A plan to build a £2.5 million fish-processing plant in Co Donegal's Fanad peninsula has been challenged in the High Court.
Mr Justice Quirke was asked yesterday to quash a decision by Donegal County Council on July 30th, 1998, to extend for one more year the life of planning permission for the plant and ancillary works on lands at Rinmore Point, Fanad.
Mr Tony Lowes, a member of An Taisce's governing body, is seeking the order in judicial review proceedings against the council. The company planning to build the plant, Bradan (Maoil Rua) Teoranta, is a notice party in the proceedings and is represented in court.
The council claims Mr Lowes is not entitled to the relief sought and says it acted in a bona-fide manner in determining the company's application.
In an affidavit, Mr Lowes, of Allihies, Co Cork, stated the land in the area of the proposed development was designated a proposed Natural Heritage Area and was a candidate Special Area of Conservation.
An application for planning permission to build a fish-processing plant was granted on November 14th, 1992, but the decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanala by a number of parties. An oral hearing took place. An Bord Pleanala assented on June 18th, 1993.
The designation of the area as a proposed Natural Heritage Area and a candidate Special Area of Conservation was made after planning permission was given.
Mr Lowes said the planning permission issued on June 18th, 1993, had expired on June 18th, 1998. The project could be carried out only if either new planning permission was granted or if the original Bord Pleanala decision was extended.
On June 8th, 1998, the company started work, notwithstanding there was essentially only a week to go until planning permission expired.
He became alarmed on June 18th, 1998, when the firm continued to carry out work. The council took no action. He obtained an interim injunction on June 26th, 1998, stopping work.
In an affidavit, the Donegal assistant county manager, Mr Liam Kelly, said he was satisfied the company involved had complied with planning legislation.
He referred to a letter from the company's managing director, dated in April 1998, saying why the development did not proceed until that year, and saying he intended to carry out the development on foot of the planning permission.
While work may have started within a matter of weeks of the expiration of the permission, he was advised this of itself was not a bar to the extension of the life of such a permission.
The hearing is continuing.