The “common good” (also known as the “public good” or “public interest”) is a philosophical and legal principle rooted in political theory, dating back to thinkers like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and later formalized in modern governance.

It refers to actions, policies, or decisions that benefit society as a whole, rather than prioritizing individual or localized interests. In the context of critical infrastructure developments—such as power grids, highways, renewable energy facilities, airports, or mining projects—governments worldwide invoke this concept to balance societal needs (e.g., economic growth, energy security, environmental sustainability, and national resilience) against potential harms or opposition from affected individuals or communities.

Serial objectors, often associated with “NIMBYism” (Not In My Backyard), are individuals, groups, or organizations that repeatedly file objections, appeals, or lawsuits against projects, sometimes on frivolous or vexatious grounds, leading to significant delays and increased costs. These objections might stem from legitimate concerns like environmental impact or property rights but can also be used strategically to block developments.

Governments address this by implementing measures that prioritize the public interest, such as designating projects as nationally significant, presuming them to serve an “overriding public interest,” or streamlining approval processes to limit endless challenges. This ensures timely delivery of infrastructure essential for broader societal benefits, while still incorporating safeguards like public consultation and judicial oversight. For instance, in the European Union, renewable energy projects are often fast-tracked by assuming they align with public interest goals like climate resilience.

Worldwide Comparison of MeasuresGovernments employ a range of strategies to prevent serial objectors from derailing critical infrastructure, including fast-track approvals, one-stop-shop permitting, litigation reforms, strict appeal timelines, and presumptions of public interest. These measures vary by country, influenced by legal traditions, federal structures, and priorities (e.g., energy transition or economic development). Below is a comparison across key regions and countries, drawing from OECD nations and others.

I’ve used a table for clarity, focusing on core mechanisms, handling of objections, and examples of critical infrastructure.

Overall, developed nations like those in the EU and OECD emphasize streamlined, time-bound processes with public interest presumptions to counter serial objectors, while emerging economies (e.g., South Africa, Morocco) rely more on mediation and costs. Common trends include one-stop-shops and limited appeals, but effectiveness varies—e.g., the US faces more litigation than centralized systems like the UK’s.

These measures reflect a global shift toward efficiency amid climate and economic pressures, though they must balance with democratic participation to avoid alienating communities.

What is Ireland’s position at present?

Ireland’s Position on Preventing Serial Objectors to Critical Infrastructure Developments

As of September 11, 2025, Ireland’s government is actively addressing the issue of serial or vexatious objectors—individuals or groups who repeatedly challenge planning decisions, often leading to significant delays and costs for critical infrastructure projects like renewable energy facilities, wastewater treatment plants, housing developments, and transport networks.

This aligns with the broader “common good” or “public interest” principle, where the societal benefits of timely infrastructure (e.g., economic growth, housing supply, and climate goals) are prioritized over protracted individual objections. The government’s stance emphasizes streamlining processes while maintaining access to justice, influenced by ongoing housing and infrastructure crises, with Ireland’s infrastructure lagging competitors by about 32% according to recent IMF estimates.

Key drivers include judicial reviews delaying projects by up to five years, serial objectors holding up billions in investments, and the need to support a 30% increase in public infrastructure spending over five years, as pledged in July 2025.

Ireland’s approach invokes public interest by fast-tracking approvals, imposing stricter requirements on objections, and limiting judicial reviews for nationally significant projects. This is embedded in recent legislative reforms, with ongoing proposals to further curb abuses. Below is a detailed overview of the current position, including key measures and implementation status.Key Legislative Framework: Planning and Development Act 2024

The cornerstone of Ireland’s reforms is the Planning and Development Act 2024 (enacted October 17, 2024, replacing the 2000 Act), which has been progressively implemented since March 2025 via a phased rollout.

As of September 2025, significant sections are in force, with full commencement expected over the coming months; updates as of August 14, 2025, confirm it’s up to date with known changes.

The Act prioritizes efficiency and public interest by:

• Handling Objections and Appeals: Submissions, observations, and appeals must include statutory declarations confirming they are not intended to delay developments or secure financial benefits. False declarations are criminal offences, directly targeting vexatious or serial objectors. Unincorporated groups (e.g., residents’ associations) face additional hurdles, such as requiring a constitution and a two-thirds member vote to file challenges.
• Judicial Reviews (JRs): The process is streamlined—no need for initial leave applications; challenges must be filed within eight weeks via notice of motion to the High Court. Standing is limited to those “directly or materially affected,” with exceptions for environmental cases under EU directives (e.g., EIA). Amendments to pleadings are restricted, and applicants must exhaust administrative remedies first. Courts can correct minor errors instead of quashing decisions entirely. Appeals go directly to the Supreme Court with leave required, reducing layers of delay.
• Fast-Tracking Critical Infrastructure: Mandatory time limits for planning decisions (e.g., appeals determined within set periods, with fee refunds for non-compliance). An Bord Pleanála is restructured as An Coimisiún Pleanála, with up to 15 commissioners focused on transparency and compressed timelines. Specific fast-tracks for strategic infrastructure (e.g., offshore renewables) integrate maritime consents. From October 1, 2025, renewable energy projects require mandatory scoping to accelerate permitting.
• Measures Against Vexatious Actions: New offences for soliciting payments to withdraw opposition (except good-faith compensation for impacts). Costs protections under the Aarhus Convention are enhanced with a financial assistance mechanism for environmental cases, balancing access to justice.

The Act’s implementation includes the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2025, effective August 1, 2025, which allows suspension of existing permissions to unlock stalled projects.

Recent Government Proposals and Debates (2025)

• September 2025 Announcements: On September 10, 2025, Taoiseach Micheál Martin announced proposals to raise the bar for legal challenges to planning decisions, particularly for major infrastructure like water and energy projects. 2 sources This includes prioritizing the “common good” in approvals and potentially introducing bespoke legislation for specific projects to bypass objections. Martin expressed frustration over a recent JR delaying a Dublin wastewater facility for 500,000 people, which could hinder housing targets. The goal is to prevent serial objectors—who have filed dozens of cases—from derailing vital developments, with new rules expected soon (no exact timeline provided).
• June 2025 Dáil Debate: Discussions highlighted calls to restrict objections to those with “local concerns” to eliminate serial objectors from distant areas (e.g., a Donegal resident objecting to a Cork project). Independent Ireland TDs Michael Fitzmaurice and Michael Collins argued this is “mad” and delays infrastructure like sewage schemes. Minister Kieran O’Donnell defended the 2024 Act’s measures against “spurious” submissions, noting increased funding for Uisce Éireann (Irish Water) to €2.2 billion in 2025 for better coordination. Opposition voices like Patrick Costello (Green Party) cautioned against scapegoating objectors, emphasizing systemic vacancies in planning.
• Broader Context: Political parties like Independent Ireland advocate ending serial objections to fix housing and infrastructure emergencies. Critics note objections have become a “legal industry,” with professionals exploiting the system. The National Development Plan (launched August 2025) commits €121 billion (about $216 billion) for 2026–2030, underscoring the urgency to overcome delays.

Comparison to Worldwide Measures

Ireland’s approach mirrors EU trends (e.g., REPowerEU’s presumptions for renewables) with fast-tracks and timed decisions, but emphasizes statutory declarations over outright appeal bans seen in the UK.

Like New Zealand’s Fast-track Approvals Act, it uses expert panels (via An Coimisiún Pleanála) and limits on standing, but retains more public participation than centralized systems in Korea or China. Compared to the US (e.g., FAST-41), Ireland faces fewer lawsuits but similar delays from JRs; its reforms aim for 6-12 month timelines, shorter than the US average of 4-7 years. Limitations include phased implementation potentially causing transitional delays, and debates over balancing democracy with efficiency—e.g., Sinn Féin warns of greater delays without urgency.

Overall, Ireland is shifting toward a more developer-friendly system, substantiated by evidence of serial objectors’ impacts, to deliver on public interest goals amid pressing needs.