The High Court has refused Michael Duffy leave to challenge Clare County Council’s 2020 grant of planning permission for a motorway service station and rest area near junction 12 of the M18, but granted leave in part for his challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s later approval.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2023, Mr Justice Humphreys ruled that Duffy could not pursue the council in the 2021 proceedings. He said the alleged flaws in the council’s appropriate assessment did not make its decision a nullity or justify bypassing the administrative appeal process. The board appeal involved a de novo reconsideration, the judge said, so the assessment issue could be revisited there. The board had by then decided the appeal.
Duffy had argued that assessments of the development’s effects on European sites were deficient, including over wastewater capacity and the proposed connection to the municipal sewer. He also contended that the project was being split because separate Irish Water infrastructure would be needed. These were the applicant’s claims; the judgment at this stage did not determine the substantive merits of his challenge to the board’s decision.
The board granted permission for the development on 21 October 2022. Duffy’s 2022 judicial review challenged that decision. The board did not contest leave at the July hearing. The judge ordered that leave be granted in part and refused in part, requiring Duffy to file amended grounds within two weeks. The judgment directed that claims against the council and certain grounds concerning the council’s first-instance decision be removed or reformulated. The council was struck out as a respondent in the 2022 case and made a notice party.
The court made no order on the council’s motion to strike out the 2021 proceedings as moot. It also directed that an originating notice of motion be issued within a further two weeks, returnable for 9 October 2022. Unless a party applied otherwise by written submission within seven days, the order was to be perfected with no order as to costs.
The ruling concerned applications for leave to seek judicial review. It did not quash or uphold the board’s planning permission, and the court made no final determination of the remaining challenge.