The Court of Appeal has dismissed a limited appeal over the two-month stay granted before a quarry in Aughfarrell, Brittas, was required to cease operations. The court refused a further extension of the stay.
The appeal concerned only the length of the stay in a High Court order made on 19 January 2016. The quarry parties had dropped their appeal against the substantive orders requiring quarrying and related activities to stop. Those orders, made under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, followed the High Court’s finding that the quarry was an unauthorised development.
The quarry parties sought a longer stay, including to allow time for an application for leave to seek substituted consent. The High Court had been told that such an application had been made, but was not given its date. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had considered the possibility of regularising the planning position, but had not assumed that the process would be completed within two months. The regulations involved provide for a two-stage process.
Giving judgment on 9 May 2017, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said the appeal court would intervene in a discretionary stay decision only where the judge had applied the wrong principles or the result was unjust between the parties. She found no incorrect application of the law and concluded that the two-month stay was not unjust. It allowed time to wind down operations and, had the quarry parties pursued an appeal against the substantive orders, to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal.
The judgment also noted that the planning authority, An Bord Pleanála, had decided on 24 December 2010 that the quarrying was unauthorised. The proceedings began in July 2013, and the High Court hearing took place in April 2015. The quarry parties did not challenge the underlying planning finding in this appeal.
Mr Justice Hogan agreed that the two months were sufficient for an orderly wind-down. He said a stay should not generally be extended merely to allow a developer to apply to regularise unauthorised development. Mr Justice Peart also agreed with the decision.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal declined to extend the stay granted by the High Court.