Judgment: 2026-02-10 · Court archive

High Court sends challenge to new apartment design rules to EU court

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2026] IEHC 67

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Frank McDonald
  • Dan Boyle
  • Pádraig McEvoy
  • Darragh Moriarty
  • David Healy
  • Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage
  • Mr Justice Humphreys
What

High Court sends challenge to new apartment design rules to EU court

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • Ireland
  • Court of Justice of the European Union
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 8 July 2025

    The disputed Design Standards for Apartments, published on 8 July 2025, contain both non-binding guidance and mandatory specific planning policy requirements. Those binding provisions address matters including apartment floor areas, unit mix, dual-aspect requirements, floor-to-ceiling heights, communal facilities and student accommodation.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has asked the EU court three questions. They concern whether the directive should be interpreted consistently with international public-participation obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol; whether binding apartment design rules themselves set a framework for future development consent; and, if not, whether they nevertheless fall within the directive because they override provisions in development plans that were subject to environmental assessment.

The High Court has referred a challenge to Ireland's 2025 apartment design guidelines to the Court of Justice of the European Union before deciding whether parts of the guidelines are valid.

Mr Justice Humphreys made the reference on 10 February 2026 in proceedings brought by Frank McDonald, Dan Boyle, Pádraig McEvoy, Darragh Moriarty and David Healy against the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

The disputed Design Standards for Apartments, published on 8 July 2025, contain both non-binding guidance and mandatory specific planning policy requirements. Those binding provisions address matters including apartment floor areas, unit mix, dual-aspect requirements, floor-to-ceiling heights, communal facilities and student accommodation.

No strategic environmental assessment, or screening for one, was carried out before the guidelines were published.

The applicants contend that the binding requirements fall within the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive because they set a framework for future apartment developments. The Minister disputes that, arguing that the rules mainly concern internal design parameters rather than matters such as the location, overall size or operating conditions of projects.

The High Court has asked the EU court three questions. They concern whether the directive should be interpreted consistently with international public-participation obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol; whether binding apartment design rules themselves set a framework for future development consent; and, if not, whether they nevertheless fall within the directive because they override provisions in development plans that were subject to environmental assessment.

Planning authorities must apply the binding requirements in preference to conflicting provisions in existing city or county development plans.

The High Court has not yet decided whether the guidelines are lawful. The proceedings are stayed pending the EU court's answers. The court also asked that the reference receive priority because of the housing crisis and concerns that uncertainty over the guidelines could affect apartment planning applications.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review