The High Court has refused all reliefs sought by Thomas Grall in a challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s decision concerning a quarry on lands he owns at Milltown, Co Meath.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2024, Mr Justice Max Barrett dismissed Mr Grall’s judicial review case. The decision under challenge was the Board’s 5 September 2013 confirmation of Meath County Council’s determination that the quarry had not begun operating before 1 October 1964. The court did not itself issue an enforcement notice. The Council’s 2012 notice stated that it intended to issue one requiring the quarry to cease operating and appropriate steps to be taken.
Mr Grall argued, among other things, that the Council could not reach a different conclusion under section 261A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 after the quarry had been registered under section 261; that the Board had not given adequate reasons; and that he had not been given a fair chance to address the aerial photographs considered in the process. He also challenged the constitutionality of provisions concerning the quarry review and enforcement time limits.
The judge said section 261 registration did not grant planning permission or determine the quarry’s planning status. He considered himself bound by earlier decisions rejecting the argument that a section 261 registration prevented a later section 261A determination. He also rejected the complaint about the photographs, noting that Mr Grall had relied on aerial photography in seeking the Board’s review and that the Council had used such material.
On the opportunity to respond, the judge said the consequences for Mr Grall gave him “the greatest cause for pause”. He said he might, as the first judge to consider the issue, have concluded that fair procedures required a further chance to answer the Board’s concerns. However, he held that earlier decisions on the point bound him to reject the argument.
The judge said the Board’s reasons, read with the inspector’s report and material on file, were clear and comprehensible. He noted that Mr Grall had later found a journal recording quarry orders from 1966, but said material that had not been before the Board could not be used to impugn its decision. He also expressed surprise that the Board had reached its conclusion despite evidence from Mr Grall’s uncle recalling extraction before 1964, while emphasising that it was not for the court to substitute its view for the Board’s.
The constitutional challenge was dismissed because the pleadings did not set out the case with the required specificity or identify how the provisions infringed Mr Grall’s rights. The judge said he would also have found that Mr Grall had not established a basis to challenge the provisions. He concluded that all reliefs sought were refused.