Foran v an Bord Pleanála and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice David Holland
• Judgment Date: 25 March 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 175
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2024/1448 JR

Between:

Shane Foran

Applicant

and

An Bord Pleanála, The Minister for Transport, The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

and

Galway City Council

and

The National Transport Authority

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 175

Record Number: 2024/1448 JR

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Time limits – Extension of time – Applicant seeking leave to seek judicial review – Whether an extension of time should be granted

Facts: The applicant, Mr Foran, sought, primarily, certiorari of the decision of the first respondent, An Bord Pleanála (the Board), to approve, under s. 51 of the Roads Act 1993, Galway City Council’s proposed road development consisting of the “Bus Connects Galway Cross-City Link Scheme, University Road to Dublin Road and associated roads works and road realignments” (the Scheme). Mr Foran considered that Scheme substantively and legally deficient in its provision for cycling. A substantive question arose as to whether Mr Foran should have leave to seek judicial review of, and certiorari quashing, the Galway Transport Strategy 2016 (the GTS), adopted in 2016 by the notice parties, Galway City Council and the National Transport Authority, and Galway County Council. Mr Foran considered the GTS misconceived as to its merit and as to its consistency with various other policies as they related to catering for cycling traffic in Galway city. The following issues arose: whether the challenge to the GTS was out of time; and, if so, whether an extension of time should be granted.

Held by Holland J that Mr Foran had given as his specific reason for seeking, 9 years after its publication, to quash the GTS that he anticipated that the respondents, the Board, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland and the Attorney General, would rely on the GTS in resisting his challenge to the impugned decision of the Board; in reaction to that anticipation he sought to quash the GTS as a step towards quashing the Roads Act approval. Accordingly, Holland J held that this was a case to which the principle stated in §201 of North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 300 applied and the time limit within which s. 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 required a leave application in respect of the GTS was eight weeks from the publication of the impugned Roads Act approval decision on 16 October 2024; that 8-week period expired on 11 December 2024. Holland J held that, assuming in Mr Foran’s favour and without so finding that his circulation of the draft statement of grounds on 15 December 2024 stopped time running against him, he was nonetheless out of time - too late by reference to the 8-week time limit. As to Mr Foran’s invocation of the primacy of EU law, Holland J observed that time limits for commencement of judicial review of impugned decisions based on or challenged by reference to principles EU law have been held to comply with the EU law effective remedy principles of equivalence and effectiveness, citing Carrownagowan Concern Group and Ors v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IECA 234. On a holistic view of the circumstances, he did not find good and sufficient reason within the meaning of s. 50(8) of the 2000 Act to extend time - nor did he find that the interests of justice required that he do so.

Holland J refused Mr Foran leave to seek judicial review of the GTS.

Leave refused.

EX TEMPORE RULING OF Mr Justice David Holland DELIVERED ORALLY ON 25 MARCH 2025

Contents

EX TEMPORE RULING OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND DELIVERED ORALLY ON 25 MARCH 2025	1
INTRODUCTION	2
Claim to Quash GTS & Core Ground 9	4
Claim to Quash t GTS for breach of or non-compliance with 2023 European Declaration on Cycling	5
GTS & Its Implementation	5
Issues & Submissions	6
WHETHER THE CHALLENGE TO THE GTS IS OUT OF TIME?	6
Does any Time Limit Apply?	6
Which Time Limit Applies? – O.84 (3-month) or S.50 PDA 2000 (8wks) & is the Amendment out of Time?	8
O.84 R.21 RSC	9
S.50(2) & (6) PDA 2000	9
North East Pylon	9
Extension of Time?	10
S.50(8) PDA	10
Interests of Justice/Good & Sufficient Reason to Extend Time	12
RESULT	14

INTRODUCTION

1 The Applicant (“Mr Foran”) is a long-time advocate and activist for cycling in the city of Galway. He is, at very least, one of the moving spirits behind the Galway Cycling Campaign. He appears in person and he presented his position in the application on which I am about to rule with ability and courtesy, for which I am grateful. Mr Foran seeks, primarily, certiorari of the decision of the Board made on 27 September 2024 and published on 16 October 2024 to approve, under s.51 of the Roads Act 1993, Galway City Council's proposed road development consisting of the “BusConnects Galway Cross-City Link Scheme, University Road to Dublin Road and associated roads works and road realignments” (the “Scheme”). Mr Foran considers that Scheme substantively, and more to the point legally, deficient in its provision for cycling.

2 The substantive question which arises at this point is whether Mr Foran should have leave to seek judicial review of and certiorari quashing the Galway Transport Strategy 2016 (“the GTS”). The GTS was adopted in 2016 by the notice parties and also Galway County Council. Mr Foran clearly and ever since its adoption considers the GTS misconceived as to its merit and consistency with various other policies as they relate to catering for cycling traffic in Galway city – he has articulated these views in some detail in these proceedings.

3 The proceedings issued on 20 November 2024 by way of application of leave to seek judicial review. The original Statement of Grounds mentioned the GTS only in passing and did not seek any relief in relation to it. On 9 December 2024 the Court directed that the leave application be heard on notice and gave liberty to file an amended Statement of Grounds in the form Scheduled to the Order. As is the norm in such ex parte orders permitting the filing of an amended Statement of Grounds, it was made explicitly without prejudice to any points which other parties might take as to the amendments. The amended Statement of Grounds in the form Scheduled to the Order of 9 December 2024 caused me quite a bit of confusion as it is indorsed as follows:

“Amended the 28th day of November 2024 pursuant to order of Mr. Justice Humphreys dated the 25th day of November 2024.”

In fact, as far as my investigations reveal, while the matter was before Humphreys J on 25 November 2024, he made no order on that day. Notwithstanding the contrary indication in the indorsement I have just described, his order permitting the filing of an amended statement of grounds, was made on 9 December 2024 not 25 November 2024. And on foot of that order the amended Statement of Grounds was filed and delivered on 9 December 2024.

4 That amended Statement of Grounds filed and delivered on 9 December 2024 did contain new content as to the GTS:

The amended Statement of Grounds filed and delivered on 9 December 2024 did not:

• • §§39 & 40 cited the GTS as evidence that the Notice Parties were “operating in apparent avoidance of both state and European policy on sustainable transport and, in some cases, in objective opposition to those policies and in apparent opposition to reports and guidance, both national and local, on how those sustainable transport policies should be implemented.”

• • §§50, 51 & 52 asserted that Appendix F of the GTS, as to the proposed city cycling network:

  • ○ did not mention the public bike share scheme which was already operational,

  • ○ excluded existing operational public bike stations,

  • ○ failed to acknowledge a 2011 “ Jacobs report” — for the NTA entitled: “ Proposals for Introducing Public Bike Schemes in Regional Cities” — or the recommendations of that report, and

  • ○ took the position that they do not deem the roads serving the train station, the private coach station, the harbour or various public bike stations to be part of any nominated cycle network for Galway city.

• • impugn the GTS as legally invalid;

• • seek any relief in relation to the GTS. Specifically it did not seek certiorari quashing the GTS; or

• • seek to join the Notice Parties, or for that matter, Galway County Council as Respondents in the proceedings against whom any such relief might be sought.

5 On 15 December 2024, four days after filing his amended Statement of Grounds Mr Foran proffered a draft further amended Statement of Grounds. It, for the first time, impugned and intimated that he sought certiorari of the GTS. It did not seek to join the Notice Parties, as respondents. For administrative convenience to simplify the leave application, by consent and by order of 27 January 2025 on foot of Mr Foran's notice of motion to amend his Statement, Mr Foran was permitted to file a further amended Statement of Grounds in terms of his draft of 15 December 2024 – which he filed and delivered on 27 January 2025 (the “Statement of Grounds”). That permission was granted without prejudice to any points which might be raised by the Respondents or the Notice Parties.

6 In the events which have occurred, leave is not opposed save for the challenge to the GTS, which is contested, and leave will be granted to the extent is it unopposed. Accordingly, this is my ruling on Mr Foran's contested application for leave to apply for judicial review to the extent that he seeks to challenge the GTS. As authors of the GTS, the notice parties were given liberty to oppose leave as if they were respondents — in contemplation that, if the contested leave is granted, they would be joined as respondents.

Claim to Quash GTS & Core Ground 9

7 §D(b) of the Statement of Grounds seeks relief as follows:

“An Order of...