Judgment: 2015-12-21 · Court archive

High Court grants limited leave to challenge quarry levies, with part of payments stayed

The court allowed a judicial review challenge on specified grounds concerning wastewater treatment, a possible road contribution reduction and the assessment of operational land. It refused leave on other grounds and set interim payment terms.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 822

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Bobby O’Connell & Sons Limited (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Respondent)
  • Richard Humphreys (Judge)
What

The court allowed a judicial review challenge on specified grounds concerning wastewater treatment, a possible road contribution reduction and the assessment of operational land. It refused leave on other grounds and set interim payment terms.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballycar South, Kilmoculla, Ardnacrusha, Co. Clare
  • Co. Clare
  • Ballycar South
  • Kilmoculla
  • Ardnacrusha
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The board had treated the quarry’s 16.9-hectare area as operational land, less 2.1 hectares for a required buffer zone. The company’s consultants considered 10.5 hectares operational. The judge found substantial grounds to challenge the board’s approach, including whether it should have clarified the area used for extraction and other operational purposes. The maps before the court showed that extraction did not cover the whole site, including because of electricity pylons.

The High Court has granted Bobby O’Connell & Sons Limited leave to challenge parts of An Bord Pleanála’s determination of development contributions for its quarry at Ballycar South, Kilmoculla, Ardnacrusha, Co. Clare. The court stayed enforcement of most of the determination while setting out interim payments the company must make.

The company sought judicial review of the board’s 13 October 2015 determination of levies attached to its permission to operate the quarry. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 21 December 2015, concerns an application for leave to bring the challenge; it does not decide the ultimate merits of the permitted grounds.

The board had treated the quarry’s 16.9-hectare area as operational land, less 2.1 hectares for a required buffer zone. The company’s consultants considered 10.5 hectares operational. The judge found substantial grounds to challenge the board’s approach, including whether it should have clarified the area used for extraction and other operational purposes. The maps before the court showed that extraction did not cover the whole site, including because of electricity pylons.

Leave was also granted to argue that the board had not adequately addressed a possible reduction in the special contribution for road works, and had not given a clear reason for refusing a reduction linked to on-site wastewater treatment. The judge said the council’s reference to a lower road contribution was ambiguous and required fuller consideration. He did not decide what wastewater deduction should apply, or accept the company’s proposed 50% figure at this stage.

The court refused leave to challenge the board’s decision on alleged double charging for a concrete batching plant, and on the three-month payment period. The judge said the development contribution scheme did not reflect the claimed double-charging principle and found the payment-period challenge devoid of merit. The principle that development levies were payable was not in issue; the dispute concerned their extent.

Pending the substantive proceedings, the board’s determination was stayed except for interim amounts. The council may enforce a general contribution calculated using 10.5 hectares of operational land, after a wastewater-treatment deduction in an amount it considers appropriate. That payment is due within three months of the board’s determination or on a phased schedule set by the council.

For the special contribution, the council may enforce €602,100. Half is due within three months of the board’s determination, with the balance payable at €30,105 a year until final determination or the tenth annual payment, whichever comes first, unless the parties agree another phased schedule. The judge said the company could seek to extend the stay if dissatisfied with the council’s wastewater deduction. Further submissions were to be heard on the timetable for an amended statement of grounds and related matters.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review