The High Court refused Olivia Reidy an extension of time to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a house in Camolin, County Wexford. It also refused her leave to bring judicial review proceedings. The court did not decide whether the planning decision was invalid or should be quashed.
The Board refused permission on 14 February 2018, agreeing with an inspector’s assessment that the application did not establish a locally based social or economic need for a house in an area designated for strong rural protection and under strong urban influence. The statutory eight-week period to seek judicial review expired on 10 April 2018.
Reidy, who represented herself, filed her first statement of grounds and affidavit on 24 January 2019. She said her infant son had significant health difficulties and that she had been unaware of judicial review until the Board sent her information in December 2018, after she asked about the decision. She also relied on her need to live near her parents, who helped care for her son, and on her father’s account of her involvement in forestry work.
The court accepted that her son’s health problems gave a good and sufficient reason, outside her control, for not acting during the initial eight-week period. Based on the medical letter before it, the court considered that reason could extend to the end of June 2018. But it found no adequate explanation for why she could not start proceedings before 24 January 2019, the earliest date it treated as potentially stopping the clock. If the relevant date had instead been when she moved her leave application in court or served her motion, the delay would have been longer; the court did not decide which date was legally controlling.
The court also rejected lack of knowledge of judicial review as a basis to extend time. An Bord Pleanála’s evidence was that its standard notice about judicial review had been sent with its decision notification in February 2018. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that Reidy had been informed then and that information was also available on the Board’s website. The court said it was not satisfied the Board had a legal duty to provide that information.
Because the extension was refused, the court did not assess whether Reidy had substantial grounds to challenge the Board’s decision. It noted that she could make a fresh planning application, supported by updated evidence, and potentially bring a timely judicial review if a new application were refused.