The High Court has given the go-ahead for a challenge to proceed against An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant businessman and Supermac’s boss Pat McDonagh permission to construct a motorway service station near Ennis in Co Clare.
In a written judgment Mr Justice Richard Humphrey’s said he was prepared to grant Co Clare-based engineer Michael Duffy leave to seek to overturn the 2022 decision to grant permission for the development of the service station and rest area off the M18 motorway at Kilbreckan, Doora.
Clare County Council had given the proposed multimillion development the green light in 2020.
That decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála which, in October 2022, upheld the permission.
The judge said the court was only prepared to grant “partial leave” and said the grounds of his challenge would have to be amended and served in the next few weeks.
Mr Duffy, from Kilfenora, has brought the challenge on grounds that the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the local environment.
Mr Duffy claims there is no evidence the board carried out an EU-required “appropriate assessment” to remove all reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed development will not adversely affect any nearby environmentally protected sites.
He further submits that the board did not conduct any appropriate assessments to determine that wastewater from the proposed development would not affect any designated special areas of conservation.
The judge refused to grant leave on several other grounds raised by Mr Duffy.
The court also ruled that Clare County Council should be a notice party, rather than a respondent, in Mr Duffy’s action.
Mr McDonagh, who argued the challenge should not be allowed to proceed, is also a notice party to the action.
The judge also dismissed an earlier set of judicial review proceedings, brought by Mr Duffy in 2021, seeking to challenge Clare County Council’s decision to grant permission for the proposed development.
The appeal against the council’s decision to grant permission had been effectively decided by the board, the judge held, adding that the applicant’s claim against the local authority was “misconceived”.
The matter will return before the court at a later date.
