The High Court has refused a Romanian company’s application to extend the time to challenge Mayo County Council’s declaration that underground cabling for a proposed wind farm was exempted development. The ruling decided only the time extension application; it did not determine the merits of the company’s proposed judicial review or whether Aeolus Wind Farms could enter the land to carry out works.
The council made the declaration on 6 June 2017. The works were intended to link the Glenree substation in County Mayo with a proposed substation for Aeolus’s Bunnyconnellan wind farm. A portion of the route crossed land later bought by SC Sym Fotovoltaic Energy SRL from Aeropower Wind Energy Ltd. The company completed its purchase on 18 July 2017.
The statutory deadline to seek leave for judicial review was eight weeks from the decision, expiring on 31 July. The company said it first learned of the declaration on 2 August, after a planning consultant visited the council’s offices. It argued that the council had not notified the previous landowner and that it needed the full planning file before bringing its challenge.
The council and Aeolus opposed an extension. They argued that a proper planning search at the time of purchase would have revealed the declaration, and that the company had enough information to act after its consultant inspected the file. The company’s grounds for challenging the declaration included claims that the cabling was part of a project requiring environmental impact assessment, that affected landowners were denied fair procedures, and that the council gave inadequate reasons. Those claims were not decided at this hearing.
Justice David Barniville found that the company had not shown that the circumstances causing it to miss the deadline were outside its control. He accepted evidence that proper conveyancing practice called for an in-person search of the council’s register and that the relevant declaration and file were available for inspection there. He concluded that the company could have obtained enough information to decide whether to bring proceedings within the deadline.
The judge also considered whether there was “good and sufficient” reason to extend time and found that there was not. He said the company had enough information by 2 August to assess and bring its proposed challenge, and was not persuaded that further delay was justified by correspondence, engaging another planning consultant or waiting for material requested under freedom of information law. He also found that an extension would likely cause some prejudice to Aeolus, whose grid connection works were nearly complete when the company intervened.
The court refused the extension under section 50(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The substantive judicial review was not determined by this ruling. The judge also stated that failure of the challenge would make the council’s declaration immune from challenge, but would not itself establish Aeolus’s right to enter the land.