Subscribe
In the closing months of 2025, residents of Ranelagh, one of Dublin’s wealthier and more settled suburbs, brought a High Court challenge against Metrolink, the proposed underground railway intended to link the capital’s core with the expanding commuter hub of Swords.
The challenge followed shortly after An Coimisiún Pleanála granted planning permission for the project. Those bringing the case alleged defects in environmental evaluation procedures and argued that consultation with affected communities had been inadequate.
The importance of the proceedings lies not primarily in the specific claims advanced, but in the wider pattern they reflect. Judicial review, conceived as a safeguard against unlawful or flawed administrative action, has increasingly become a means by which projects designated as nationally significant can be delayed or suspended, often through disputes focused on procedural compliance rather than substantive outcomes.
From the perspective of local residents, however, the case represents a legitimate civic function: the ability of communities to interrogate developments that may permanently alter long-established environments.
This unresolved clash between local agency and national delivery underpins Ireland’s increasingly visible infrastructure deadlock.
Ireland’s population now exceeds 5.3 million, while the State has committed to a €275 billion National Development Plan running to 2035. Demand for housing, transport links and energy capacity has intensified accordingly. Yet rising levels of litigation have converted planning permission from a final decision into a provisional stage, vulnerable to years of uncertainty.
Statistics from the Department of Public Expenditure show that judicial reviews against planning authorities increased from 42 in 2014 to 147 in 2024. By mid-2025, 88 proceedings had already been initiated against An Coimisiún Pleanála alone, indicating a sustained annual increase approaching 20 percent.
The effects are evident nationwide: residential developments left dormant, transport projects stalled indefinitely, and electricity infrastructure unable to accommodate new renewable generation.
Ireland’s position is unusual not because judicial review exists, but because of its frequency.
In a 2025 RTÉ investigation, solicitor Fred Logue characterised the scale of Irish planning litigation as exceptional by European standards.
Comparable conclusions were reached in the Draghi report on EU competitiveness, which identified Ireland’s approval timelines as among the longest in the Union. Wind energy projects were cited as taking up to nine years from application to completion, while wastewater treatment facilities averaged 75 months, roughly double the EU norm.
Although similar frictions appear in other common-law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Ireland’s application of EU environmental rules has tended to intensify delay rather than streamline it.
A key contributing factor is the cost protection regime flowing from the Aarhus Convention, which limits exposure for environmental litigants and reduces the financial deterrents that might otherwise discourage speculative or marginal cases.
At a deeper level, Irish planning law continues to assess permissions as isolated administrative acts, while infrastructure delivery operates cumulatively. Delay to a single project reverberates through housing provision, transport capacity, energy security and public spending. Without a statutory framework differentiating schemes of local impact from those of overriding national importance, courts are repeatedly asked to resolve disputes that concern strategic sequencing rather than legal validity.
Judicial review allows individuals to challenge planning decisions for illegality, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Although statutory rules suggest expedition, usually eight weeks to commence proceedings, courts routinely grant extensions for “good reason”, with many cases extending close to two years. Despite repeated reference to the Law Reform Commission’s 2004 proposals for tighter timelines and enhanced case management, the High Court’s Planning and Environment List expanded from 143 active cases in late 2023 to 268 by July 2025.
Fast-track mechanisms have increased throughput, with 253 cases concluded in 2024, but inflows remain high. Housing developments accounted for 67 challenges, wind energy for 11, and transport infrastructure for 17.
Few projects illustrate this cumulative inertia as starkly as the Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme. First proposed in 2008 to transfer wastewater from north Dublin to an offshore outfall, the scheme is intended to unlock capacity for up to 35,000 new homes each year.
Although approved in 2019, the decision was set aside in 2020 following a judicial review brought by Portmarnock resident Sabrina Joyce-Kemper, based solely on the failure to consult the Environmental Protection Agency regarding marine impacts.
After remittal, a substantially expanded application, running to approximately 30,000 pages, secured renewed approval in July 2025. By then, projected costs had risen to €1.3 billion, and completion had slipped to 2032. Uisce Éireann has warned that, without the scheme, housing output of around 10,000 units annually in the affected catchment faces a critical constraint. The Government’s Accelerating Infrastructure Taskforce report of July 2025 notes that such remittals typically generate cascading delays of four to six years as surveys expire and policy contexts change.
Renewable energy developments face comparable exposure. In 2024, grid limitations resulted in the curtailment of 14 percent of wind generation and 7 percent of solar output. A Statkraft wind project at Coole in County Offaly was halted in 2025 following a judicial review concerning an unnotified grid connection, forcing the developer to restart the application process.
As Wind Energy Ireland’s Justin Moran observed in the Irish Independent, developers now routinely factor in the likelihood of a judicial review, adding years to delivery timelines.
These pressures are increasingly reflected in parliamentary debate. Deputies across parties have pointed to the way repeated challenges erode the practical lifespan of planning permissions and leave developers in prolonged uncertainty. The economic implications are significant: road projects that once took seven years now extend to fifteen, while electricity substations can take more than seven years to deliver.
The Government’s infrastructure review notes that legal defence now absorbs around 20 percent of An Coimisiún Pleanála’s budget, incentivising exhaustive documentation aimed at insulating decisions from challenge. Public officials, conscious of permissions being overturned on narrow grounds, adopt increasingly cautious approaches, driving up costs without corresponding improvements in outcomes.
Reform proposals have become politically contested. On 10 June 2025, the Minister for Housing, Darragh O’Brien, pointed to the phased implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024, which introduces tighter timelines and procedural streamlining.
Opposition figures, including Sinn Féin’s Eoin Ó Broin, have advocated “use-it-or-lose-it” mechanisms to reclaim dormant permissions, proposals that did not survive earlier legislative negotiations.
Others caution against framing the issue as systemic abuse. In a November Irish Times opinion piece, Lorcan Sirr argued that successful judicial reviews usually expose substantive administrative failings, citing the drainage scheme’s EPA omission as a clear example of state error rather than opportunistic litigation.
These debates reveal deeper structural tensions. Judicial review, rooted in Article 34 of Bunreacht na hÉireann and reinforced by EU law, remains a central mechanism for accountability, allowing residents to raise legitimate concerns about environmental protection or local amenity.
The Aarhus Convention strengthens that access by addressing the financial imbalance inherent in litigation against the State. Without such protections, there is a risk of reverting to periods when environmental considerations were treated as secondary.
At the same time, collective needs are under mounting strain. Ireland’s €275 billion infrastructure programme underpins objectives ranging from housing delivery to energy resilience. Delays intensify existing pressures: the social housing waiting list reached 13,000 in 2025, while congestion imposes productivity losses estimated at €2 billion per year.
The infrastructure report warns of a growing chilling effect, with escalating costs ultimately borne by the public purse.
Reconciling infrastructure delivery, individual rights and administrative restraint requires careful calibration rather than blunt restriction. Reform must deter strategic delay while preserving access for genuinely meritorious claims.
A forthcoming Critical Infrastructure Bill is intended to introduce expedited pathways for projects of national importance, while increasing the risks associated with weak applications without excluding determined litigants.
Enhanced pre-application engagement, such as EirGrid’s community consultation initiatives, may also reduce conflict by addressing concerns before adversarial positions harden.
In July 2025, the Joint Committee on Infrastructure questioned Courts Service officials on whether stricter filtering at the leave stage could dispose of weaker cases earlier. With 191 sitting days already recorded that year, responses pointed to the need for additional judicial capacity, specialist lists and procedural reform.
Government analysis also acknowledges that public participation must move beyond formal compliance, with greater emphasis on weighing diffuse public benefits, cleaner air, shorter journeys and energy security, against concentrated local disruption, potentially through structured benefit-sharing mechanisms.
Ireland’s elevated litigation burden reflects a system under sustained pressure rather than fundamental dysfunction. Judicial review remains an essential check on administrative power. As Metrolink advances toward substantive hearings, the unresolved question is whether those safeguards can adapt to permit timely delivery.
The taskforce’s forthcoming autumn action plan proposes parallel processes, streamlined approvals and reduced regulatory duplication. Its success will depend on striking a narrow balance: preserving meaningful access to justice while avoiding the paralysis of essential public infrastructure.