The High Court has restrained Boyle Quarries Limited from carrying out quarrying at Letfordspark and the other named townlands in County Roscommon above 80,000 tonnes a year, 16 loads a day or two loads an hour. It refused Thomas L. Callan’s request for an order requiring the company to restore the land to its earlier condition.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy made the order on 20 March 2007 in proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The application sought to restrain quarrying close to Mr Callan and his wife’s home, and to restore the land to its condition before an alleged intensification or, alternatively, to its March 2002 condition.
Mr Callan alleged that the operation had intensified after Boyle Quarries took over in 2003, bringing increased heavy truck traffic, noise and inconvenience. He gave evidence of truck movements and said the quarry had expanded. Boyle Quarries relied on claims that the site had a long history of quarrying and that earlier operations had reached high output levels.
The court said the applicant had to provide satisfactory evidence. It noted that much of the evidence on both sides lacked corroboration: the company relied partly on hearsay and assumption, while Mr Callan’s traffic samples might not represent annual activity. The company’s extraction records and payments to the landowner were unavailable, and there was no clear evidence of truck capacity. The judge therefore assessed intensification using vehicle movements and loads rather than tonnage.
An Bord Pleanála had determined in June 2004 that the quarry’s use had intensified to a material change and was development that was not exempted development. That decision had not been appealed. The High Court also found a significant extension of the quarry operation since Boyle Quarries began, and concluded that the evidence showed further intensification after the board’s decision. It considered that the historical output at its peak in 1963 did not exceed 20 loads a day, or 40 movements, and that the company’s proposed limit would itself represent a 50 per cent increase on that figure.
The judge weighed the planning authority’s reasons for refusing permission, the public interest, the company’s employment and supplier links, and the interests of Mr Callan and his wife. The court said the remedy was not disproportionate and Mr Callan could bring the proceedings under section 160 without converting them to plenary proceedings.
The order sets the stated limits on quarrying activity. The court refused the separate land-restoration order. The judgment does not order a complete stop to quarrying.