The Supreme Court has decided to seek guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether parts of Project Ireland 2040 had to undergo strategic environmental assessment and how alternatives should be assessed. It has not yet ruled on the appeal by Friends of the Irish Environment CLG, and said the parties could comment on the form of the proposed reference before it is finalised.
The appeal challenges the Government’s adoption of the National Planning Framework (NPF) and the National Development Plan (NDP). The environmental group argued that the NPF’s assessment did not adequately compare five options identified as reasonable alternatives with the preferred approach. It also challenged the NPF’s monitoring provisions. The respondents disputed those claims.
A preliminary issue is whether either plan falls within the scope of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The Supreme Court said the NPF was adopted by Government under its constitutional executive power, without a specific statutory or regulatory provision governing its adoption at the time. It also found that the framework was intended to influence later planning decisions. The court said it was not clear whether such a plan is covered by the Directive.
The court also left open whether the NDP is an exempt budgetary plan. The NDP allocates funds to infrastructure, including identified road and rail projects, and was designed to support the NPF’s spatial strategy. The Supreme Court said EU guidance did not resolve whether those links and allocations bring the NDP within the Directive or whether it remains exempt as a financial plan.
On alternatives, the court considered whether the Directive requires options judged reasonable to receive an assessment broadly comparable to the preferred option. The NPF’s environmental report assessed five reasonable alternatives, while its analysis of the preferred approach was more detailed. The appellant argued the alternatives required similar scrutiny; the respondents relied on an iterative process in which the level of assessment may vary as options are considered.
The Supreme Court said the Directive and European Commission guidance did not clearly answer the question, and decided to refer it to the EU court. It also deferred consideration of the challenge to the assessment matrix until after the response to the reference.
The court did not decide whether the NPF’s monitoring proposals were adequate. It said further consideration should await the EU court’s response. The judgment therefore makes no final determination on the appeal or the relief sought.