The High Court has restrained Keegan Quarries Limited from using land at Hilltown, Bellewstown, Co Meath, as a quarry after finding the operation was unauthorised. The court left any consequential orders for a further hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 7 October 2010, Ms Justice Irvine found that the land had not been quarried before 1 October 1964, contrary to the history relied on when the quarry was registered by Meath County Council. The registration did not prevent the residents’ section 160 proceedings from proceeding, following an earlier ruling in the case.
The residents sought an injunction and restoration of the land. They alleged the quarry damaged the landscape, created noise and dust, and brought hazardous truck traffic to narrow roads. The company disputed that the use was unauthorised and argued, among other things, that quarrying had continued long enough to bar the claim under the statutory time limit.
The judge found that a modest use may have occurred in 1989, followed by quarrying by a former operator from December 1995 until December 1996. She found no quarrying from then until the land recovery operation began in 2003. Quarrying did occur intermittently between September 2003 and April 2005, but the judge found it stopped after a local authority warning letter and that the land then remained unused until the respondent began work in February or March 2007.
The judge rejected the company’s time-bar argument. She held that the earlier quarrying use had been abandoned and that the current operation was a new, materially different development. She described the respondent’s operation as highly mechanised, involving rock excavation and crushing, occasional blasting, and substantial truck movements. The evidence did not establish that the present use was immune from challenge under the seven-year limit.
The court also declined to exercise its discretion against an injunction. It accepted that closure could cause five redundancies and affect subcontractors, but found that this hardship did not justify allowing the operation to continue given its effects on residents. It did not rely on a separate finding that the company had excavated beyond the northern boundary, as that issue had not influenced the residents’ decision to bring the proceedings.
The order restrains the company, its servants or agents, from using its lands at Hilltown as a quarry. The judgment did not specify restoration terms or other consequential relief; the judge said she would hear the parties on what further orders were required.