The Court of Appeal has allowed Peter and Doreen Thomson’s appeal against an order setting aside an extension of time for their judicial review challenge to planning permission for an Eircom telecommunications mast near their home in Kilkenny.
The court held that the public interest in examining the Thomsons’ claims about An Bord Pleanála’s handling of Eircom mast appeals provided good and sufficient reason to extend time up to the date their proceedings were issued. It did not rule on the underlying allegations or determine which of the proposed grounds the Thomsons will be permitted to pursue. Those matters, along with costs, were left for a further hearing.
Kilkenny County Council initially refused Eircom’s application. An Bord Pleanála later granted permission on 17 June 2021, despite its inspector recommending refusal. The Thomsons seek to challenge that decision. Their proposed grounds include alleged bias, breaches of the Board’s code of conduct, a claim concerning former Board member Paul Hyde, and alleged errors in applying planning rules and ministerial guidelines.
The appeal concerned the deadline for bringing the challenge, not the validity of the planning permission. The statutory period was eight weeks. The Thomsons sought an extension of 531 days. The High Court had found that they had, or should have had, enough information to bring the proceedings by mid-August 2022, but had not shown good and sufficient reason for an extension.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the Thomsons’ evidence did not displace the High Court’s findings about when they had sufficient information. It also noted that news of Hyde’s expected prosecution prompted them to instruct solicitors on 10 October 2022, and that the prosecution concerned matters unrelated to this case. The court nevertheless considered the proposed challenge strong on the material before it, while stressing that it was not deciding the merits at this stage.
The judgment described the Thomsons’ evidence as raising serious questions about the reported allocation of Eircom mast appeals to Hyde and another Board member, and about appeal outcomes and departures from inspectors’ recommendations. These remain allegations to be examined if the proceedings go further. The court expressly said that corruption was not alleged.
The court weighed the public interest in scrutiny of the Board against the statutory interest in certainty for planning permissions and the potential prejudice to Eircom. Eircom had not participated in the proceedings or submitted evidence detailing the specific prejudice it would face. The court concluded that the public interest justified the extension despite the long delay.
The appeal was allowed. The court proposed listing it for mention on 31 July 2024 to address outstanding matters, including the permitted grounds and costs. The judgment does not state the outcome of that further hearing.