The High Court has refused McGrath Limestone Works Limited’s judicial review challenge to an order requiring it to apply for substitute consent for quarrying at a site between Lough Mask and Lough Corrib in County Mayo.
Mr Justice Charleton ruled on 30 July 2014 that An Bord Pleanála had been entitled to confirm Mayo County Council’s determinations that quarry development after February 1990 required an environmental impact assessment, and development after February 1997 required an appropriate assessment, but neither had been carried out. The Board also upheld the council’s finding that the quarry began before 1 October 1964 and met the registration requirements under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The council’s August 2012 notice directed the company to apply to the Board for substitute consent within 12 weeks, accompanied by a remedial environmental impact statement and an appropriate assessment. That direction required an application; it did not itself grant consent or determine the outcome of any future application.
The company argued that the council’s 2007 decision to impose operating conditions after the quarry was registered had created a legitimate expectation that no further planning requirements would be imposed. It also challenged the reasons and procedures behind the decisions, argued that the order was irrational and an unjustified interference with property rights, and claimed the law was unconstitutional and retrospectively condemned the company for an offence.
The judge rejected those arguments. He said registration and the 2007 conditions did not settle the quarry’s planning status or prevent later investigation. He found that the council had made no unequivocal promise that the quarry was exempt from future requirements. He also concluded that the Board’s reasons were adequate when read with the inspector’s report and planning file, and that the company had a fair opportunity to make submissions.
The inspector’s report, as quoted in the judgment, described a small quarry in parts of the site dating to the early 1900s and quarrying in southern areas up to the 1950s. It said aerial photographs showed the quarry was mainly in the south until 2005, with expansion into part of the northern section afterwards. The inspector considered that the scale and intensity of the works could not reasonably have been anticipated in 1964 and that northern works on land previously used for agriculture lacked a valid planning permission or established pre-1964 use. The High Court held the Board could rely on that analysis in its review.
The court also rejected Mayo County Council’s argument that the challenge was out of time, finding that the relevant period ran from the Board’s review decision. It dismissed the constitutional challenge, holding that section 261A imposed no retrospective criminal or civil liability and that environmental regulation could be applied to existing activities. The application for judicial review was refused.