The High Court has upheld An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of substitute consent for unauthorised quarry works at Belcarrig Hill, Ballycanew, Co. Wexford, but quashed the Board’s separate refusal of a proposed quarry extension.
In a judgment dated 21 October 2019, Ms Justice Faherty dismissed Redrock Developments Limited’s challenge to the substitute consent decision. She found that the Board had carried out the required environmental impact assessment and was entitled to refuse consent because of the pollution concerns and the shortcomings in the proposed measures to address acid rock drainage (ARD).
The quarry’s remedial environmental statement identified low pH and elevated metals in water at the site, and reported poor groundwater quality at two nearby private wells. It described the quarry’s impact on water quality within the quarry floor as significant to profound, with a potentially significant to profound impact on groundwater nearby. The Board relied on those materials and the inspector’s report in finding that quarry operations had caused a danger to public health and serious environmental pollution, including a potential future threat to surface waters. It also cited possible metal-contaminated dust from aggregate washing.
Redrock argued that the Board should have sought more information, imposed conditions or directed remediation. The judge found that the Board could reasonably regard the proposed remedial options as insufficiently developed. She also held that the Board was not required to seek further information or grant consent with conditions. The Board had considered whether to order remedial work under the legislation and decided that the matter should be addressed through the planning authority’s enforcement powers. The court did not determine the outcome of those enforcement proceedings.
The second applicant, Belcarrig Quarries Limited, had sought permission under section 37L for an extension and associated works. The Board refused the application, citing concerns including possible further ARD, groundwater pathways, contaminated water reaching closer to private wells, and dust from washed aggregate.
The judge found that the Board’s second, third and fourth reasons for refusal had a rational basis. But its first reason, concerning whether geophysical surveys had established the presence of sulphide-bearing seams in the proposed extraction area, was unclear and lacked the rationality expected of a decision-maker. Because the decision gave no indication of the weight attached to each reason, the court could not separate that defective reason and leave the others in place.
The court therefore denied the relief sought against the substitute consent refusal and granted certiorari quashing the refusal of the section 37L application. It did not grant permission for the extension.