The High Court has refused Timothy Frawley and Annabel Meehan Frawley an extension of time to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a telecommunications mast at Ballymanus Lower, Glenealy, County Wicklow. The court also refused leave to bring judicial review and rejected an amendment to their proposed grounds.
Wicklow County Council refused the application in July 2021 after an assistant planner reported negative visual impacts, including on a residential area and St Joseph’s Church. On appeal, the Board granted permission on 8 February 2022, despite its inspector recommending refusal.
The Frawleys sought to challenge the Board’s decision. Their proposed grounds included alleged bias, alleged failures to comply with the Board’s code of conduct, and claims concerning planning policy and the identity of the applicant for permission. These were claims advanced by the applicants; the court did not determine them on their merits.
The applicants said they delayed proceedings partly because of the costs risk and their understanding, based on public statements by the housing minister, that existing planning decisions might be reconsidered after reviews into the Board. They also relied on information about the Board’s handling of telecommunications mast cases and said they learned in January 2023 that an extension of time might be possible.
Justice Humphreys held that the minister’s comments did not provide a basis to extend time. The applicants had known by around April 2022 of alleged financial difficulties involving former deputy chairperson Paul Hyde and of anomalies in mast decision-making. The statutory eight-week period had already expired before the minister’s August 2022 interview, the judge said. The commercial interests of notice party Towercom were also critical to the decision.
The court refused an extension of time for the first three core grounds. It also refused the related planning-policy ground, the procedural grounds concerning costs protection and a stay, and leave to pursue the judicial review. The judge found no substantial grounds for the proposed amendment alleging that the permission application was invalid because it did not correctly identify the applicant. The judgment said the asserted potential significance of that issue was hypothetical and speculative on the evidence before the court.
The order refused the amendment, the extension of time and leave to seek judicial review. Unless a party applies otherwise by written legal submission within seven days, the order is to be perfected on the basis of no order as to costs.