The High Court refused Lackagh Quarries Limited’s application to overturn Galway City Council’s refusal to extend the life of a planning permission for quarrying at Coolagh, Ballindooley. The court found that three of the council’s reasons were legally irrelevant to the application, but held that its separate finding on completion within a reasonable time was sufficient to leave the refusal in place.
In a judgment dated 21 December 2010, Ms Justice Mary Irvine considered the case in a “rolled-up” hearing: she granted leave to seek judicial review and then addressed the substantive challenge. The original permission, granted by An Bord Pleanála on 9 October 2000, covered quarrying on a site of about 24 hectares and set a ten-year period. The council refused the company’s application for an extension on 16 April 2010.
The council gave four reasons. It said an extension conflicted with a condition of the original permission; raised environmental and European-site concerns; was precluded by a High Court order in earlier proceedings; and could not be granted because the quarry would not be exhausted within a reasonable period.
The judge ruled that the council was not entitled to rely on the original permission’s ten-year condition, environmental considerations or the earlier court order when deciding the statutory extension application. The court order restrained quarrying outside the permission’s terms, including below the permitted level; it did not prevent an application for an extension. The judgment also rejected the council’s preliminary objections that the application was invalid for failing to state the company’s legal interest in the land, or that the statutory extension process could not apply to a permission granted under earlier legislation.
However, the judge rejected the company’s challenge to the council’s fourth reason. The statutory test required the company to satisfy the council that the development would be completed within a reasonable time. The judge held that the council had evidence to conclude that completion depended on uncertain demand for stone and was not satisfied within that test. The court reviewed how the council made its decision; it did not decide for itself whether the remaining quarry reserves could be extracted within the requested three-year extension.
Because the completion requirement had not been met, the court concluded that the refusal should not be quashed, despite the flaws in the other reasons. It also rejected the company’s claim that an extension should be treated as granted by default: the council had notified it of its decision within the statutory eight-week period. The judgment further said the company’s acceptance of the original permission’s condition and its later dealings with the council would, in any event, have led the court to withhold the discretionary relief sought.