Multyfarnham quarry question to go before Supreme Court

An Bord Pleanála has given permission for quarrying operations to continue at a site at Multyfarnham, despite a mass of objections from local people.But plans to quarry at the site in question may yet be scuppered by a different legal process.The application approved by An Bord Pleanála was submitted by Shay Boyhan care of Sean Lucy and Associates Limited of Mount Street Gardens, Mullingar, seeking permission to continue quarrying at Killintown Quarry in Multyfarnham.Among the central planks in Mr. Boyhan's application - both to the County Council and An Bord Pleanála - has been the claim that quarrying initially began at the site in 1963 - which would mean that it was not an "unauthorised" land use.Some local objectors however claim that there was in fact no quarrying carried out at the site prior to 1964, and one resident of the area, Angela Pearce, who unsuccessfully appealed the Council's decision to the High Court is now to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Ms. Pearce's case is that two mandatory criteria required under Section 261 (7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 - that the quarry commenced operation prior to 1964 and that the extracted area is less than 5 hectares - were not met.The issue has been running for three years now, since 2006 when Mr. Boyhan applied to Westmeath County Council for permission to continue quarrying activity at Killintown Quarry, within the townlands of Killintown and Ballinriddera, Multyfarnham.While there were some 27 objections lodged to the application, Westmeath County Council granted permission, subject to conditions.However, objections to the County Council decision were lodged with An Bord Pleanála by a group called the "Residents of Multyfarnham and Crookedwood Area"; by Damien Roche and Mary Loughrey; by Angela Pearce and by An Taisce.In addition, Mr. Boyhan himself lodged an appeal, asking for a review of some of the conditions imposed by Westmeath County Council as part of the grant of planning permission.The "Residents of Multyfarnham and Crookedwood" were listed as: Nicholas Bardon, Teresa Bardon; Gordon O'Brien; Andrew Pearce; Laurence and Bridget Maxwell; James and Cathy Thornton; Pat Murtagh; Faith White; Patricia Coughlan; Noel McClancy; Anne and Warwick O'Hara; Kevin and Ann Keogh; Pat and Marie Hughes; Rosario and Gary Loughrey; Stephen Keogh; Catherine Lynch; Gerry and Rosemary Eager; Bruce Carrick; William Harvey Kelly.There were also four observations on the appeal made by (i) Angela Pearce and others; (ii) Clair O'Neill and Charlie Maguire, (iii) Cathi Saunders and (iv) David Malone.The Inspector also noted that Westmeath County Council received 27 objections to the application, from: Gordon O'Brien, Anke von Bunau, Bruce Carrick, William Harvey Kelly, Pat Murtagh, Faith White, Noel McClancy, Anne and Michael Naughton, Jim and Anna Bennett, German and Rosemary Eager, Mary Loughrey, Damien Roche, Enda and Mary Finnerty, Mary and Paul Westwater, Pat and Una Weir, Anne and Warwick O'Hara, Cathi Saunders, Gary and Rosario Loughrey, Bridie Loughrey, Brendan Dundon, Tomas Loughrey, Brian and Pauline Lynch, Angela Pearce, Alison O'Neill, Pauline Kelleher, Jim and Cathy Thornton, Patricia Coughlan.Their main points was that quarrying had not been continuous, and that there had been very little quarrying up to the "intensive quarrying" that happened during 2005/06; that the roads infrastructure wasn't sufficient to service the site; that the development would present a traffic hazard; that they would suffer the loss of residential amenity and visual amenity; and that tourism would be damaged. They also raised concerns over the safety of the quarry; over water supply requirements, damage to grazing lands and damage to wildlife, and argued that there was no proven demand for a quarry there.The appeal by Damien Roche and Mary Loughrey Roche claimed that the quarry was not exempt from certain regulations as there had not been quarrying carried on there prior to 1964, and that from 1983-1988 the field was used for grazing; they also raised concerns residential amenity, traffic, visual amenity and the accuracy of the EIS.Angela Pearce's objection stated that the development was unauthorised; that there was an inadequate EIS; and she raised concerns over the local bat population. She disputed the applicant's claim that the quarry commenced prior to 1964, and said quarry had been "sporadic" and "limited" up to January 2005 until the closure of the quarry in March 2006.An Taisce's objection stated that the planning application should have been for retention and continuation, which carried a higher fee. It also said that quarry status, as decided in the High Court case cited in the application (John A Wood v Waterford County Council) only applied where documentary evidence that the land unit was owned and operated by the quarry owner pre-1964 and where continuous operation had been established. This, An Taisce argued, had not been submitted, and it argued that there had been just small-scale quarrying on the site, mainly since the 1990s.They also said there was inadequate evaluation of the effects on the ecology; it raised queries relating to the removal of a ringfort from the site some decades back; and it was concerned about the effect on visual amenity.The Inspector, in her reported, admitted she considered there was a "reasonable doubt" as to whether Killintown Quarry had actually commenced operations prior to October 1 1964.This question she identified as the main issue in the question, together with questions over the impact of the quarry in terms of traffic, visual amenity, residential amenity, as well as issues of public health, groundwater, ecology, archaeology, tourism and the adequacy of the EIS."The issue of the status of the section 261(7) decision will be decided by the courts and is not a function of the Board," she stated, continuing: "However, there does appear to be a reasonable doubt that the quarry meets the statutory criteria for consideration under this section and that the application may be invalidated."The Inspector said that notwithstanding this, she had fully assessed the appeal and made a recommendation for permission. "However, I would recommend that the Board defer the decision pending the outcome of the Judicial Review and in the meantime seek clarification from the applicant on a number of issues."The Inspector listed 27 conditions which must be met by the applicant in terms of management and operation of the quarry, and of measures which must be taken to satisfy both the requirements of Westmeath County Council, and to ease the concerns of objectors.