The High Court has refused an applicant’s request for more time and leave to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a replacement telecommunications mast in Oranmore, County Galway.
The application concerned a board decision dated 16 August 2021. It approved removing an existing 15-metre support structure, 19 metres overall, and replacing it with a 24-metre structure, 25.5 metres overall, with antennas, dishes, equipment cabinets and fencing for wireless data and broadband services at Eir Exchange on Main Street.
Galway County Council had refused the developer’s application in February 2021 after its planner recommended refusal. The developer appealed. The applicant opposed the development in submissions, including one made to the board, and later sought judicial review.
The applicant said he had considered challenging the permission earlier but decided against doing so because of the costs risks. His case also relied on problems that emerged within the board after the permission decision. He said he learned in January 2023, through separate proceedings concerning telecommunications masts, that an extension of time might be possible. The judgment records that instructions to draft proceedings were given on 24 January 2023, and that he appeared to have been in contact with solicitors from around August 2022.
The proceedings were filed and opened in court on 8 March 2023. The High Court heard the application for leave on notice on 5 July and reserved judgment.
Justice Humphreys found there was no good and sufficient reason to extend time. Although not all information had been available when permission was granted, the judge said enough information was in the public domain by mid-2022 for a reasonably diligent applicant to raise the points later advanced. The applicant had not acted within eight weeks of that point. The judgment also said waiting for the outcome of official inquiries was a mistaken strategy given the strict time limits for planning judicial reviews.
Taking all the circumstances into account, the judge concluded that an extension had not been justified, particularly in light of the commercial context and prejudice to the developer. The court refused both the extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review. It directed that, unless the parties sought otherwise by written submission within seven days, the order would be perfected with no order as to costs.