The High Court has refused Galina Heaney’s application to challenge planning permission for works at a farm in Moyasta, near Kilrush, after finding that her judicial review application was made five days outside the statutory time limit. The court said it had no jurisdiction to extend the deadline because the required grounds had not been established.
An Bord Pleanála granted John Galvin permission in September 2018 to retain an existing cattle crush and concrete plinths and to build an extension to a livestock slatted house for calf pens, with associated site works. The permission related to his farm at Moyasta, Kilrush, Co Clare.
Heaney argued that the Board’s inspector had applied the wrong test when screening whether an appropriate assessment was needed for effects on nearby European nature sites. The Board said the inspector had applied the correct legal test when considering the material and site visit, and argued that the challenge was an impermissible appeal on the merits. Those arguments were not determined in this judgment.
The Board also objected that Heaney’s case was out of time. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, the court said, the eight-week period runs from the date the planning decision is made, rather than when the affected person learns of it. It also ruled that time stops when the application for leave to seek judicial review is first moved in court, rather than when papers are lodged.
The Board made its order on 27 September 2018. Its notification was posted to Heaney’s consulting engineer the following day and received on 1 October. Heaney lodged her papers at the High Court on 22 November and moved her application on 26 November. The court treated 26 November as the operative date and found the application was five days late.
Heaney relied on the delay in receiving notice and said she had been acting as a lay litigant. The judge acknowledged sympathy for her, but found she had not explained why she failed to apply within the eight weeks or shown that the circumstances causing the delay were outside her control. Notice had reached her engineer well before the deadline, and the court said ignorance of the time limit or of when time stopped running was not sufficient reason for an extension.
The court refused the relief sought in Heaney’s amended notice of motion. It left the final order and any ancillary matters for written submissions, which the parties were given 14 days from receipt of the judgment to provide.