New environmental licensing bill promises certainty – but does it deliver?
The Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 (the “Bill”) completed Final Stages in the Dáil on 14 January 2026. Minister O’Brien, when securing cabinet approval to publish the Bill, pitched it as a game-changer for investment, stating:
“Introducing definite and shorter timeframes for licence decisions will provide more certainty for investment. This, in turn, will boost sustainable development, facilitate economic activity and improve our competitiveness.”
The timeline problem
Approximately 900 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) licences currently regulate Ireland’s largest industrial installations. Obtaining an EPA licence, or renewing one, often entails considerable delays.
The Bill proposes giving the Minister power to set statutory timeframes for licence decisions, which would be a positive development. Estimated timeframes were included in the General Scheme of the Bill, which was published in June 2024. However, precise timeframes were not ultimately included in the Bill. It is proposed instead that these would be set by future regulations that have not yet been published.
Even when the timelines are published, it is not proposed that they be mandatory. Instead, Section 90B(1) of the Bill requires the EPA to “endeavour to give notice of a proposed determination” within set periods. This can be contrasted with what is provided for in the Planning and Development Act 2024, which requires the Planning Commission to make a decision within specified timeframes.
Limited reviews – with limitations
Another useful reform introduced by the Bill is limited licence reviews for minor changes.
Currently, even trivial modifications trigger a full licence review. The new provision would provide for a more streamlined process in circumstances where no Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) is required, and the change isn’t “substantial” under the Industrial Emissions Directive.
However, it is not entirely clear as to what would count as “substantial“. The Bill defines it as a change “which may have significant adverse effects on human health or the environment.” This definition is arguably too subjective to deliver the certainty the Bill aspires to achieve. If applicants are unsure as to whether they will qualify for the limited review until they are already in the process, the utility of the provision is potentially undermined.
EIA exemptions
The Bill creates two circumstances where a full EIA can be bypassed.
First, the Minister can exempt projects related to state defence or civil emergencies, where a full EIA would undermine those purposes.
Second, applicants can request exemptions in “exceptional circumstances“, where a full EIA would hinder the project, as long as the EIA’s objectives can be met through alternative means.
However, the Bill is silent as to what might qualify as “exceptional circumstances“. Recommendations had suggested including critical infrastructure like energy and water projects, but this has not made its way into the Bill.
Missed opportunity?
During Committee Stage debate, Minister O’Brien linked the Bill to the Government’s Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan, which calls for regulatory reform and simplification. Action 11 of that plan specifically suggests running consents, licences and permits in parallel with the planning process – a reform that could significantly speed up the process. However, this has not been provided for in the Bill.
What happens next
The Bill has changed substantially since the General Scheme was published. It faces further scrutiny in the Seanad, where there could be additional amendments and potential for further delay in the legislative process.
If implemented, the Bill will go some way to delivering the increased certainty intended, but it remains to be seen whether it will go far enough.
The opportunity to make representations remains open to those interested in the licensing process. Our Planning & Environmental partners are members of Ibec’s Environmental Policy Committee and regularly raise issues on behalf of stakeholders in that forum.
Contact
For more information in relation to the above, please contact Maeve Delargy, Ruadhán Kenny or your usual Matheson contact.
With thanks also to Emer Rafferty, Marie Lynch and Isabella Angelosante for their input.