Environment & Planning - Horizon Scanner: Infrastructure, Construction, Energy, May 2024

AC
Arthur Cox

Contributor

Arthur Cox is one of Ireland’s leading law firms. For almost 100 years, we have been at the forefront of developments in the legal profession in Ireland. Our practice encompasses all aspects of corporate and business law. The firm has offices in Dublin, Belfast, London, New York and Silicon Valley.
This case concerns Member States' obligations under the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) ("WFD")). The CJEU determined that the EPA is not obliged...
Ireland Environment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Peter Sweetman -v- An Bord Pleanála and Ireland and the Attorney General Case C-301/22 (25 April 2024)

This case concerns Member States' obligations under the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) (“WFD”)). The CJEU determined that the EPA is not obliged to determine the ecological status of lakes with surface areas of less than 5km squared.

Donegal County Council -v- Planree Limited and Mid-Cork Electrical Limited [2024] IEHC 193 (10 April 2024)

Donegal County Council sought an injunction restraining the Respondents, Planree Limited, from further development of a 90mw1 19-turbine windfarm in Donegal. Donegal CC asserted that the Windfarm was an unauthorised development, by reason of numerous material deviations from the applicable planning permission.

The Court considered that it should only make an s. 160 remediation order where there was no better alternative means of bringing a site into compliance with Planning and Environmental law. In this instance, the s. 160 order was made.

Crofton Buildings Management CLG & Stephanie Bourke -v- An Bord Pleanála and Fitzwilliam DL Limited (as Notice Party) [2024] IESC 12 (10 April 2024)

This appeal concerned the power of the High Court to remit a matter for reconsideration by the Board following an order of certiorari of a decision of the Board by the High Court.

The Court found that the default will be remittal for a fresh decision save in exceptional circumstances (e.g. a change in law). It also held that the combination of the statutory imperative to remit and the presumption that the Board will comply with fair procedures and will act intra vires in making its decisions on remittal means that it will usually be unnecessary for a court to give specific directions to the Board on reconsideration procedures. The Court declined to give directions to the Board to hold an oral hearing, on remittal.

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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More