The High Court has refused a farmer’s application to halt quarry development in Co Meath while An Bord Pleanála considers his appeal against the planning permission.
Mr Justice Nolan ruled that the permission granted by Meath County Council remained valid. He said the court could not read the Planning and Development Act as creating a stay in circumstances where the permission had already been formally granted.
Breedon Cement Ireland Limited, formerly known as Lagan Cement, received permission for a 4.13-hectare deepening of the north-western part of its existing limestone quarry. The council decided to grant permission in November 2022 and issued the grant the following month, after no appeal had been lodged within the statutory period.
The farmer later challenged the Board’s refusal to let him appeal. That decision was quashed in January 2024, and the Board granted leave to appeal in February. He lodged an appeal in March 2024. Breedon has separately brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Board’s decision to grant leave; judgment in that case was awaited when Mr Justice Nolan delivered his ruling on 14 October 2025.
The farmer argued that the later appeal meant the planning permission could not remain operative alongside it. Breedon submitted that the Act makes the Board’s decision on an appeal—not the lodging of the appeal—the event that annuls the planning authority’s decision. The judge said the legislation did not address this sequence of events and that providing for a stay would require the court to insert a new provision. He said that was a matter for legislation, not judicial interpretation.
The judge also refused a stay on the balance of justice. The farmer alleged that Breedon’s activities had harmed his health, family, water supply and farming livelihood, and argued that the proposed works risked pollution and breached environmental requirements. Breedon disputed those allegations and said there was no supporting expert or independent evidence. The judge found no evidence of pollution, harm to the public or a breach of EU environmental law in the material before him. He also said the permission had been granted following engagement by the relevant statutory bodies.
The court noted significant delay by the farmer and his failure to notify Breedon of the proceedings. The judge criticised an affidavit claim that the proposed development surrounded the farmer’s home and farm: the quarry lands surrounded his property, he said, but the proposed development did not. He described this as a lack of candour, but said it was not the basis for his decision.
The ruling was limited to the request for a stay. The High Court refused that application; it did not determine the farmer’s planning appeal or Breedon’s separate challenge to the Board’s decision.