The High Court has refused a farmer’s application to quash approval for a forestry project in Adoon, Gorvagh, Co Leitrim, finding that the decision-making authority gave him a reasonable opportunity to raise concerns after he learned of the proposal.
The case concerned consent granted to Caillin Curran to plant forestry on agricultural land near James McCaffrey’s home. McCaffrey said the narrow private road serving his house was unsuitable for forestry traffic and argued that the application’s publication only on the Department’s website had denied him a meaningful chance to participate in the statutory consultation.
The application, for afforestation of 9.33 hectares, was received in August 2015. It was published online, and the consultation period ran from 2 September to 2 October. The Department’s initial environmental screening did not result in a field investigation. After a separate objection from another person, a Forest Service inspector visited the site in November and later advised that some areas would be refused because of water table and drainage concerns.
McCaffrey said he first learned of the proposal at a meeting on 7 December 2015, after the consultation period had ended. The Department received an email on his behalf in January 2016, and told Curran to liaise with him. The inspector then gave McCaffrey details of where to send a written objection and put the application on hold. The Department contacted the local authority about the road and the inspector visited the site again on 4 February. He found no reason to refuse consent on access grounds. The authority did not provide a comment before the Department proceeded.
The Department approved the application, with conditions, on or about 1 March 2016. McCaffrey sought judicial review, arguing that the process breached the forestry regulations, European rules on public participation and constitutional fair procedures. The Department maintained that online publication met the regulations and that its later steps gave him an opportunity to make representations.
The court accepted that McCaffrey had missed the formal consultation window, but found that after he became aware of the pending application he had time and an invitation to submit concerns. It noted that, after his solicitor wrote on 26 January, no further objections or supporting engineering report were sent to the Department. The judge found that the Department’s additional steps—including pausing the decision, giving him a named contact and arranging a further site visit—provided reasonable fairness in the circumstances.
The court found no procedural unfairness, irrationality or breach of constitutional rights. It refused the requested relief, including certiorari. The judgment did not decide whether the forestry project was otherwise desirable on its merits.