have a total halt on all concrete construction until this is achieved, so some kind of balance has to be struck in the meantime.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Either you're reading my post wrong, or I've worded it badly, but just to clarify, I totally agree with you.

    I find it ridiculous that ACP would argue that they'll be forced to reject anything that increases emissions, and approve anything that reduces emissions. It should be a consideration, just like everything else they consider, but the way that they do it at the moment is clearly not taking account of how serious the issue is. Something like Metrolink should sail through, but something like the Galway City Ring Road would get far more scrutiny.

    There's so many ways in which ACP could rise to the occasion, but they're purposefully arguing the most stupid interpretation, and they are only doing it so as to make their job easier. Very frustrating.



Advertisement
Advertisement