The High Court has ordered Westmeath County Council to pay Angela Pearce’s costs after quashing a decision that a quarry developer had complied with a planning condition on lay-bys along a 27km haul route in Co Westmeath.
The ruling by Mr Justice McDermott dealt with costs following the court’s earlier decision to quash the Council’s compliance decision and remit the matter for reconsideration. It did not determine that the developer had complied with the condition. The court said the required process had not been properly completed and called for engagement between the Council, its engineers and the developer’s experts on a survey of the entire route.
The condition required the developer to submit a detailed survey identifying the route’s width, levels, verges and other relevant features, as well as the number and locations of lay-bys. An Bord Pleanála had amended the condition in 2010 by removing a requirement for survey measurements at 20-metre intervals. The judgment says the route remained 27km long.
The developer submitted details for eight proposed lay-bys on an 8km section. The Council accepted that submission in 2011. After a consent order required a fresh determination, the Council again treated the submission as compliant. It later informed the developer that it accepted the survey was inadequate and would not oppose the relief sought by Pearce, while stating at the hearing that it was not consenting to the order.
The developer contested Pearce’s remaining grounds, arguing there had been substantial compliance. The court rejected that argument, finding that the condition required a detailed survey of the entire route and that the 8km submission was insufficient. It quashed the Council’s decision and remitted the matter for a lawful determination after further submissions.
On costs, the court found the proceedings fell under statutory provisions concerning environmental and planning cases. It said Pearce was blameless and that the Council’s inadequate engagement and inconsistent positions had made the proceedings necessary. The order for costs was against the Council alone; Pearce did not seek costs from the notice party.
The notice party also sought costs from the Council but had not obtained relief. The court found no exceptional public importance or special circumstances justifying an award and directed that she bear her own costs.