The High Court has refused leave to appeal its earlier decision upholding planning permission for a telecommunications mast intended to improve broadband and network coverage in the Laytown area.
Mr Justice Humphreys delivered the ruling on 1 April 2026 after applicant Shamsa Doyle sought to take three proposed legal questions arising from the planning case to an appellate court.
The underlying permission had been granted to On Tower Limited and was unsuccessfully challenged in judicial review proceedings. The principal High Court judgment of 17 December 2025 dismissed the challenge.
Doyle's appeal application focused mainly on whether a single telecommunications mast could fall within the concept of "urban development" under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. She also raised a question about the requirements for displaying a planning site notice where the development site does not adjoin a public road.
The court rejected the proposed appeal points. Mr Justice Humphreys held that the EIA Directive applies to listed categories of projects and does not specifically list standalone telecoms masts. He said "urban development" concerns development of an area as an urban area, rather than every development which happens to be located in an urban setting.
The judge found that the applicant's proposed questions either mischaracterised the earlier judgment, depended on application of settled law to the particular facts, or lacked the factual foundation necessary to affect the result.
On the site-notice issue, the court held that the applicant had not proved that the development land adjoined a public road so as to engage the more stringent notice requirement. The alternative rule for land not adjoining a public road had been complied with.
The judge also considered further litigation contrary to the public interest because of planning finality, delay to telecommunications infrastructure and financial prejudice to the developer.
Leave to appeal was dismissed. No order for costs was made unless the Supreme Court subsequently grants a leapfrog appeal.