The High Court has dismissed two judicial review proceedings concerning the Moyfin quarry near Longwood, Co Meath. Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ruled on 12 December 2022 that the challenges to An Bord Pleanála’s decisions and related enforcement notices could not succeed. She did not decide constitutional challenges to the legislation, which had been left over.
In the first case, the quarry owners challenged the Board’s 29 May 2013 decision upholding Meath County Council’s determination that the quarry required an environmental impact statement and appropriate assessment. The Council had concluded that quarrying began on or after 1 October 1964 and that the site had no planning permission. It then issued enforcement notices requiring quarrying to stop, plant and machinery to be removed, and the site to be secured.
The owners argued that the Council’s 2007 registration of the quarry under section 261, and conditions imposed at that time, prevented the authorities from revisiting its pre-1964 status. They also alleged unfair procedures and insufficient evidence for the Board’s decision. Justice Hyland found that the registration and conditions did not prevent a later review under section 261A. She said the owners had an opportunity to provide evidence and could have sought the material used in the Board appeal, but did not do so. The Board had material including a 1912 map and 1973/74 aerial photography supporting its conclusion that pre-1964 quarrying had not been demonstrated. The court declined to consider new arguments and images introduced in the judicial review that had not been put before the Board. It also rejected the challenge to the enforcement notices, finding the Council was required by statute to issue them after the Board upheld its decision.
The second case was brought by Phoenix Rock Enterprises Limited, the quarry operator, against the Board’s 11 March 2020 refusal of leave to apply for substitute consent. The Board had found no exceptional circumstances, citing its view that the operator could not reasonably have believed the development was unauthorised-free and had previously carried out unauthorised development. In particular, it relied on quarrying beyond the area allowed by a 2007 condition and activity after that condition’s 10-year period expired in 2017.
Justice Hyland held that the Board could consider breaches of that condition and assess the operator’s belief over the relevant period for an ongoing development. She found the Board’s reasons adequate and rejected claims of unfair procedures and disproportionate application of the statutory criteria. The court dismissed Phoenix Rock’s proceedings. The rulings did not determine the separate constitutional challenges.