The High Court has dismissed Philip Gaffney’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a planning permission for works at a concrete facility in Naul, County Meath. The court ruled that his earlier proceedings had been withdrawn and could not proceed unless reinstated; it found no exceptional circumstances to justify doing so.
The challenged permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála on appeal on 14 February 2024. Gaffney had tried to appeal the council’s permission to the board, but that appeal was declared invalid because he did not include the correct receipt for his council submission. The court said that failure meant he had not exhausted the available remedy.
Gaffney filed papers seeking leave on 28 March 2024. The matter was listed for 13 May, but he emailed the court on 7 May asking to withdraw, saying he felt overwhelmed and that his health was more important than the planning dispute. The judge said the court’s handling of the listing had contributed to delay and that it should not be attributed to Gaffney.
In January 2025, Gaffney asked to reactivate the application. At the hearing, he focused on the merits of the planning challenge rather than applying to reinstate the withdrawn proceedings. The judge said leave could not be granted unless the withdrawal was set aside, and found no basis to do that. Medical appointments in May 2024 and Gaffney’s later improvement in health did not justify reinstatement. The judge also cited substantial prejudice to the developer, Kilsaran Concrete Unlimited Company, noting that the permission had not been successfully challenged within time and had been acted upon.
The judgment records Gaffney’s claims that the underlying planning permission did not exist and that the board’s decision had not properly addressed issues including water, sewerage and planning records. The judge did not determine those substantive claims. The court also said it could not resolve a dispute about a copy of an earlier permission because the judge had not seen the document.
The application for leave to seek judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judge added that, in any event, the invalid appeal would have been a separate obstacle to judicial review. That conclusion was stated to be obiter because the court did not reach that stage.