By Ruth Mercer
The High Court has refused to hear a County Westmeath man's challenge to a council plan for three apartments beside his home after the statutory route used for the proposed development expired before construction began.
Joe O'Meara sought judicial review of Westmeath County Council's December 2023 decision to develop neighbouring council-owned property into three apartments.
The council had relied on section 179A of the Planning and Development Act 2000. That provision allowed qualifying local-authority housing projects to proceed without the usual Part 8 public consultation process. O'Meara also sought to challenge section 179A itself as unconstitutional and incompatible with EU law because it did not provide for public participation.
However, section 179A applied only where development commenced by December 31, 2024. The council had not begun the project by that date and accepted that the 2023 decision could no longer be used to carry it out.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell therefore held that O'Meara's application for leave to seek judicial review had become moot. An order quashing the 2023 decision could no longer produce a practical benefit because that decision had already lost its legal effect.
The judge also declined to determine the broader constitutional and EU-law challenge. Although similar provisions appear in section 161 of the Planning and Development Act 2024, that section had not yet commenced. Any effect on O'Meara would depend on a future commencement of the provision and a separate decision by the council to use it for the adjoining site.
The court said there was no evidential basis to assume those events would occur. The council could instead pursue a Part 8 process, which includes public consultation.
The ruling therefore settles only whether O'Meara's existing case should continue: it should not. It does not decide whether section 179A was constitutionally valid or compatible with EU law, nor whether a similar future provision could lawfully omit public consultation.
Leave to seek judicial review was refused because the proceedings were moot and O'Meara consequently lacked a sufficient continuing interest in the challenged decision.