The High Court ruled that operations at Shillelagh Quarries in Aughafarrell, Co Dublin, were unauthorised and said an order should be made directing them to cease. The court did not settle the order’s final form or when it would take effect, saying counsel would be heard on an appropriate stay to allow operations to wind down.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 16 October 2015, arose from an application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act. Michael McCoy and South Dublin County Council sought orders against Shillelagh Quarries Limited and the landowners, including cessation of quarrying and reinstatement works. The company and other respondents accepted they had no planning permission, but argued that their quarrying was a continuation of activity begun before 1 October 1964. They also relied on delay and said the claim was time barred.
The court concluded that the quarry’s activity was unauthorised as a matter of law. An Bord Pleanála had determined that the current activity was development, not exempted development, and had refused planning permission for continued quarrying. Neither decision had been overturned. The court said it was bound by those determinations and could not use the section 160 proceedings to reconsider whether the activity required permission.
The respondents disputed the significance of an earlier High Court judgment, Patterson v Murphy, arguing that it relied on incomplete evidence about the quarry’s pre-1964 scale. Justice Baker accepted that later evidence showed more extensive historical activity than had been considered in that case. She also accepted evidence that quarrying had increased incrementally and that local roads carrying heavy quarry traffic were unsuitable for the burden. But she held that the planning decisions made the debate about the earlier judgment’s weight immaterial to the outcome.
In considering whether to grant relief, the judge found no operative delay by McCoy, who had engaged with planning processes and awaited decisions. She considered the Council’s delay culpable but found no resulting prejudice to the respondents. The judgment also weighed the quarry’s commercial and employment effects against environmental concerns, including the site’s setting near protected areas. The judge accepted evidence that there was no immediate or potential aquifer damage and that protected birds had adapted, while finding that further environmental harm was likely.
The court held that the claim for mandatory reinstatement was outside the applicable seven-year time limit. It therefore decided that cessation should be ordered, while leaving the order’s terms and any stay for further argument. The judgment does not record the final order or a deadline for cessation.