The High Court has refused a quarry owner’s application to quash decisions by An Bord Pleanála on substitute consent and a proposed quarry extension in Donegal.
In a judgment delivered on 14 June 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty found that the substitute-consent direction covered the entire quarry, not only its northern section. The court held that the Board could dismiss the application because it covered only Site A, although its environmental reports referred to the wider quarry.
The judgment describes the quarry as 33.9 hectares, divided for clarity into Sites A, B and C. The company argued that only Site A, a disused and flooded area north of a road, was covered by the direction. The court found that the planning authority’s determination and later notice referred to the quarry as a whole. An earlier Board decision had also treated it as a single entity. The company had not sought review of the authority’s direction.
A council employee’s 2014 email had confirmed that the notice concerned the northern quarry. But the judge found that this did not alter the formal direction. The Board later clarified in correspondence that it required an application covering the entire quarry, and the company’s own letters showed it understood that request, the judgment said.
The Board dismissed the substitute-consent application after the company did not submit the requested revised application. The High Court held that the Board had power to dismiss it under the planning legislation because it was incomplete and failed to cover the full area specified. The judge also rejected the company’s argument that older quarry activity meant other areas were exempt from the environmental assessment requirements.
Separately, the Board had refused permission for a proposed extension at Site C. It said the environmental impact statement did not adequately quantify the volume of material to be extracted, leaving it unable to assess traffic, noise and dust impacts, including effects alongside existing quarry operations. The judge found that this was a reasonable basis for refusal and said the Board was not obliged to seek further information first.
The court refused certiorari against both decisions. It did not decide costs in this judgment; the case was listed for mention on 18 June 2024 so the parties could address costs and any other matters arising.