Supreme Court to decide if challenge to mast decision should be heard after filing deadline

Following that ruling last August, An Bord Pleanála was granted leave to appeal the decision to the State’s highest court

At the Supreme Court on Thursday, the senior counsel for An Bord Pleanála, Aoife Carroll, argued that the period of time sought by Mr Thomson to take his judicial review was 'far too extensive'.

The State has argued that a challenge to a mobile mast planning decision, delivered by the criminally convicted former deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála, should not be heard as it was not filed in time.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments as to whether or not Peter Thomson’s objection to the construction of a mobile mast adjacent to his home should be allowed, after the Court of Appeal said there was “a very strong public interest” in allowing the case to proceed.