The High Court has ordered quarrying and associated activity at Killola Quarry in Co Galway to stop pending further court orders, after finding that a community association had raised a fair question about whether the works were unauthorised and whether they posed environmental risks.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2023, Mr Justice Humphreys admitted the proceedings to the Commercial Planning and Environmental List, refused the respondents’ request to remit them to the Circuit Court and granted interim and interlocutory injunctions. The orders apply to the quarry’s landowner, Michael Power, its operator, Noel Welby Plant Hire Ltd, and Noel Welby for the purpose of ensuring the company’s compliance. The first respondent, Killola Quarries Ltd, was released from the injunction application after the applicant agreed not to pursue relief against it.
The court ordered the second to fourth respondents to cease or refrain from unauthorised quarrying and related activities, including blasting, extraction, processing, production and distribution. For the purposes of the order, all quarrying and associated activity at the site is to be treated as unauthorised until further order. Materials already on site when the order was made are excluded from the storage prohibition. The court also prohibited discharges of polluting matter or trade effluent into nearby drains, watercourses or waters unless authorised by a licence under the relevant legislation.
The proceedings were brought by Corrib Community Association Company Limited by Guarantee under planning and water pollution laws. The association relied on evidence from residents and specialists alleging that quarrying had expanded beyond the area covered by a 2015 substitute consent, and that blasting, water discharges, tree felling and other activity could affect homes, habitats, protected sites and a children’s burial ground. These were allegations and evidence considered at the interlocutory stage, not final findings on the merits.
The 2015 substitute consent covered historic development and expressly did not authorise future development, the judge said. He found that the association had shown a prima facie case of unauthorised development for the interim application, while stressing that the issue must be fully argued again at the substantive hearing. The respondents’ legal defences, including arguments concerning pre-1964 quarry use and the scope of substitute consent, were not definitively decided.
The court said environmental risk, including risks to water, habitats, species, cultural sites and people, supported granting relief while the case proceeds. It directed the parties to prepare for an early substantive hearing, preferably in Hilary 2024, and set out steps to agree issues, evidence and hearing arrangements.