The Court of Appeal has dismissed James McCaffrey’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to quash ministerial consent for a forestry development on land owned by Caillan Curran at Adoon, Gorvagh, Co. Leitrim.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, giving judgment on behalf of the court, said publication of the application on the Minister’s website had not provided effective notice to people potentially affected by the proposal. The application appeared among hundreds of similar entries, and the court concluded that the procedures under the 2010 Regulations were ineffective to notify Mr McCaffrey before the public consultation period closed on 2 October 2015.
Mr McCaffrey owns about 23 acres in the area and his family home is reached by a narrow private road that also provides access to Mr Curran’s land. Mr Curran applied in August 2015 to plant forestry on about 9.33 hectares. His application was advertised on the Minister’s website for a month. The Minister initially approved a technical application in October, then approved a change in proposed species in December. After an objection by another person, a forestry inspector visited the site and said some portions would be refused because of water table and drainage issues.
Mr McCaffrey raised concerns about the access road in December 2015 and, through a representative and solicitors, made further representations in January 2016. The Minister then arranged a further site inspection and sought the local authority’s view on the road. The local authority engineer said the final 200 metres were not in the council’s charge and recommended smaller vehicles carry timber to a regional road.
The Minister’s approval letter, received on 2 March 2016, referred to Mr McCaffrey’s correspondence and imposed conditions including a 60-metre setback from buildings and a 10-metre road setback, with five rows of broadleaf trees between conifers and the road buffer. The Court of Appeal said the Minister’s follow-up consideration was thorough and meaningful, though delayed and imperfect. It also noted that no engineering report on the road’s suitability had been provided.
The court said the original notice process was inadequate and the later process had blemishes, including that it was not made clear whether an engineering report would still be considered. But it held that the Minister had addressed the substance of Mr McCaffrey’s concerns and that quashing the consent would be unfair to Mr Curran, whose plans had been delayed by proceedings. In these particular circumstances, the High Court was entitled to refuse certiorari on discretionary grounds. The appeal was dismissed; the forestry approval remained in place.