The recent High Court decision on the A5  marks the first judicial interpretation of the Climate Change Act Northern Ireland 2022, with significant and emotive implications.

 

The A5 is often described as the most dangerous road in Northern Ireland. More than 50 deaths have occurred since 2006, making the quashing of the consents an emotive subject. The proposed project would build a new road alongside the existing one and is described by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) as Northern Ireland’s largest infrastructure scheme.

 

Plans for a new A5 were first announced in 2007 but have faced ongoing delays due to legal challenges and funding issues. The 2013 challenge quashed a decision due to a failure to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment, and the 2017 case was upheld due to a lack of ministerial authority during an Executive suspension.

 

Why was the decision quashed?

In the latest challenge, brought by the Alternative A5 Alliance, the Court quashed DfI’s consents on three grounds:

1. Failure to comply with Section 52 of the Climate Change Act (NI) 2022.
2. Failure to address human rights issues raised by the Planning Appeals Commission.
3. Failure to consult on updated greenhouse gas emissions data, breaching EIA regulations.

 

Climate Change Act takes centre stage

Section 52 sets out three broad duties for departments:

1. To act consistently with emissions targets, including those for 2050.
2. To co-operate with other departments on meeting targets.
3. To create and implement appropriate plans, policies and strategies.

 

DfI accepted the project would increase emissions but argued it was a priority investment agreed by the Executive and that emissions would be addressed in future Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and budgets. At the time of the hearing, no CAP had been published, although a draft was later issued for consultation on 19 June 2025.

The Court disagreed. It ruled that while Section 52 doesn’t prohibit high-emission projects, it does prohibit their approval without careful planning, coordination, and synchronisation between Departments and evidence showing how the project aligns with statutory climate change targets and budgets.

There was no such evidence. Importantly, there had been no inter-departmental coordination or synchronisation, and no assurance that the A5 could fit within existing or proposed carbon budgets and sectoral plans. While the Court clarified that inclusion in a CAP wasn’t mandatory (or that a CAP even had to be published), the DfI needed to provide cogent, evidence-based justification. Its reliance on the assumption that the project would be accommodated in future plans rendered the decision irrational and non-compliant with Section 52.

 

Where does this leave major projects?

Mr Justice McAlinden expressly stopped short of saying that no major infrastructure project can proceed unless the government is satisfied that Northern Ireland is on track to meet its carbon budget. However, the requirement to demonstrate careful coordination and synchronisation between Departments and evidence of alignment with statutory targets may be difficult in practice.

The 2017 A5 case had already shown how political instability, particularly the absence of a functioning Executive, can halt projects. Other high-profile planning decisions have also been quashed, such as arc21’s energy-from-waste project, which was deemed to require the approval of all ministers in the Executive. That requirement was later removed by legislation. This latest ruling risks reintroducing it in another form.

 

As regular followers of Northern Irish politics will know, consensus across ministers is not easy to achieve, and there is a risk that key projects or policies which affect carbon budgets will become political footballs.

On a more positive note, it could be argued that the ruling may support the prioritisation of projects that reduce carbon emissions, such as renewable energy schemes and infrastructure upgrades that lower energy consumption. These could help create ‘headroom’ in carbon budgets for projects deemed necessary on other grounds, such as health and safety, but with a higher carbon footprint.

 

In the Republic of Ireland, a recent High Court decision interpreting a similarly worded provision to Section 52, signalled a shift towards a strong presumption in favour of planning permission for decarbonisation and climate mitigation projects. Although currently under appeal to the Irish Supreme Court and not binding in Northern Ireland, it may offer insight into the broader direction of travel.

This judgment underscores the urgent need for departments (and developers) to build expertise in carbon assessment and strategic climate planning. Alignment with emissions targets will also increasingly influence procurement processes and public sector contract decisions. Cross-departmental co-operation, evidence-led decision-making and a clear policy framework are now essential not only to manage legal risk but also to unlock opportunities for both low-carbon and essential infrastructure projects.

 

Article first published in The Planner

 

For legal guidance and advice regarding Planning and Environment, please contact Maria O’Loan or Aoife Murray in our Planning and Environment Team.

While great care has been taken in the preparation of the content of this article, it does not purport to be a comprehensive statement of the relevant law and full professional advice should be taken before any action is taken in reliance on any item covered.