Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
No breach of fair procedures in determination that quarry required a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review of decision of local authority that a quarry required a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement and an Appropriate Assessment, and refuses application for leave to apply for substitute consent, on the grounds that: the legitimate expectations argument failed where there was no representation; there was no breach of fair procedures; the court could not take into account evidence not before the board; the evidence relied upon in making these decisions was credible and substantial; the reasons for the decision were adequate; and the planning board’s decision was lawful.
Judicial review - two sets of proceeding – planning and development - challenge by the owners of the quarry to a decision of Meath County Council that the Moyfin quarry required a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and an Appropriate Assessment (“AA”) - decision was upheld by An Bord Pleanála – enforcement notices - application for leave to apply for substitute consent– application refused - registration of the applicant’s quarry - review of the applicant’s quarry - legitimate expectation – decision of the board - legal effect of s.261 registration and conditions – no representation – legitimate expectation argument failed - alleged breach of fair procedures by the Council and the Board - onus was on the applicant to contact the Board to seek to obtain the evidence relied upon by the Council, and to controvert that evidence if it wished to do so - fairness of board’s procedures - could have advanced any information they wished to the Board in their appeal - not heard on the issue of the pre-1964 user for the simple reason that they did not seek to be heard on this point – no breach of fair procedures - alleged lack of evidence supporting Board decision - evidence relied upon was credible and substantial - new evidence and/or arguments sought to be introduced by the applicant – not put before the board - enforcement notices - Stadt Papenburg – Legislative scheme - chronology of events in respect of application to Board for leave - Board Direction and decision - entitlement of the Board to invoke breach of Condition 2 - Temporal effect of s.177D(2) - reasons for the Board’s decision - reasons were adequate - alleged breach of fair procedures - onus was on it to persuade the Board that leave should be granted - applicant chose to ignore that material and instead assert that it had complied with the conditions without engaging with material that established that it had not so complied -alleged inappropriate application of s.177D criteria - Board had regard to each of the criteria - judicial reviews refused –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
