The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Clonres CLG seeking to have the St Paul’s site in Raheny designated as a special protection area (SPA), finding that the case was brought outside the applicable time limit.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled on 16 July 2020 that the plenary proceedings were, in substance, a judicial review challenge to the Minister’s failure to designate the lands. He held that the three-month limit in Order 84, rule 21 applied, although the case had not been issued in judicial review form.
Clonres sought a declaration that the Minister was required to designate the site under the EU Birds Directive, or an injunction compelling her to do so. The residents’ group said the lands were used as feeding grounds by brent geese and black-tailed godwit. The Minister had designated several nearby areas as SPAs in 2009 and 2010, including North Bull Island, about 1.2 kilometres away, but not the St Paul’s site.
The judge concluded that the grounds for challenging the non-designation first arose in 2009 or 2010, when nearby sites were designated. Clonres issued the present proceedings in April 2019. The court also considered the Minister’s August 2018 letter refusing a request to designate the site. Even if that refusal were treated as the relevant decision, the proceedings came too late, the judge said.
Clonres argued that the Minister had a continuing obligation to designate sites and that the time limit should not apply. The court rejected that argument. It also rejected Clonres’s submissions that environmental and EU law issues, the Aarhus Convention, or an alleged failure to transpose EU directives displaced the time limit.
The group sought an extension, citing meetings and political engagement after the August 2018 refusal. The court found that this did not provide a good and sufficient reason for the delay or show that the circumstances were outside Clonres’s control. It also found that extending time would prejudice Crekav Trading GP Limited, the site’s owner, which had invested in the lands and sought housing development there.
The court granted the State defendants’ motion and struck out the proceedings against them. It refused Clonres’s application to amend its pleadings and extend time. The judge said the parties would be heard on the precise form of the orders and any other matters arising from the judgment.