A High Court judge has directed the dismissal of a judicial review challenge to planning permission for the continued operation of a limestone quarry, finding that the case sought to challenge an earlier planning decision after the statutory time limit had expired.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment on 15 January 2024 in proceedings brought by John Gardiner against Mayo County Council. BP Mitchell Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd, trading as Killala Rock, was the notice party and beneficiary of the permission.
Mayo County Council decided to grant permission on 11 January 2023. Gardiner, who lives adjacent to the quarry, had objected to the application and then attempted to appeal the council’s decision. An Bord Pleanála rejected the appeal as invalid because it lacked the required proof that he had made an objection at first instance. The council issued the formal grant on 14 February 2023. Gardiner began judicial review proceedings on 8 April 2023—within eight weeks of the grant, but more than eight weeks after the council’s decision.
The quarry operator sought to have the proceedings dismissed, arguing that the challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier decision. Gardiner argued that he had challenged the later formal grant within the applicable eight-week period.
The judge explained that the council’s formal grant implements its earlier decision and cannot change its terms or conditions. The pleaded grounds alleged that the operator should have been refused permission because of alleged previous unauthorised development, and that the council had failed to follow fair procedures by not inviting submissions on further information. The judgment treated those grounds as challenges to the validity of the January decision, rather than alleged errors in transferring that decision into the formal grant.
The judge held that a challenge to the grant could proceed on a narrow basis, such as if the council added a condition that was absent from its decision. But the grounds in this case could not succeed without a finding that the earlier decision was invalid. As no extension of time had been sought, the proceedings were inadmissible by reason of delay and had to be dismissed.
The judgment did not make a final costs order. The judge’s provisional view was that each party should bear its own costs, under the special costs rules for planning cases. The parties were to return on 25 January 2024 for submissions on costs and final orders.