The High Court has refused to quash decisions requiring the operators of a quarry at Murrens, County Meath, to apply for substitute consent after environmental assessments had not been carried out for quarry development after 1990 and 1997.
In a judgment delivered on 20 April 2020, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh rejected a challenge by JJ Flood & Sons (Manufacturing) Ltd and David Flood to a 2012 determination by Meath County Council and An Bord Pleanála’s confirmation of it in 2013. The applicants also sought a declaration that section 261A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 was unconstitutional.
The Council had found that post-1990 quarry development required an environmental impact assessment or a determination on whether one was needed, and that post-1997 development required an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive. Neither assessment had been carried out. The Board confirmed those findings and directed the applicants to apply for substitute consent.
The applicants argued that a quarry operating within its pre-1964 use was outside the EU environmental directives because it did not need domestic planning permission. They also contended that the Council’s 2005 registration of the quarry and imposition of operating conditions amounted to consent, and that the later process was unfair and inadequately reasoned.
The judge held that pre-1964 use did not automatically exempt a quarry from the directives. The assessment question under section 261A(2) was distinct from the later question of whether a quarry qualified to apply for substitute consent under section 261A(3). The court said the direction recognised a failure to comply with EU law requiring rectification; it was not, by itself, a finding of unauthorised development under Irish planning law or a condemnation of the operators.
The judgment noted that aerial photographs showed substantial expansion after the relevant dates, including an increase in the extraction area of at least about 13.5 hectares after 1990. It also upheld the Board’s conclusion that, given nearby protected sites, uncertainty about groundwater links and possible cumulative effects with another quarry, an appropriate assessment was required. The court said the Board was entitled to reach those conclusions on the evidence before it.
The applicants had an opportunity to make submissions to the Council after public notice and later participated in reviews before the Board. The judge found no breach of fair procedures and held that the 2005 registration and conditions did not prevent a later substitute-consent direction. She refused all reliefs sought. The judgment did not decide any subsequent application for substitute consent.