The Supreme Court has ruled that a quarry operated by McTigue Quarries Limited, Gary McTigue and Caroline McTigue in County Galway is an unauthorised development and granted an order under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act requiring it to cease operating. The order is stayed for six months to allow the owners to address the quarry’s legal situation.
The judgment, delivered by Justice John MacMenamin on 7 November 2018, followed appeals by An Taisce and the quarry operators against two parts of a 2016 High Court decision. The High Court had found the quarry unauthorised but declined to grant an injunction, referring further enforcement to Galway County Council. An Taisce appealed the refusal of an injunction; the operators appealed the finding that the quarry was unauthorised.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding on authorisation. It held that the 2010 planning legislation’s substitute-consent provisions applied to developments that had previously received a planning permission which was defective, including because a required environmental assessment had not been carried out. The quarry had never received planning permission before the substitute consent granted by An Bord Pleanála in January 2015. The Court concluded that the substitute consent did not authorise its continued operation.
The Court noted that the Board’s consent and the inspector’s report were ambiguous about whether quarrying could continue while the main seam was worked out. But it said the legislation’s meaning, rather than those documents, determined the appeal. It also found that interpreting the consent as permitting ongoing extraction would leave the quarry operating without the conditions ordinarily expected for future development.
On the injunction, the Court said the section 160 discretion had to be exercised in light of the significant and continuing unauthorised development, the public interest in the planning system, and the absence of evidence that An Taisce had delayed or acquiesced. It acknowledged that an order would have significant consequences for the operators, but said it had not heard detailed evidence about the impact on them or quarry employees. That lack of evidence did not prevent an order.
The Court reversed the High Court’s decision not to grant relief and ordered a six-month stay. The judgment did not itself resolve the quarry’s legal status after that period; it allowed the owners time to address it.