Access to Justice, Not Planning by Court

Thursday, 15 January 2026

Availing of the opportunity to make a submission to the Consultation on the Regulation of Costs under the Planning and Development Act 2024, it was a pleasure to collaborate with Cllr Dan Boyle (Cork City Council) and Cllr David Healy (Fingal County Council).

Our joint submission was made from the perspective of three individuals of ordinary means with direct experience of taking a joined legal case within the planning system.

We argued that the proposed judicial review cost caps for public interest litigants would, in their predictable operation, deter individuals of ordinary means from bringing environmental judicial review proceedings. Even where a case is successful, the scheme would leave applicants exposed to substantial unrecoverable costs. We contend that deliberately designing a regime that under-recovers reasonable legal costs breaches Ireland’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and EU law.

As Dan Boyle puts it, “Judicial review exists to uphold legality, not to replace planning decisions.” Planning and environmental court cases are not about courts deciding developments; they are a normal and essential part of legal governance, ensuring that planning decisions comply with Irish and EU law.

That distinction matters because access to the courts is not optional. It is a protected safeguard, particularly in environmental matters. But as David Healy notes, “Access to justice must work in practice, not just on paper.” If cost rules deter people before a case is even contemplated, the right itself is effectively undermined.

Our submission sets out why the proposed costs regime, as designed, risks doing exactly that: unlawfully deterring individuals of ordinary means at the very point where legal action is first considered.

I was also keen to highlight that public participation in environmental law depends on meaningful access to the courts. If individuals are priced out of the legal process, accountability within the planning system is weakened for everyone.

We made this submission to help clarify these issues and to encourage informed engagement with the consultation. The insights and guidance shared by many working in climate, environmental, and planning law, both voluntarily and professionally, helped us ground our contribution in lived experience as well as legal principle. Their help was really appreciated.

If you’re interested in how access to environmental and planning justice works in practice, please see our submission and feel free to share it.

Boyle_Healy_McEvoy_on_Regulation_of_Costs_Payable_Submitted.pdf

Download PDF • 242KB