The High Court dismissed Friends of the Irish Environment CLG’s challenge to the adoption of the National Planning Framework (NPF) and National Development Plan (NDP), finding the applicant had not established an entitlement to any of the relief it sought.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 24 April 2020, Mr Justice Barr rejected six grounds of challenge to the plans, published by the Government in February 2018 as Project Ireland 2040. The NPF sets high-level spatial planning goals to 2040; the NDP sets out public investment priorities for 2018 to 2027.
The applicant argued that the Government adopted the plans before making the written determination required under the Habitats Regulations on whether the NPF would harm the integrity of European sites. The court found that the Minister had made the substantive determination before the Government’s 16 February 2018 meeting, although it was not put in writing until 14 May. The judge held that the regulations allowed the determination to be recorded in writing after it was made. He also found that the Government’s 29 May reaffirmation was, in effect, a re-adoption, and that the plans were validly adopted at the latest on that date.
The court also rejected the claim that the environmental report had to assess reasonable alternatives to the NPF at a level comparable to the preferred option. It said the requirement for a full strategic environmental assessment applied to the plan proposed for adoption, and found that the report gave sufficient information about alternatives for a high-level policy document. The judge accepted that the assessment matrix symbols gave little indication on their own, but found the accompanying narrative made the comparisons understandable.
On monitoring, the court found the NPF and environmental statement provided for monitoring by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, coordinated with other bodies responsible for specialist data and monitoring. It held those arrangements met the relevant obligations.
The applicant further argued that the assessment had not adequately examined the NPF’s effects on climate change. The judge found that climate considerations were addressed throughout the assessment documents and said a quantitative prediction of the NPF’s future effects was not possible because it was a policy document, not approval for specific projects.
The court found that public submissions could be grouped and addressed thematically rather than answered individually. It was satisfied that the applicant’s submissions had been addressed and that the final NPF reflected public input.
Finally, the court held that the NDP was a budgetary and financial plan, not a plan or programme requiring strategic or appropriate assessment. It dismissed the application for relief.