The High Court has granted Eco Advocacy CLG leave to pursue 14 grounds of judicial review over An Bord Pleanála’s permission for restoration works at a disused quarry in Newcastle, Enfield, Co Meath. The ruling does not decide whether the permission was unlawful and does not halt work at the site.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter gave judgment on 19 January 2023 after a contested application for leave. The Board did not take part in the hearing; Keegan Quarries Limited, a notice party, opposed the application.
The Board granted permission on 17 November 2021 for works intended to restore the quarry to agricultural and ecological use. The development included importing inert excavation material, using existing stockpiles, and constructing facilities including a wheel wash and weighbridge. Part of the site adjoins the Blackwater River.
The applicant argued that extraction after a 2014 substitute consent had amounted to unauthorised development and that the later permission could not lawfully authorise its retention without the required environmental assessments. It also alleged errors in the Board’s assessment of effects on otters and the nearby River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation, and argued that waste authorisation requirements and deficiencies in plans and public notification raised legal issues.
Keegan Quarries disputed those claims. It said the post-2014 activity was a continuation of quarrying that had begun before 1964, challenged whether several grounds could be raised because they had not been put to the Board during the appeal, and argued that the applicant was making an impermissible collateral challenge to the 2014 consent. It also disputed the claims concerning assessment and notification.
The judge found that grounds E2 to E15 met the threshold of substantial grounds for leave and that the applicant had sufficient interest to bring them. He said the issues should be assessed at a full hearing, where the defendants could still argue that particular grounds could not lead to final relief because they had not been raised adequately during the planning process. The leave ruling therefore permits the challenge to proceed; it is not a finding that any alleged legal error occurred.
The judgment recorded that the first phase of works, filling the excavation void with material stockpiled on site, had been completed by the time of the leave hearing, as had some phase-two infrastructure works. It said leave did not grant a stay on further work. Any stay would require a separate application supported by affidavit, with an opportunity for the other parties to respond. The case was put back for mention on 30 January 2023.