Doyle v an Coimisiún Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 725
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000932]

In the Matter of Section 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Between

Shamsa Doyle

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

On Tower Ireland Limited

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 725

[H.JR.2024.0000932]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Wednesday the 17 ^th day of December 2025

1 . Telecoms masts are not specified in Annex I or II to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA directive) as being environmental impact assessment (EIA) projects. In the absence of any definition of “urban development”, the commission took the view that the mast in the present case fell outside that notion. The primary question here is whether the applicant has demonstrated an invalidity in that decision.

Geographical context

2 . The proposed development ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/317745) consists of a new 21 m monopole telecommunications support structure carrying antennas, dishes, associated equipment, ground-based equipment cabinets, fencing and all associated site development works for high-speed wireless data and broadband services. This is in the curtilage of a protected structure at Laytown Railway Station, Laytown, Ninch, Co. Meath.

Facts

3 . Meath County Council (the council) adopted its Development Plan 2021–2027 (the CDP) in September 2021, and it came into effect in November 2021. The zoning for Laytown is shown on the Laytown land use zoning map sheet 05.4a and heritage map 05.4b.

4 . On 3 March 2023, the notice party applied for permission to develop a mobile phone mast in the station car park of Laytown station. The application for permission contained an application form, cover letter, planning statement, landowner consent, newspaper notice, site notice, letter from Three Ireland confirming base stations comply with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, photomontages, radiofrequency (RF) technical justification report and drawings.

5 . On 3 March 2023, the council notified prescribed bodies of the application. Between 27 and 31 March 2023, Protect East Meath and Anthony Keenan made submissions. Between 4 and 24 April 2023, various council departments reported on the proposed development.

6 . On 26 April 2023, the council planner reported and decided further information was required. The council requested that information (a Natura impact statement (NIS) screening report).

7 . On 21 June 2023, the notice party submitted the report sought and on 29 June 2023, the council determined the report did not amount to significant further information and did not need to be circulated. On 11 July 2023, the council's planner reported his views of the proposed development and on 18 July 2023, the council gave its decision.

8 . On 8 August 2023, Protect East Meath appealed that decision, and on 10 August 2023, the commission acknowledged the appeal. On 23 August 2023, the council submitted its planner's report on the appeal. On 24 August 2023, the commission requested a copy of the council's conservation officer's report.

9 . Between 27 and 31 August 2023, submissions were made on the appeal by Peadar Laighléis, the applicant, Laytown Mast Action Group (signed by the applicant), Meath County Council, Brian and Teresa Stack, and FP Logue on behalf of Protect East Meath.

10 . On 5 September 2023, the notice party replied to the appeal (by document dated 2 September 2023), and its reply was accompanied by photomontages and revised photomontages, revised and original drawings, updated technical justification and cultural heritage report of Courtney Deerie.

11 . The revised drawings reduced the height of the structure to 21 metres.

12 . On 12 September 2023, the commission sent a letter inviting further submissions and submissions were made between 23 September and 2 October 2023 by Colin Blake, Protect East Meath Ltd, the applicant, Peadar Laighléis, Laytown Mast Action Group (attaching report by Anú Heritage (Caroline Kearns Gethings)), and by Brian and Teresa Stack.

13 . The commission appointed a planning inspector to prepare a report on the third-party appeal. The inspector's report, dated 5 January 2024, records that the inspector carried out a site inspection on 14 December 2023 and recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

14 . On 26 April 2024, the commission held a meeting (BM-004022–24) in respect of the appeal.

15 . The commission direction (BD-016368–24) dated 21 May 2024 records that the commission considered the appeal and the inspector's report and decided to grant permission generally in accordance with the inspector's recommendation.

16 . By order of the commission dated 28 May 2024 (ABP-317745–23), the commission granted permission subject to eight conditions.

Procedural history

17 . The proceedings were issued on 19 July 2024.

18 . The matter was first listed on 29 July 2024 before Holland J., and adjourned to 9 September 2024.

19 . On 9 September 2024, leave was granted with liberty to file an amended statement of grounds.

20 . The applicant issued its motion for judicial review on 18 September 2024, returnable before the court on 14 October 2024.

21 . The commission sought to have a number of cases relating to mobile phone mast developments determined as test cases for a series of grounds that were emerging in similar cases, and ultimately following directions from the court, the applicant and commission agreed that this matter would be one of those cases. The case was listed for this purpose on 30 June 2025, and was given a date for hearing on 19 November 2025.

22 . Thereafter the commission filed its opposition papers on 22 September 2025, and the notice party did likewise on 30 September 2025.

23 . The applicant served replying affidavits by herself, Kent Chamberlin and Caroline Kearns Gethings (unsworn) on 21 October 2025, and filed them (sworn) on 30 October 2025, with the exception of the affidavit of Kent Chamberlin which was filed on 10 November 2025. There is a dispute about the additional affidavits filed by and on behalf of the applicant (see below).

24 . The notice party filed a replying affidavit of Mark Perrem on 31 October 2025.

25 . Also on 31 October 2025, the applicant served its written submissions.

26 . The commission objected to the applicant's additional affidavits which were one week later than the two weeks after the notice party's papers provided for in directions, and requested that the applicant seek leave to file them.

27 . The matter was called over on 3 November 2025, and the applicant duly sought leave to file the supplemental affidavits, to which the commission objected. The applicant also applied for liberty to cross-examine in respect of the affidavits – the commission and notice party also objected to that. I granted liberty to file and issue a motion to cross-examine returnable to the trial, both de bene esse and without prejudice to any objection the commission and notice party might raise at that time. In fact the applicant did not issue such a motion.

28 . The applicant served its written submissions on 30 October 2025.

29 . The commission served its written submissions on 14 November 2025.

30 . The notice party served its written submissions on 17 November 2025.

31 . The matter was then heard on 19 November 2025. Judgment was reserved at the end of that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of the lawyers involved for their unfailingly courteous, professional and helpful assistance. As I have previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points advanced are not being accepted in this or any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the inherent merits of such points and is no reflection on those instructed to convey such points, a distinction that most certainly should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all concerned.

32 . On 4 December 2025, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with whatever content it considers appropriate.

33 . Any comments must be emailed to the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to ShareFile in writing before the mention date specified, and should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be disregarded) but are confined to matters such as:

• (a) informing the court as to whether a formal judgment is required, and if so on what issues;

• (b) informing the court as to whether a judgment might be oral or written or partly in both modes;

• (c) any typographical, factual or legal errors in the decision;

• (d) any redaction of personal information that the party wishes to request;

• (e) in the event that the court proposes to place pivotal reliance on any authority or material not previously adverted to, as opposed to where such material merely reinforces a point that the court was making in any event, any comment as to why such material should not lead to the proposed conclusion; identifying points that the court proposes to address but that the parties consider it unnecessary to address;

• (f) requesting the court to decide a point that, while unnecessary to decide, is one the party considers could beneficially be decided;

• (g) identifying significant procedural, factual or legal points that the party considers that the court was required to address...