The High Court has quashed Westmeath County Council’s decision that a quarry developer had complied with a planning condition requiring a survey of the entire one-way haul route and details of lay-bys. Mr Justice McDermott remitted the matter to the council for a fresh decision under the condition.
The judicial review concerned a quarry at Killintown, Multyfarnham, County Westmeath, and a haul route that the judgment described as 27 kilometres long. The route included local, regional and national roads. A 2009 planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála required a detailed survey showing the route’s width, levels, verges and other relevant features, and identifying the number and location of lay-bys. The Board later removed a requirement for measurements at 20-metre intervals, but retained the requirement for a survey of the entire route.
The developer’s 2010 submission proposed eight lay-bys on an eight-kilometre stretch between Crookedwood and Multyfarnham. The council initially accepted it. That compliance decision was quashed by consent in 2013, and the council was ordered to make a fresh determination, allowing for further information from the developer and submissions from the applicant.
The council again accepted compliance in a decision communicated in February 2014. The applicant argued that the survey remained limited and did not meet the condition. The developer maintained that the material submitted substantially complied and that a fuller survey of national and regional roads was unnecessary.
The judge found that the condition clearly required a detailed survey of the entire route. Removing the 20-metre interval requirement had eased the detail required; it had not narrowed the route to the eight-kilometre section. The judge also found that the council had decided to accept compliance at a meeting in October 2013, before an engineer’s site survey the following month, and that the applicant was not told of the meeting or given an opportunity to comment on the engineer’s report.
The court held that there had not been substantial compliance and quashed the decision that the condition had been met. It directed the council to reconsider the matter, engage fully with the developer’s experts about the survey and any locations requiring detailed examination, and consider further information submitted. The court also said submissions should be taken into account in accordance with the earlier consent order.
The judge did not find that the planning permission had expired. Nor did the court accept that the six-month deadline for completing lay-bys had been breached: it found no lawful agreement under the condition had yet been made. The judgment did not determine whether the quarry could continue operating while the fresh compliance process remained outstanding.