Couple granted leave to challenge building of mobile phone mast in their village 

Kilkenny couple had first taken the case, against An Bord Pleanála and mast-applicants Eircom in November 2022, alleging the decision-making had been affected by 'bias'. File picture

A Kilkenny couple can challenge a decision for a telecommunications mast to be built in their village after the Court of Appeal ruled there was a “very strong public interest” in allowing the case to proceed.

Peter and Doreen Thomson, from Kells, Co Kilkenny, had their initial application for a judicial review of the decision, by An Bord Pleanála, to grant permission for the mobile phone mast dismissed in the High Court last summer, with the trial judge noting the case had been taken outside the statutory leave period of eight weeks.

However, Court of Appeal judge Brian O’Moore has concluded that, in denying the judicial review, trial judge Richard Humphreys “did not place sufficient weight on the public interest aspect” of the case.

The Thomsons had first taken the case, represented by planning solicitors FP Logue, against An Bord Pleanála and mast-applicants Eircom in November 2022, alleging the decision-making had been affected by “bias”.

The case had alleged the statistical probability that An Bord Pleanala’s former deputy chair Paul Hyde — one of nine board members at the time — would have been allocated 42 out of 49 mast applications by Eircom in less than two years was zero.

Mr Hyde approved the 15m-tall mast against the advice of his own planning inspector, Philippa Joyce, in June 2021.

In May 2022, the Irish Examiner first reported Mr Hyde had overruled his own planning inspectors’ recommendations for refusal of mast applications in 86% of cases over a 20-month period up to May 2022 — roughly eight times the average for such an occurrence.

In his ruling, Mr Justice O’Moore said the Thomsons could not have been expected to bring their judicial review application within the standard eight weeks as they “did not have the relevant information” — that is, the relevant statistics concerning Mr Hyde’s decisions on mast applications — to allow them to do so at the time.

Justice O’Moore said there was public interest in having a planning regime which complies “with basic concepts of integrity”.

He said it was “difficult to imagine a more serious form of allegations being made against a planning authority” than that brought by the Thomsons regarding the allocation of files to Mr Hyde and his then fellow board member Michelle Fagan.

"These very serious allegations about a systemic failure... will never be considered by a court should the Thomsons not be allowed to advance them,” he concluded.

The initial decision was overturned by a 2:1 majority of the appeal court judges, with the judicial review now expected to be heard once more in the High Court from next September.

Peter and Doreen Thomson could not be reached for comment.