New limits on the legal costs that can be recouped by groups and individuals taking judicial reviews on environmental grounds against public bodies come into effect on Monday. The move is part of a wider initiative to speed up the delivery of water, transport and electricity for housing, industry and infrastructure projects.The aim of the new rules is to bring more certainty to the State’s exposure in cases brought under the 1998 Aarhus Convention which requires that access to justice in environmental matters should not be prohibitively expensive. This has meant that, up to now, the State has paid the full cost of any successful judicial review of a planning decision. The changes will put a limit on the costs that a successful applicant can recoup from the State, raising the prospect that successful plaintiffs may not recover their full legal costs. The exact amount that is recoverable will depend on the complexity of the case. It is patently obvious – even through the Government has tried to elide the point – that the net effect of the new measures will be to discourage environmental activists and others from taking judicial reviews. The rules will “focus the minds of applicants,” in the words of the Minster for Justice, Jim O’Callaghan. This should in theory ease the path of some of the big infrastructure and housing projects in the pipeline. The legal profession – in the form of the Bar Council and Law Society – has been quick to criticise the changes on the basis that they amount to a significant barrier to access to justice. There is a certain disingenuousness in their argument. The change will obviously curtail what has a been a source of lucrative work for their members in recent years.Judicial reviews do not concern themselves with the correctness or otherwise of a planning decision. They focus on whether the deciding body correctly followed the relevant laws and its own processes. What was once a rarely used legal procedure has been weaponised into a legal last resort when all other routes for objecting to a planning decision have been exhausted. We have long passed the point where judicial review legislation was being used solely for its intended purpose and a reset was warranted. Whether the Government’s carefully framed approach withstands the inevitable legal challenges and proves effective remains to be seen.The State faces an once in a generation challenge to meet housing demand and upgrade transport and other infrastructure to meet the needs of its growing population. The argument that the wider public interest justifies putting some limits on the ability of people to object to these projects is a strong one. It also puts the onus on the State and planners to get things right in planning and approving key projects.