The High Court has refused John Moore’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála decisions granting Kilsaran Concrete substitute consent for a quarry at Bellewstown, Co Meath, and permission for further quarry development.
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2020, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan found that Moore had not established that either Board decision was unlawful. She also rejected his claims that Ireland had failed to implement the relevant EU environmental assessment requirements and that regulations made by the Minister in 2015 were unlawful.
Moore argued that the Board had failed to properly consider exceptional circumstances, the quarry’s planning history and objections from residents. He also alleged that the Board acted irrationally, gave inadequate reasons for departing from its inspector’s recommendation and should have held an oral hearing. The respondents and Kilsaran disputed his claims and argued that some challenges were out of time because they concerned an earlier decision in the consent process.
The judge held that the Board had given reasons for its conclusions on the excavation of a monument and the quarry’s effects on the local community. She said the Board did not find that a compromise in earlier private proceedings had regularised the quarry’s planning status. Rather, that compromise and other matters informed its view that the effects did not warrant refusing substitute consent. The court also found there was no obligation to hold an oral hearing in the circumstances.
A key issue was an earlier 2013 decision confirming a direction that Kilsaran apply for substitute consent under section 261A of the Planning and Development Act. The court held that this decision was “ring-fenced” and could not be reopened at the later stage. No application had been made to extend time to challenge it. The judge said section 261A, properly interpreted, provided for exceptional circumstances through its statutory criteria and did not give developers an opportunity to circumvent EU law.
The court also rejected the constitutional challenge to the 2015 regulations, finding Moore had not shown that the Minister’s rule-making power trespassed on the Oireachtas’s legislative role. The judge concluded that the regulations were incidental, supplementary and consequential to the EU directive.
The judgment noted that substitute consent is distinct from permission for future development, though it is a prerequisite to that permission. The court refused all the reliefs sought. It did not quash either the substitute consent or the further development permission.