Judgment: 2009-10-09 · Court archive

High Court upholds Kerry County Council quarry conditions imposed two years after registration

High Court · [2009] IEHC 552

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Patrick Browne (Applicant)
  • Kerry County Council (Respondent)
What

High Court upholds Kerry County Council quarry conditions imposed two years after registration

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Clounmellane
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Hedigan agreed with Browne on the first point. The words “not later than two years” imposed a mandatory limit on the Council’s power. The judge said this was particularly important because the provision authorised interference with property rights and contained no separate power to extend time.

The High Court has upheld conditions imposed by Kerry County Council on a quarry at Clounmellane, Firies, near Killarney, rejecting a claim that the Council acted outside the statutory time limit.

Patrick Browne, who owns and operates the quarry, sought to quash a Council decision dated 26 April 2007. The quarry had been operating since before 1 October 1964 and was registered by the Council on 26 April 2005.

Under section 261(6)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, a planning authority may impose conditions on certain existing quarries not later than two years after registration. Browne argued that the final day was 25 April 2007 and that the Council’s decision the following day was therefore invalid.

Kerry County Council disputed that interpretation. It argued first that the deadline was merely directory rather than mandatory. Alternatively, it said section 251 of the same Act required the period from 24 December to 1 January each year to be left out when calculating the deadline.

Mr Justice Hedigan agreed with Browne on the first point. The words “not later than two years” imposed a mandatory limit on the Council’s power. The judge said this was particularly important because the provision authorised interference with property rights and contained no separate power to extend time.

However, the Council succeeded on the calculation of the deadline. The court held that section 251 plainly required nine days over Christmas to be disregarded in each relevant year. That added 18 days to the effective calculation.

Browne argued that applying the provision to periods longer than one year could produce unusually long extensions and should therefore be avoided. The court accepted that the result could appear curious but held that it was not legally absurd and there was no basis for limiting section 251 to shorter time periods.

The Council’s 26 April 2007 decision was therefore within time. The judicial review relief sought by Browne was refused.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review