An Bord Pleanála mast decision 'should be quashed'
Is Against Judicial Court Lodged Residents The Eir, In Co Understood An And Review Pleanála Have Bord High Proceedings It Of Kells, Kilkenny,
The understands that residents of Kells have lodged judicial review proceedings in the High Court against An Bord Pleanála and Eircom, the company which built the mast.
It is believed the action alleges that the statistical probability that the board’s former deputy chair Paul Hyde — one of nine board members — would have been allocated 42 out of 49 mast applications by Eir in less than two years was zero.
Under planning law, all files decided upon by An Bord Pleanála are supposed to be allocated on a random basis by either the chair or deputy chair of the body.
Mr Hyde approved the Kells mast against the advice of his own planning inspector Philippa Joyce in June 2021. The 15m tall structure was subsequently installed but was removed last October after it emerged it had been erected in the wrong place.
Eir is currently seeking to reinstall the mast.
Residents had opposed the initial application by Eir due to it violating guidelines that such developments should only be located close to rural residential amenities as a last resort.
Kilkenny County Council agreed and refused permission, a decision endorsed by Ms Joyce following her site inspection in May 2021.
Last May, the first reported that Mr Hyde had overruled his own planning inspectors’ recommendations for refusal of mast applications in 86% of cases over a 20-month period up to May 2022 — roughly eight times the average for such an occurrence.
In that time Eir was involved in 49 decisions regarding mast applications, with Mr Hyde deciding on 42 of them.
All were approved, 19 of them over the recommendation of the assigned planning inspector.
Some 39 of those applications saw the decision made by Mr Hyde together with his colleague Michelle Fagan as a two-person board. Again, all were approved.
It is understood that the residents taking the case have alleged that the odds of the same two-person board being randomly allocated 39 out of 49 cases are even less likely than that of Mr Hyde alone being assigned to adjudicate on those applications.
The judicial review filings are believed to assert that the board’s decision to grant permission should be overturned due to it being affected by “bias”, as evidenced by the fact that files are supposed to be allocated randomly, and due to the number of occasions on which the board had overruled its own inspectors.
It is also understood to cite the fact that Mr Hyde had entered into an arrangement with creditors for allegedly defaulting on loans — a fact which should have seen him automatically cede his board membership — thus rendering any decisions he was party to void.
Mr Hyde resigned his position as deputy chair of the board last July after months of controversial media reports regarding his alleged behaviour in his role.
Dave Walsh, the chair of An Bord Pleanála since 2018, last month also took early retirement from his post after pressure intensified for him to publish an internal report highlighting malpractice at the body.