Extension of time to seek judicial review is set aside where applicant sat on his legal rights for ten months

Judicial review - planning and development - certiorari - decision to grant planning permission for construction of wind farm - grid connection servicing development was 'exempted development' - whether decisions in breach of EU 'Habitats' Directive - motions before court - whether leave to apply for judicial review, already granted, should be set aside on grounds of delay - preliminary issue at hearing - set aside application - test to be applied - whether delay itself is significant or egregious - actual prejudice caused - order should not be set aside unless the leave was one which plainly should not have been granted - provisions of legislation dealing with local planning authority - section 50 - planning and development legislative parametres of substantive challenge - 8-week time limit for challenging decision - whether order extending time was 'plainly incorrect' - judicial factors to be considered prior to making such an order - length of time - third party rights - legislative policy - blameworthiness - nature of issues involved - merits of case - time limit is strict - public policy considerations for time limit - requirement for a 'good and sufficient reason' - chronology and relevant facts - timing of reports and assessments - time at which applicant became aware of exemption declaration - notice parties' reliance on declarations - installation of grid ongoing - summary of facts relevant to extension - incumbent upon applicant to act in a timely fashion once he became aware of declarations - personal or financial difficulties of applicant not a 'good and sufficient reason' for not inspecting respondent's file or commencing proceedings - whether a challenge would have been premature given fact that notice party's planning approval application was still being considered by the board at material time - prematurity does not arise under domestic law given nature of statutory applications to the board - EU law on domestic time limits for review of decisions when Directives are engaged - whether alleged non-notification of right of appeal relevant and determinative - length of delay cannot excuse such inaction - significant third party prejudice due to ongoing works - whether court is extinguishing a 'remedial obligation' for the applicant to have access to an effective remedy for breaches of EU Directives - applicant sat on his rights for ten months while substantial works were carried out - applicant does not have a 'sufficient interest' to challenge declarative statutory framework - orders setting aside leave on certain grounds granted.