The Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge by Friends of the Irish Environment and SMTW Environmental DAC to a ministerial direction requiring Fingal County Council to delete a Dublin Airport noise insulation objective from its 2023–2029 development plan.
The objective, known as PA CH 8.1 as modified, said the proposed insulation scheme was inadequate and called for measures to extend DAA schemes to all areas exposed to aircraft noise of 40dB Lnight or higher. It also referred to internal noise levels being in keeping with a specified British Standards publication.
The Minister issued the direction on 28 July 2023 under section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The two environmental groups sought judicial review. The High Court dismissed their application in October 2024, and they appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Hyland on 5 June 2025, rejects the appeal and leaves the High Court decision in place.
The Court of Appeal held that the errors in some draft documents, which described the original wording rather than the modified objective, were not material. The groups knew about the modified version and made submissions on it; the court said there was no evidence that anyone had been prevented from participating. It also held that the direction could be read as requiring deletion of the modified text, despite referring to an earlier chief executive’s report.
On the substance, the court agreed that the Minister could conclude the objective was inconsistent with National Policy Objective 65 and Dublin Airport’s Noise Action Plan. The court said the plan’s approach to airport noise relied on the “Balanced Approach” under EU Regulation 598/2014, while the elected members had not applied that process when adopting PA CH 8.1.
The court also upheld the direction on an additional ground raised by DAA. It found that, in the circumstances of this planning permission and noise insulation condition, the statutory framework gave the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority (ANCA) the decision-making role over the noise mitigation measure. The objective proposed a different insulation threshold from the 55dB Lnight contour specified in the planning condition. The court concluded the elected members could not use a development plan objective to treat ANCA’s condition as inadequate and prescribe a different threshold.
The judges rejected the argument that the Minister had to respond individually to every consultation submission. They held that the duty was to give reasons and address submissions relevant to those reasons. The appeal court proposed no order as to appeal costs, subject to any party making submissions within the stated period; it did not disturb the High Court costs order.