WICKLOW COUNTY Council has granted planning permission for the expansion of a quarry which it is currently prosecuting for operating outside the planning laws.
O’Reilly Brothers quarry at Ballylusk near Ashford was found to be operating without planning permission, and not to be exempt from the requirement for planning permission, by An Bord Pleanála in July 2003.
A subsequent appeal by O’Reilly Brothers was unsuccessful in a High Court judgment in November 2006.
Wicklow County Council subsequently began enforcement proceedings against the company, in the Circuit Court, under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act, seeking orders to restrain O’Reilly Brothers from continuing unauthorised activity at Ballylusk.
But the quarry had continued operating, with gardaí on hand on a number of occasions to supervise the use of explosives for blasting. Gardaí also assisted in removing a neighbouring property owner who refused to leave his property during blasting.
Last December the council’s director of services for planning Des O’Brien told The Irish Times the council was not in a position to “simply put a chain on the gate” of the quarry but had to go through the courts to achieve enforcement orders.
The Courts Service yesterday confirmed the council’s enforcement action was still listed for hearing.
However, earlier this month the council approved an application from O’Reilly Brothers for the expansion of current operations, including an increase in the rate of extraction and processing up to a maximum of 60,000 tonnes per year.
It also approved retention of a 19 sq m canteen, continued importation of up to 300 tonnes of stone per week, as well as crushing and screening.
Also approved was provision of a wheel cleaning unit, settlement lagoon and hydrocarbon interceptor in addition to a new effluent treatment system and improvements to the existing quarry entrance.
The 25-year-permission was subject to 31 conditions in relation to pollution prevention and monitoring, definition of the site, road cleaning and warnings of blasting, as well as financial consideration payable to the council and restoration of the site among others.
A spokeswoman for O’Reilly Brothers said no comment was available yesterday, nor was one likely.
Wicklow County Council said its enforcement case remained live, at least until after the time for appeals to the council decision. Subject to no appeals, the spokesman said the permission “would regularise the situation”.
Locals said they were greatly upset by the permission. One resident who asked not to be named said they would definitely appeal to An Bord Pleanála. “But we are devastated. We won and we won in the High Court and we sought the protection of the law, all to no avail. Now there will be another appeal but it will take 18 months and in the meantime the quarry continues.”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label quarry planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quarry planning. Show all posts
Friday, 24 July 2009
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Quarries
This story on quarry planning, published when I was on Annual Leave, is necessary reading.
Now, I know there's nothing worse than a holidaymaker coming into an area and passing judgment on locals who live there all year round and must earn their livelihood. But this quarry was so big, and its effect so monstrous, that I couldn't help wondering who had sanctioned it.
We need quarries if we are to build houses, offices, railways, harbours and roads. But the environmental impact of quarrying can be enormous. Apart from the obvious scar on the landscape, there are issues of air pollution from the dust, noise pollution from blasting, complex water run-off issues, biodiversity issues and so on.
However, the Cork-based group Friends of the Irish Environment has discovered something rather amazing - that Irish legislation set up to regulate quarries is unenforceable.
Best practice in quarrying will ensure that the surrounding environment will suffer as little as possible from such effects, and also that quarry owners will restore sections they have finished with.
However, the Cork-based group Friends of the Irish Environment has discovered something rather amazing - that Irish legislation set up to regulate quarries is unenforceable. Under the Planning Act of 2000, operating quarries were required to register with county councils to create a framework within which the industry could be environmentally regulated.
Quarries bigger than five hectares, or those located in protected areas, were deemed to need planning permission. Taking public submissions into account, councils imposed a system of development contributions on quarries - not for esoteric tree-hugging purposes, but to cope with straightforward and obvious issues, like the damage done by heavy stone lorries to surrounding roads.
But during a prolonged investigation, Friends of the Irish Environment has established that many quarries do not make development contributions, and some blatantly ignore requests by local councils to minimise their impact. Councils were found to be powerless to pursue quarry owners, because the act of 2000 gave them no means to do so. A test case brought to the Ombudsman elicited this response:
‘‘Enquiries (about enforcement) were made to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department advised that conditions imposed under Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 were unenforceable because the Act did not provide a mechanism for pursuing legal proceedings for non-compliance."
The letter added that the department was ‘‘considering how this anomaly might be addressed by amending legislation; unfortunately there was no timeframe provided for this''.
So, just to be perfectly clear, quarry owners can behave pretty much how they want, because councils can do nothing to regulate them. It is down to the integrity of owners - or lack of it - as to whether quarries wreck the surrounding environment or not.
As Tony Lowes of Friends of the Irish Environment notes: ‘‘Not only has the environment been damaged by this longstanding legislative failure and great hardships imposed on residents, but many millions in development levies can no longer be collected."
Given the many planning debacles Ireland has witnessed over the years, it has not really occurred to us to consider where the material for all our new buildings and roads is coming from. But it is pretty shocking to learn that, unlike the construction industry, quarrying is barely regulated at all.
The quarry quandary:
I had a fascinating response to last week's article about quarrying, and the lack of regulation surrounding it.
Readers from five different counties contacted me to illustrate cases that had directly affected them. Because I don't have the resources to investigate each one, I won't name names or locations. But your stories highlight a number of common factors.
1.Quarry ‘owners' have sometimes claimed rights to long-abandoned quarries that, historically, they had absolutely no connection with. There is a repetitive pattern of operators reactivating old quarries without asking anyone's permission and, after a period of time, simply claiming squatters' rights - even though they are not caretaking the land, but rather consuming it.
2.The owners of quarries surrounded by common land or turf plots have sometimes either consumed that land or taken possession of it, again by claiming squatters' rights, or by compensating some locals at a token rate and, in a sort of divide and-conquer strategy, steamrolling others who do not cooperate.
Landowners have had to go to court to reclaim property approppriated in this manner.
3.When people go to their local council to complain about quarries, they are sometimes met with indifference, protestations of powerlessness (which was the point of last week's article), and in one or two cases, outright obstruction.
Would it be unusual to find that a dodgy quarry owner also has a number of council contracts in his back pocket, for road or maintenance projects, for example?
This is not necessarily to imply blanket collusion between craven councils and dodgy quarry owners; not all councils are craven, and not all quarry owners are dodgy. The extent of the abuse is hard to gauge - one case even alleged that a local council was using a quarry illegally.
Whatever about their lack of powers under the Planning Act, I think it is fair enough to say that councils are reluctant to move against quarry owners who are in some way connected to them. I'd be very keen to hear from any one else who knows about illegal or semi-legal quarrying activity and my e-mail address is below.
Friends of the Irish Environment must be credited with uncovering this story, but I suspect there's quite a lot to it.
Under the Planning Act 2000, councils are plainly not able to regulate quarries - but I wonder how many Irish quarries are fly-by-night operations in the first place. Initially, my interest in this was that quarry owners seem under no obligation to repair any of the environmental damage that they've done, but this may be just one of the problems.
It is also worth bearing in mind that many of the illegal rubbish dumps uncovered in the late 1990s were in abandoned quarries. If quarrying is as unregulated as it appears to be, is it unreasonable to assume that this filthy, dangerous activity might enjoy a renaissance?
Especially during a recession, when everyone is trying to cut corners? Does anyone have any news about this? If so, get in touch.
By Stephen Price
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
Now, I know there's nothing worse than a holidaymaker coming into an area and passing judgment on locals who live there all year round and must earn their livelihood. But this quarry was so big, and its effect so monstrous, that I couldn't help wondering who had sanctioned it.
We need quarries if we are to build houses, offices, railways, harbours and roads. But the environmental impact of quarrying can be enormous. Apart from the obvious scar on the landscape, there are issues of air pollution from the dust, noise pollution from blasting, complex water run-off issues, biodiversity issues and so on.
However, the Cork-based group Friends of the Irish Environment has discovered something rather amazing - that Irish legislation set up to regulate quarries is unenforceable.
Best practice in quarrying will ensure that the surrounding environment will suffer as little as possible from such effects, and also that quarry owners will restore sections they have finished with.
However, the Cork-based group Friends of the Irish Environment has discovered something rather amazing - that Irish legislation set up to regulate quarries is unenforceable. Under the Planning Act of 2000, operating quarries were required to register with county councils to create a framework within which the industry could be environmentally regulated.
Quarries bigger than five hectares, or those located in protected areas, were deemed to need planning permission. Taking public submissions into account, councils imposed a system of development contributions on quarries - not for esoteric tree-hugging purposes, but to cope with straightforward and obvious issues, like the damage done by heavy stone lorries to surrounding roads.
But during a prolonged investigation, Friends of the Irish Environment has established that many quarries do not make development contributions, and some blatantly ignore requests by local councils to minimise their impact. Councils were found to be powerless to pursue quarry owners, because the act of 2000 gave them no means to do so. A test case brought to the Ombudsman elicited this response:
‘‘Enquiries (about enforcement) were made to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department advised that conditions imposed under Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 were unenforceable because the Act did not provide a mechanism for pursuing legal proceedings for non-compliance."
The letter added that the department was ‘‘considering how this anomaly might be addressed by amending legislation; unfortunately there was no timeframe provided for this''.
So, just to be perfectly clear, quarry owners can behave pretty much how they want, because councils can do nothing to regulate them. It is down to the integrity of owners - or lack of it - as to whether quarries wreck the surrounding environment or not.
As Tony Lowes of Friends of the Irish Environment notes: ‘‘Not only has the environment been damaged by this longstanding legislative failure and great hardships imposed on residents, but many millions in development levies can no longer be collected."
Given the many planning debacles Ireland has witnessed over the years, it has not really occurred to us to consider where the material for all our new buildings and roads is coming from. But it is pretty shocking to learn that, unlike the construction industry, quarrying is barely regulated at all.
The quarry quandary:
I had a fascinating response to last week's article about quarrying, and the lack of regulation surrounding it.
Readers from five different counties contacted me to illustrate cases that had directly affected them. Because I don't have the resources to investigate each one, I won't name names or locations. But your stories highlight a number of common factors.
1.Quarry ‘owners' have sometimes claimed rights to long-abandoned quarries that, historically, they had absolutely no connection with. There is a repetitive pattern of operators reactivating old quarries without asking anyone's permission and, after a period of time, simply claiming squatters' rights - even though they are not caretaking the land, but rather consuming it.
2.The owners of quarries surrounded by common land or turf plots have sometimes either consumed that land or taken possession of it, again by claiming squatters' rights, or by compensating some locals at a token rate and, in a sort of divide and-conquer strategy, steamrolling others who do not cooperate.
Landowners have had to go to court to reclaim property approppriated in this manner.
3.When people go to their local council to complain about quarries, they are sometimes met with indifference, protestations of powerlessness (which was the point of last week's article), and in one or two cases, outright obstruction.
Would it be unusual to find that a dodgy quarry owner also has a number of council contracts in his back pocket, for road or maintenance projects, for example?
This is not necessarily to imply blanket collusion between craven councils and dodgy quarry owners; not all councils are craven, and not all quarry owners are dodgy. The extent of the abuse is hard to gauge - one case even alleged that a local council was using a quarry illegally.
Whatever about their lack of powers under the Planning Act, I think it is fair enough to say that councils are reluctant to move against quarry owners who are in some way connected to them. I'd be very keen to hear from any one else who knows about illegal or semi-legal quarrying activity and my e-mail address is below.
Friends of the Irish Environment must be credited with uncovering this story, but I suspect there's quite a lot to it.
Under the Planning Act 2000, councils are plainly not able to regulate quarries - but I wonder how many Irish quarries are fly-by-night operations in the first place. Initially, my interest in this was that quarry owners seem under no obligation to repair any of the environmental damage that they've done, but this may be just one of the problems.
It is also worth bearing in mind that many of the illegal rubbish dumps uncovered in the late 1990s were in abandoned quarries. If quarrying is as unregulated as it appears to be, is it unreasonable to assume that this filthy, dangerous activity might enjoy a renaissance?
Especially during a recession, when everyone is trying to cut corners? Does anyone have any news about this? If so, get in touch.
By Stephen Price
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Local anger as gardaí supervise blasting at unauthorised quarry
BLASTING AT an unauthorised quarry near Ashford in Co Wicklow has recommenced – under Garda supervision.
Ballylusk Quarry operated by O’Reilly Brothers (Wicklow) Ltd., on the outskirts of Ashford was judged to not have either planning permission or an exemption under the planning Acts, by An Bord Pleanála in 2003. A subsequent judicial review taken by O’Reilly Brothers against An Bord Pleanála was rejected by the High Court in 2006.
However operations have continued at the quarry and at least one local property owner was incensed when gardaí arrived and instructed him to leave his property during blasting in 2007 in the interests of health and safety.
This property, the closest building to the quarry, has since been sold, and on Wednesday the use of explosives recommenced.
Locals who have campaigned against the quarry for a decade said they are now so frustrated they are considering an appeal to the European Commission. A spokesman said there were few options left open to locals, “since the courts and Bord Pleanála have all held against this operation, but Wicklow County Council over all the years have not enforced the law”.
Senior planner at Wicklow County Council, Des O’Brien told The Irish Times the council had served a notice on the owners requiring them to cease unauthorised activity several years ago.
Mr O’Brien said the Planning Act required the council to get a court order to close the operation, and the District Court had refused the order on the basis that the O’Reilly Brothers had lodged a new planning application.
Mr O’Brien said the council had been unable to secure even a temporary injunction until the planning application was decided. Last December Wicklow County Council sought additional information in relation to the planning application and the applicants have until next month to reply.
Mr O’Brien said that on the basis of the court decision, the council told gardaí that it had no order against the quarry.
Gardaí must be present in all cases where explosives are used, said a Garda source.
Meanwhile the High Court has directed Wicklow County Council’s ethics registrar to carry out a fresh inquiry into a complaint by Green Party Senator Deirdre de Búrca that former Fianna Fáil councillor Facthna Whittle, who is a solicitor, breached ethics legislation by proposing and voting to rezone the quarry, without disclosing his law firm had acted for the quarry owner in legal proceedings.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Ballylusk Quarry operated by O’Reilly Brothers (Wicklow) Ltd., on the outskirts of Ashford was judged to not have either planning permission or an exemption under the planning Acts, by An Bord Pleanála in 2003. A subsequent judicial review taken by O’Reilly Brothers against An Bord Pleanála was rejected by the High Court in 2006.
However operations have continued at the quarry and at least one local property owner was incensed when gardaí arrived and instructed him to leave his property during blasting in 2007 in the interests of health and safety.
This property, the closest building to the quarry, has since been sold, and on Wednesday the use of explosives recommenced.
Locals who have campaigned against the quarry for a decade said they are now so frustrated they are considering an appeal to the European Commission. A spokesman said there were few options left open to locals, “since the courts and Bord Pleanála have all held against this operation, but Wicklow County Council over all the years have not enforced the law”.
Senior planner at Wicklow County Council, Des O’Brien told The Irish Times the council had served a notice on the owners requiring them to cease unauthorised activity several years ago.
Mr O’Brien said the Planning Act required the council to get a court order to close the operation, and the District Court had refused the order on the basis that the O’Reilly Brothers had lodged a new planning application.
Mr O’Brien said the council had been unable to secure even a temporary injunction until the planning application was decided. Last December Wicklow County Council sought additional information in relation to the planning application and the applicants have until next month to reply.
Mr O’Brien said that on the basis of the court decision, the council told gardaí that it had no order against the quarry.
Gardaí must be present in all cases where explosives are used, said a Garda source.
Meanwhile the High Court has directed Wicklow County Council’s ethics registrar to carry out a fresh inquiry into a complaint by Green Party Senator Deirdre de Búrca that former Fianna Fáil councillor Facthna Whittle, who is a solicitor, breached ethics legislation by proposing and voting to rezone the quarry, without disclosing his law firm had acted for the quarry owner in legal proceedings.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 22 May 2009
Quarry registration system deficient
LEGISLATION TO control the development of quarries is to be amended following the failure of a registration system which was introduced in 2005.
The obligation to register a quarry with the local authority was aimed at bringing all quarry operations within the planning process and minimising their environmental impact.
Thousands of quarrying operations applied for registration and public notices naming the quarries and inviting submissions and observations were published.
Where a quarry was deemed to be compliant, conditions, including the payment of development contributions, were imposed by the authorities.
But an 18-month investigation by Friends of the Irish Environment revealed a widespread lack of enforcement on quarries which failed to be compliant.
A subsequent complaint about the lack of enforcement by local authorities, to Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, resulted in the Department of the Environment determining that the process was in fact unenforceable, as “the Act did not provide a mechanism for pursuing legal proceedings for non-compliance”. In relation to the test case in Co Cork, the Ombudsman explained she could not make a finding of maladministration against a local authority if they could not take a legal remedy.
A spokesman for Minister for the Environment John Gormley said he was “concerned that there are significant deficiencies in section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 . . . The plan is to address these deficiencies within the proposed Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The obligation to register a quarry with the local authority was aimed at bringing all quarry operations within the planning process and minimising their environmental impact.
Thousands of quarrying operations applied for registration and public notices naming the quarries and inviting submissions and observations were published.
Where a quarry was deemed to be compliant, conditions, including the payment of development contributions, were imposed by the authorities.
But an 18-month investigation by Friends of the Irish Environment revealed a widespread lack of enforcement on quarries which failed to be compliant.
A subsequent complaint about the lack of enforcement by local authorities, to Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, resulted in the Department of the Environment determining that the process was in fact unenforceable, as “the Act did not provide a mechanism for pursuing legal proceedings for non-compliance”. In relation to the test case in Co Cork, the Ombudsman explained she could not make a finding of maladministration against a local authority if they could not take a legal remedy.
A spokesman for Minister for the Environment John Gormley said he was “concerned that there are significant deficiencies in section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 . . . The plan is to address these deficiencies within the proposed Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Council using non-compliant quarries
KERRY COUNTY Council has admitted it is buying material from some quarries which are not in compliance with planning for their operations, and in a small number of cases is purchasing material from operators in the county who have been in serious breach of planning.
The quarries and their operators are the subject of warning notices issued by the council’s planning department in recent months, and a small number of the suppliers were the subject of enforcement proceedings.
Senior officers said the council would stop purchasing material where serious breaches continued. However, the quarries would be allowed some months’ grace.
The admission was made to Independent councillor Brendan Cronin, who asked for details of all unauthorised quarries in Kerry which were the subject of active enforcement proceedings, and details of all quarries and if any of these were supplying materials to the council.
Mr Cronin said the fact that the council was purchasing some of its materials from operations not in compliance with planning was not good enough from a public confidence point of view.
“We cannot be the police officers and be purchasing from them at the same time. It’s sending two different messages out and undermines public confidence.”
The director of planning, Michael McMahon, told the councillor in a report there were 20 quarries against whom warning letters had been issued over recent months “regarding various levels of non-compliance” after planning officers visited them to check on planning conditions laid down by the council on registration in 2004.
He believed there had been a positive response from most of the 20, but a small number would be the subject of enforcement proceedings.
There were also seven quarries unauthorised, and enforcement proceedings were in train against these.
Two of these were also supplying the council, according to documentation released to Mr Cronin.
“There are people out there at the moment from whom we are purchasing material not in 100 per cent compliance with planning conditions,” Mr McMahon told a council meeting.
However, he said the requirement that quarries register with the planning authority was comparatively recent. Quarries had been unregulated since 1964 and had only been brought into the process in 2004.
Mr McMahon said planning officers would be revisiting to check on compliance with conditions imposed by the council, and it was reasonable to allow people time to get their houses in order.
The council’s head of finance, John O’Connor, told this month’s council meeting that Mr Cronin was “preaching to the converted”. In future where the planning office discovered a serious breach, the council would stop purchasing material from the operator and there would be no period of grace.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The quarries and their operators are the subject of warning notices issued by the council’s planning department in recent months, and a small number of the suppliers were the subject of enforcement proceedings.
Senior officers said the council would stop purchasing material where serious breaches continued. However, the quarries would be allowed some months’ grace.
The admission was made to Independent councillor Brendan Cronin, who asked for details of all unauthorised quarries in Kerry which were the subject of active enforcement proceedings, and details of all quarries and if any of these were supplying materials to the council.
Mr Cronin said the fact that the council was purchasing some of its materials from operations not in compliance with planning was not good enough from a public confidence point of view.
“We cannot be the police officers and be purchasing from them at the same time. It’s sending two different messages out and undermines public confidence.”
The director of planning, Michael McMahon, told the councillor in a report there were 20 quarries against whom warning letters had been issued over recent months “regarding various levels of non-compliance” after planning officers visited them to check on planning conditions laid down by the council on registration in 2004.
He believed there had been a positive response from most of the 20, but a small number would be the subject of enforcement proceedings.
There were also seven quarries unauthorised, and enforcement proceedings were in train against these.
Two of these were also supplying the council, according to documentation released to Mr Cronin.
“There are people out there at the moment from whom we are purchasing material not in 100 per cent compliance with planning conditions,” Mr McMahon told a council meeting.
However, he said the requirement that quarries register with the planning authority was comparatively recent. Quarries had been unregulated since 1964 and had only been brought into the process in 2004.
Mr McMahon said planning officers would be revisiting to check on compliance with conditions imposed by the council, and it was reasonable to allow people time to get their houses in order.
The council’s head of finance, John O’Connor, told this month’s council meeting that Mr Cronin was “preaching to the converted”. In future where the planning office discovered a serious breach, the council would stop purchasing material from the operator and there would be no period of grace.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Quarry firm denies infill defects
CRACKS in the walls and floors of up to 750 houses are "insignificant" and not caused by building material supplied by one of the country's largest quarrying companies, a court heard yesterday.
Yesterday, the Lagan Group launched a robust defence to claims by Menolly Homes, owned by developer Seamus Ross, that infill it supplied to four building companies controlled by Mr Ross was defective.
The denial came as Menolly Homes said it may apply to have the €60m row over structural defects in hundreds of homes in three new housing estates in Dublin struck out of court after new evidence came to light.
Menolly Homes, which built the homes using infill supplied from a Lagan-owned quarry, signalled its intention to have the litigation struck out after receiving minutes of three Lagan management meetings.
The minutes were only handed over to Menolly's lawyers on Monday at 3pm, several hours after Menolly had opened its case at the Commercial Court, sitting in Clonskeagh.
The minutes revealed that Terry Lagan, the group's director, believed that lands at Bay Lane -- its quarry near Dublin Airport -- were unsuitable for quarrying, a revelation described as one of "the utmost seriousness" by Brian O'Moore, senior counsel for Menolly.
Yesterday Mr O'Moore said that the "entire shape of opening of the case" would have been entirely different had the minutes been furnished to him.
Mr Justice Paul Galligan, who is presiding over the case with two designated assessors, said it was up to Menolly whether to accept new, confirmatory statements from Mr Lagan or to seek to have the Lagan Group's defences struck out.
Opening its defence, the Lagan Group insisted that the vast majority of the cracks that appeared in the houses built by Menolly have no structural significance and are unrelated to the infill material gleaned from a quarry it owns at Bay Lane, near Dublin Airport.
Conclusions
It also accused Menolly, which is seeking legal protection against up to €60m in anticipated damages claims from homeowners, of "jumping to conclusions" about the cause of the problems.
Menolly has claimed that the cracking in the houses was caused by the presence of pyrite, a mineral also known as "fool's gold", in aggregate infill procured by Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Ltd and Lagan Construction Limited.
All companies are owned by the Lagan Group.
Senior counsel Hugh O'Neill, opening the case for Lagan, said that Menolly and its experts had convinced themselves that pyrite was the problem in an effort to pass responsibility to the Lagan-owned companies.
"We know about the situation in the country where practically every second house with cracks is having this [the cracks] attributed to pyrite," he said.
"A problem which for some reason we managed to live without for many years is now said to be the root cause of endless cracking."
Mr O'Neill also claimed that Menolly had "rushed" to get the houses built and sold when the property market was booming and alleged that there were defects in the design and workmanship of some of the units.
The case, which could last for several months, continues today.
Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Yesterday, the Lagan Group launched a robust defence to claims by Menolly Homes, owned by developer Seamus Ross, that infill it supplied to four building companies controlled by Mr Ross was defective.
The denial came as Menolly Homes said it may apply to have the €60m row over structural defects in hundreds of homes in three new housing estates in Dublin struck out of court after new evidence came to light.
Menolly Homes, which built the homes using infill supplied from a Lagan-owned quarry, signalled its intention to have the litigation struck out after receiving minutes of three Lagan management meetings.
The minutes were only handed over to Menolly's lawyers on Monday at 3pm, several hours after Menolly had opened its case at the Commercial Court, sitting in Clonskeagh.
The minutes revealed that Terry Lagan, the group's director, believed that lands at Bay Lane -- its quarry near Dublin Airport -- were unsuitable for quarrying, a revelation described as one of "the utmost seriousness" by Brian O'Moore, senior counsel for Menolly.
Yesterday Mr O'Moore said that the "entire shape of opening of the case" would have been entirely different had the minutes been furnished to him.
Mr Justice Paul Galligan, who is presiding over the case with two designated assessors, said it was up to Menolly whether to accept new, confirmatory statements from Mr Lagan or to seek to have the Lagan Group's defences struck out.
Opening its defence, the Lagan Group insisted that the vast majority of the cracks that appeared in the houses built by Menolly have no structural significance and are unrelated to the infill material gleaned from a quarry it owns at Bay Lane, near Dublin Airport.
Conclusions
It also accused Menolly, which is seeking legal protection against up to €60m in anticipated damages claims from homeowners, of "jumping to conclusions" about the cause of the problems.
Menolly has claimed that the cracking in the houses was caused by the presence of pyrite, a mineral also known as "fool's gold", in aggregate infill procured by Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Ltd and Lagan Construction Limited.
All companies are owned by the Lagan Group.
Senior counsel Hugh O'Neill, opening the case for Lagan, said that Menolly and its experts had convinced themselves that pyrite was the problem in an effort to pass responsibility to the Lagan-owned companies.
"We know about the situation in the country where practically every second house with cracks is having this [the cracks] attributed to pyrite," he said.
"A problem which for some reason we managed to live without for many years is now said to be the root cause of endless cracking."
Mr O'Neill also claimed that Menolly had "rushed" to get the houses built and sold when the property market was booming and alleged that there were defects in the design and workmanship of some of the units.
The case, which could last for several months, continues today.
Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 12 January 2009
Permission required for quarry development
Meath County Council -v- Sheils: High Court. Judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on November 13th, 2008
Judgment
The intensification of quarrying at a quarry in Co Meath, including the use of blasting, constituted unauthorised development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the applicant, Meath County Council, was entitled to orders restraining the respondent from continuing, prohibiting any intensification of the work, and directing the removal of machinery from the site.
Background
The case concerned a stone quarry in Slane, Co Meath, where quarrying had first begun in the late 19th century and continued intermittently until it was bought by the present owner, the respondent, Patrick Sheils, in 2004. For the remainder of that year the operation of the quarry was small, and in December he applied to register it in accordance with Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There was a factual dispute concerning the details submitted on the registration documentation.
In June 2005 an engineer with the county council visited the site and reported that it was a small-scale development, with no evidence of significant intensive quarrying operations.
From February 2006 there were numerous complaints made to the county council by local residents relating to the intensity of the quarrying, and including complaints about long hours, dust, noise and explosions.
An executive planner visited the site on behalf of the county council and noted a number of machines in operation, a portacabin and a number of vehicles entering and leaving. She concluded there had been an intensification of operations, and the county council sent a warning letter to the owner.
This planner also reported that in her opinion the quarrying activities now being carried out constituted an intensification that required planning permission. The council wrote to the respondent calling on him to cease.
He responded that he would continue in accordance with the details on the registration forms he had submitted. He refused to give copies of a log-book and blast records, and the council sought and was granted an order by the District Court requiring him to hand them over. These showed an average of 221 loads a week being excavated and transported between January 2006 and February 2007.
The dispute about the registration form was a central part of the hearing. Two versions of the second page were submitted to the court. The county council's version stated the site to be 3.46 hectares in area, and stated that the expected traffic would range from 0 to 100 loads a week, with no emissions, as the "operation is small and confined".
Mr Shiels's version stated that the site was 4.46 hectares in area, and, relating to emissions, "occasional blasting takes place, this dependent on the hardness of the rock". In relation to traffic it stated that this could be up to 200 loads a day or 1,400 a week.
Mr Sheils said that the council's version of the form was an earlier, draft version that was submitted in error by his sister in his absence, and that he later submitted the correct form.
The council alleged that Mr Sheils's version of the form was forged, and was changed to reflect the increased volume of output. Only the first page of its version was stamped, while the second page of Mr Sheils's was stamped.
It commissioned a forensic scientist to examine this stamp, and he concluded that there was "conclusive evidence" that this stamp was taken from the council's version and placed on Mr Sheils's version, most likely by "composite photocopy process".
The council contended that there had been a material change in the use of the land, amounting to unauthorised development. This included the use of an increased area for excavation, major changes in the production method, with the use of blasting, and an increase in the number of loads of up to 60 on some days.
Mr Sheils contended that the quarry had been in use for 100 years, and that the increase in the number of loads did not constitute a change of use.
Decision
Mr Justice Hedigan examined the relevant law, referring to the questions outlined in the judgment of Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan in Roadstone Provinces Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála .
In relation to whether there had been a change in use of the land, he referred to the first engineer's report, which stated that the operation was "small and confined".
He then turned to the evidence of the respondent concerning the registration form, which gave rise to "the gravest concern".
"It seems to me that there exist grounds to suspect that a serious, determined, carefully planned and carefully executed effort was made to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form subsequent to its original submission. I will refer the papers in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to his consideration of criminal proceedings," he said.
He rejected Mr Sheils's evidence on the form, and held that the council's version was the correct one. He concluded that the threefold increase in output, the significant change in production methods used and the increase in the area quarried, all amounted to a "classic case of intensification" and was a change in the use of land.
Turning to whether this change was "material" he said this must be considered in the context of the planning and development considerations for the area.
Up to 2004 there had been no complaints about the operation of the quarry. The intensification occurred over a two-year period, after at least 50 years of minimal activities. The change was "material" in that "development" within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 had taken place. It was also unauthorised, and the court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
This discretion should not be exercised lightly, and the duty and benefit of the developer must be balanced against the environmental and ecological rights and amenities of the public, present and future.
He considered the conduct of the respondent in this context, and pointed out that it appeared he had fabricated evidence on at least one occasion in the course of the present proceedings, that is the second page of the registration form.
He may have fabricated a letter from the local residents' association, which he claimed was used to insult his political sensitivities. He had also refused to provide documents to the council, forcing it to go to court.
Mr Sheils had claimed his business would be unsustainable if he was restricted to the 20 loads a day stated on the council's registration form. However, Mr Justice Hedigan concluded that this would merely restore the quarry's operation to its pre-2004 level, and would not have a "devastating" or "destructive" effect on the business.
In the light of all this, and in particular in the light of the mala fides (bad faith) of the respondent, he was granting the council the reliefs it sought.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Pat Butler SC and Tom Clarke BL, instructed by Regan McEntee, Trim, for the applicant; John Aylmer SC and Oisin Collins BL, instructed by G Traynor and Co, Dundalk, for the respondent
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Judgment
The intensification of quarrying at a quarry in Co Meath, including the use of blasting, constituted unauthorised development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the applicant, Meath County Council, was entitled to orders restraining the respondent from continuing, prohibiting any intensification of the work, and directing the removal of machinery from the site.
Background
The case concerned a stone quarry in Slane, Co Meath, where quarrying had first begun in the late 19th century and continued intermittently until it was bought by the present owner, the respondent, Patrick Sheils, in 2004. For the remainder of that year the operation of the quarry was small, and in December he applied to register it in accordance with Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There was a factual dispute concerning the details submitted on the registration documentation.
In June 2005 an engineer with the county council visited the site and reported that it was a small-scale development, with no evidence of significant intensive quarrying operations.
From February 2006 there were numerous complaints made to the county council by local residents relating to the intensity of the quarrying, and including complaints about long hours, dust, noise and explosions.
An executive planner visited the site on behalf of the county council and noted a number of machines in operation, a portacabin and a number of vehicles entering and leaving. She concluded there had been an intensification of operations, and the county council sent a warning letter to the owner.
This planner also reported that in her opinion the quarrying activities now being carried out constituted an intensification that required planning permission. The council wrote to the respondent calling on him to cease.
He responded that he would continue in accordance with the details on the registration forms he had submitted. He refused to give copies of a log-book and blast records, and the council sought and was granted an order by the District Court requiring him to hand them over. These showed an average of 221 loads a week being excavated and transported between January 2006 and February 2007.
The dispute about the registration form was a central part of the hearing. Two versions of the second page were submitted to the court. The county council's version stated the site to be 3.46 hectares in area, and stated that the expected traffic would range from 0 to 100 loads a week, with no emissions, as the "operation is small and confined".
Mr Shiels's version stated that the site was 4.46 hectares in area, and, relating to emissions, "occasional blasting takes place, this dependent on the hardness of the rock". In relation to traffic it stated that this could be up to 200 loads a day or 1,400 a week.
Mr Sheils said that the council's version of the form was an earlier, draft version that was submitted in error by his sister in his absence, and that he later submitted the correct form.
The council alleged that Mr Sheils's version of the form was forged, and was changed to reflect the increased volume of output. Only the first page of its version was stamped, while the second page of Mr Sheils's was stamped.
It commissioned a forensic scientist to examine this stamp, and he concluded that there was "conclusive evidence" that this stamp was taken from the council's version and placed on Mr Sheils's version, most likely by "composite photocopy process".
The council contended that there had been a material change in the use of the land, amounting to unauthorised development. This included the use of an increased area for excavation, major changes in the production method, with the use of blasting, and an increase in the number of loads of up to 60 on some days.
Mr Sheils contended that the quarry had been in use for 100 years, and that the increase in the number of loads did not constitute a change of use.
Decision
Mr Justice Hedigan examined the relevant law, referring to the questions outlined in the judgment of Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan in Roadstone Provinces Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála .
In relation to whether there had been a change in use of the land, he referred to the first engineer's report, which stated that the operation was "small and confined".
He then turned to the evidence of the respondent concerning the registration form, which gave rise to "the gravest concern".
"It seems to me that there exist grounds to suspect that a serious, determined, carefully planned and carefully executed effort was made to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form subsequent to its original submission. I will refer the papers in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to his consideration of criminal proceedings," he said.
He rejected Mr Sheils's evidence on the form, and held that the council's version was the correct one. He concluded that the threefold increase in output, the significant change in production methods used and the increase in the area quarried, all amounted to a "classic case of intensification" and was a change in the use of land.
Turning to whether this change was "material" he said this must be considered in the context of the planning and development considerations for the area.
Up to 2004 there had been no complaints about the operation of the quarry. The intensification occurred over a two-year period, after at least 50 years of minimal activities. The change was "material" in that "development" within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 had taken place. It was also unauthorised, and the court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
This discretion should not be exercised lightly, and the duty and benefit of the developer must be balanced against the environmental and ecological rights and amenities of the public, present and future.
He considered the conduct of the respondent in this context, and pointed out that it appeared he had fabricated evidence on at least one occasion in the course of the present proceedings, that is the second page of the registration form.
He may have fabricated a letter from the local residents' association, which he claimed was used to insult his political sensitivities. He had also refused to provide documents to the council, forcing it to go to court.
Mr Sheils had claimed his business would be unsustainable if he was restricted to the 20 loads a day stated on the council's registration form. However, Mr Justice Hedigan concluded that this would merely restore the quarry's operation to its pre-2004 level, and would not have a "devastating" or "destructive" effect on the business.
In the light of all this, and in particular in the light of the mala fides (bad faith) of the respondent, he was granting the council the reliefs it sought.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Pat Butler SC and Tom Clarke BL, instructed by Regan McEntee, Trim, for the applicant; John Aylmer SC and Oisin Collins BL, instructed by G Traynor and Co, Dundalk, for the respondent
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Permission required for quarry development
Meath County Council -v- Sheils: High Court. Judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on November 13th, 2008
Judgment
The intensification of quarrying at a quarry in Co Meath, including the use of blasting, constituted unauthorised development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the applicant, Meath County Council, was entitled to orders restraining the respondent from continuing, prohibiting any intensification of the work, and directing the removal of machinery from the site.
Background
The case concerned a stone quarry in Slane, Co Meath, where quarrying had first begun in the late 19th century and continued intermittently until it was bought by the present owner, the respondent, Patrick Sheils, in 2004. For the remainder of that year the operation of the quarry was small, and in December he applied to register it in accordance with Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There was a factual dispute concerning the details submitted on the registration documentation.
In June 2005 an engineer with the county council visited the site and reported that it was a small-scale development, with no evidence of significant intensive quarrying operations.
From February 2006 there were numerous complaints made to the county council by local residents relating to the intensity of the quarrying, and including complaints about long hours, dust, noise and explosions.
An executive planner visited the site on behalf of the county council and noted a number of machines in operation, a portacabin and a number of vehicles entering and leaving. She concluded there had been an intensification of operations, and the county council sent a warning letter to the owner.
This planner also reported that in her opinion the quarrying activities now being carried out constituted an intensification that required planning permission. The council wrote to the respondent calling on him to cease.
He responded that he would continue in accordance with the details on the registration forms he had submitted. He refused to give copies of a log-book and blast records, and the council sought and was granted an order by the District Court requiring him to hand them over. These showed an average of 221 loads a week being excavated and transported between January 2006 and February 2007.
The dispute about the registration form was a central part of the hearing. Two versions of the second page were submitted to the court. The county council's version stated the site to be 3.46 hectares in area, and stated that the expected traffic would range from 0 to 100 loads a week, with no emissions, as the "operation is small and confined".
Mr Shiels's version stated that the site was 4.46 hectares in area, and, relating to emissions, "occasional blasting takes place, this dependent on the hardness of the rock". In relation to traffic it stated that this could be up to 200 loads a day or 1,400 a week.
Mr Sheils said that the council's version of the form was an earlier, draft version that was submitted in error by his sister in his absence, and that he later submitted the correct form.
The council alleged that Mr Sheils's version of the form was forged, and was changed to reflect the increased volume of output. Only the first page of its version was stamped, while the second page of Mr Sheils's was stamped.
It commissioned a forensic scientist to examine this stamp, and he concluded that there was "conclusive evidence" that this stamp was taken from the council's version and placed on Mr Sheils's version, most likely by "composite photocopy process".
The council contended that there had been a material change in the use of the land, amounting to unauthorised development. This included the use of an increased area for excavation, major changes in the production method, with the use of blasting, and an increase in the number of loads of up to 60 on some days.
Mr Sheils contended that the quarry had been in use for 100 years, and that the increase in the number of loads did not constitute a change of use.
Decision
Mr Justice Hedigan examined the relevant law, referring to the questions outlined in the judgment of Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan in Roadstone Provinces Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála .
In relation to whether there had been a change in use of the land, he referred to the first engineer's report, which stated that the operation was "small and confined".
He then turned to the evidence of the respondent concerning the registration form, which gave rise to "the gravest concern".
"It seems to me that there exist grounds to suspect that a serious, determined, carefully planned and carefully executed effort was made to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form subsequent to its original submission. I will refer the papers in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to his consideration of criminal proceedings," he said.
He rejected Mr Sheils's evidence on the form, and held that the council's version was the correct one. He concluded that the threefold increase in output, the significant change in production methods used and the increase in the area quarried, all amounted to a "classic case of intensification" and was a change in the use of land.
Turning to whether this change was "material" he said this must be considered in the context of the planning and development considerations for the area.
Up to 2004 there had been no complaints about the operation of the quarry. The intensification occurred over a two-year period, after at least 50 years of minimal activities. The change was "material" in that "development" within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 had taken place. It was also unauthorised, and the court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
This discretion should not be exercised lightly, and the duty and benefit of the developer must be balanced against the environmental and ecological rights and amenities of the public, present and future.
He considered the conduct of the respondent in this context, and pointed out that it appeared he had fabricated evidence on at least one occasion in the course of the present proceedings, that is the second page of the registration form.
He may have fabricated a letter from the local residents' association, which he claimed was used to insult his political sensitivities. He had also refused to provide documents to the council, forcing it to go to court.
Mr Sheils had claimed his business would be unsustainable if he was restricted to the 20 loads a day stated on the council's registration form. However, Mr Justice Hedigan concluded that this would merely restore the quarry's operation to its pre-2004 level, and would not have a "devastating" or "destructive" effect on the business.
In the light of all this, and in particular in the light of the mala fides (bad faith) of the respondent, he was granting the council the reliefs it sought.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Pat Butler SC and Tom Clarke BL, instructed by Regan McEntee, Trim, for the applicant; John Aylmer SC and Oisin Collins BL, instructed by G Traynor and Co, Dundalk, for the respondent
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Judgment
The intensification of quarrying at a quarry in Co Meath, including the use of blasting, constituted unauthorised development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the applicant, Meath County Council, was entitled to orders restraining the respondent from continuing, prohibiting any intensification of the work, and directing the removal of machinery from the site.
Background
The case concerned a stone quarry in Slane, Co Meath, where quarrying had first begun in the late 19th century and continued intermittently until it was bought by the present owner, the respondent, Patrick Sheils, in 2004. For the remainder of that year the operation of the quarry was small, and in December he applied to register it in accordance with Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There was a factual dispute concerning the details submitted on the registration documentation.
In June 2005 an engineer with the county council visited the site and reported that it was a small-scale development, with no evidence of significant intensive quarrying operations.
From February 2006 there were numerous complaints made to the county council by local residents relating to the intensity of the quarrying, and including complaints about long hours, dust, noise and explosions.
An executive planner visited the site on behalf of the county council and noted a number of machines in operation, a portacabin and a number of vehicles entering and leaving. She concluded there had been an intensification of operations, and the county council sent a warning letter to the owner.
This planner also reported that in her opinion the quarrying activities now being carried out constituted an intensification that required planning permission. The council wrote to the respondent calling on him to cease.
He responded that he would continue in accordance with the details on the registration forms he had submitted. He refused to give copies of a log-book and blast records, and the council sought and was granted an order by the District Court requiring him to hand them over. These showed an average of 221 loads a week being excavated and transported between January 2006 and February 2007.
The dispute about the registration form was a central part of the hearing. Two versions of the second page were submitted to the court. The county council's version stated the site to be 3.46 hectares in area, and stated that the expected traffic would range from 0 to 100 loads a week, with no emissions, as the "operation is small and confined".
Mr Shiels's version stated that the site was 4.46 hectares in area, and, relating to emissions, "occasional blasting takes place, this dependent on the hardness of the rock". In relation to traffic it stated that this could be up to 200 loads a day or 1,400 a week.
Mr Sheils said that the council's version of the form was an earlier, draft version that was submitted in error by his sister in his absence, and that he later submitted the correct form.
The council alleged that Mr Sheils's version of the form was forged, and was changed to reflect the increased volume of output. Only the first page of its version was stamped, while the second page of Mr Sheils's was stamped.
It commissioned a forensic scientist to examine this stamp, and he concluded that there was "conclusive evidence" that this stamp was taken from the council's version and placed on Mr Sheils's version, most likely by "composite photocopy process".
The council contended that there had been a material change in the use of the land, amounting to unauthorised development. This included the use of an increased area for excavation, major changes in the production method, with the use of blasting, and an increase in the number of loads of up to 60 on some days.
Mr Sheils contended that the quarry had been in use for 100 years, and that the increase in the number of loads did not constitute a change of use.
Decision
Mr Justice Hedigan examined the relevant law, referring to the questions outlined in the judgment of Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan in Roadstone Provinces Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála .
In relation to whether there had been a change in use of the land, he referred to the first engineer's report, which stated that the operation was "small and confined".
He then turned to the evidence of the respondent concerning the registration form, which gave rise to "the gravest concern".
"It seems to me that there exist grounds to suspect that a serious, determined, carefully planned and carefully executed effort was made to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form subsequent to its original submission. I will refer the papers in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to his consideration of criminal proceedings," he said.
He rejected Mr Sheils's evidence on the form, and held that the council's version was the correct one. He concluded that the threefold increase in output, the significant change in production methods used and the increase in the area quarried, all amounted to a "classic case of intensification" and was a change in the use of land.
Turning to whether this change was "material" he said this must be considered in the context of the planning and development considerations for the area.
Up to 2004 there had been no complaints about the operation of the quarry. The intensification occurred over a two-year period, after at least 50 years of minimal activities. The change was "material" in that "development" within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000 had taken place. It was also unauthorised, and the court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
This discretion should not be exercised lightly, and the duty and benefit of the developer must be balanced against the environmental and ecological rights and amenities of the public, present and future.
He considered the conduct of the respondent in this context, and pointed out that it appeared he had fabricated evidence on at least one occasion in the course of the present proceedings, that is the second page of the registration form.
He may have fabricated a letter from the local residents' association, which he claimed was used to insult his political sensitivities. He had also refused to provide documents to the council, forcing it to go to court.
Mr Sheils had claimed his business would be unsustainable if he was restricted to the 20 loads a day stated on the council's registration form. However, Mr Justice Hedigan concluded that this would merely restore the quarry's operation to its pre-2004 level, and would not have a "devastating" or "destructive" effect on the business.
In the light of all this, and in particular in the light of the mala fides (bad faith) of the respondent, he was granting the council the reliefs it sought.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Pat Butler SC and Tom Clarke BL, instructed by Regan McEntee, Trim, for the applicant; John Aylmer SC and Oisin Collins BL, instructed by G Traynor and Co, Dundalk, for the respondent
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Council to decide on quarry request
A DECISION on an application to import 1,200 tonnes of stone per month to an unauthorised quarry in Ashford is due from the County Council on Thursday.
O'Reilly Brothers Ltd, who own the quarry in Ballylusk, have applied to Wicklow County Council for permission to extend operations to include an increase in the rate of extraction of up to 60,000 tonnes of stone per year.
This comes despite the fact that the High Court upheld a decision made by An Bord Pleanála and in 2003 ruled that the quarry was operating without planning permission and was not exempt from the requirement for planning permission.
However, the quarry is still in operation and at times the local gardaí have had to ask people living nearby to vacate their homes due to safety concerns when blasting is taking place.
While many people expected activity to cease once the High Court ruling was received, Des O'Brien, Director of Services for the Council's Planning Section, says the legal process involved has proved a lengthy one.
'An enforcement action brought by the Council is due before the circuit court early next year. It can be a slow process and there is no guarantee that the matter won't be adjourned on the day of the court date. Enforcement cases often take a lot of time.'
O'Reilly Brothers Ltd. are also looking to retain existing screening and for the retention of a 19sq m works canteen.
Furthermore, they want to import up to 300 tonnes of stone per week, as well as a wheel cleansing unit, a settlement lagoon, the provision of an effluent treatment system and improvements to the current entrance.
Myles BUCHANAN
Wicklow People
www.buckplanning.ie
O'Reilly Brothers Ltd, who own the quarry in Ballylusk, have applied to Wicklow County Council for permission to extend operations to include an increase in the rate of extraction of up to 60,000 tonnes of stone per year.
This comes despite the fact that the High Court upheld a decision made by An Bord Pleanála and in 2003 ruled that the quarry was operating without planning permission and was not exempt from the requirement for planning permission.
However, the quarry is still in operation and at times the local gardaí have had to ask people living nearby to vacate their homes due to safety concerns when blasting is taking place.
While many people expected activity to cease once the High Court ruling was received, Des O'Brien, Director of Services for the Council's Planning Section, says the legal process involved has proved a lengthy one.
'An enforcement action brought by the Council is due before the circuit court early next year. It can be a slow process and there is no guarantee that the matter won't be adjourned on the day of the court date. Enforcement cases often take a lot of time.'
O'Reilly Brothers Ltd. are also looking to retain existing screening and for the retention of a 19sq m works canteen.
Furthermore, they want to import up to 300 tonnes of stone per week, as well as a wheel cleansing unit, a settlement lagoon, the provision of an effluent treatment system and improvements to the current entrance.
Myles BUCHANAN
Wicklow People
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 8 December 2008
Unauthorised Wicklow quarry seeks to expand
WICKLOW COUNTY Council is to decide next week whether to allow an unauthorised quarrying operation to import up to 1,200 tonnes of stone per month.
O'Reilly Brothers quarry at Ballylusk near Ashford was found to be operating without planning permission, and not to be exempt from the requirement for planning permission, by An Bord Pleanála in 2003.
The Bord Pleanála decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in December 2006, when Mr Justice John Quirke criticised the council's role in the affair, describing its documentation as "deplorable" and "rag-tag".
However, the quarry has continued to operate and on a number of occasions, when blasting was taking place, local people were asked by gardaí to leave their homes in the interests of safety.
Now O'Reilly Brothers Ltd has asked the council for planning permission to extend operations at the site, including an increase in the rate of extraction of up to 60,000 tonnes per year of stone.
The company has also asked the council for permission to retain existing screening along the northern boundary of the site, and for the retention of a 19sq m works canteen.
It has also asked the council to approve the importation of up to 300 tonnes of stone per week, along with a wheel-cleaning unit, a settlement lagoon, provision of an effluent treatment system and improvements to the existing quarry entrance among other ancillary works.
The council is due to decide on the application by December 11th.
Local residents have criticised the application, claiming they have "no faith left that the council will support the rule of law".
Residents, who said they did not want to be named, said they had initially objected to the quarry because of the noise, nuisance and the number of heavy lorries using a country lane.
A number said they had believed the quarry would be forced to close when the planning board and the High Court found against it, and questioned the council's efforts to enforce the court's decision.
Director of services for planning with Wicklow County Council Des O'Brien said an enforcement action taken by the council on foot of the Bord Pleanála and High Court decisions was due to come before the Circuit Court early next year.
He said the council was not in a position to "simply put a chain on the gate" but had to go through the courts.
He said the legal system frequently contributed to making enforcement a slow process, an aspect he claimed was seldom reported in the media.
He added that the council had successfully prosecuted a number of planning enforcement cases at Bray Circuit Court in recent times. These had included houses built without planning permission, unauthorised quarries and other infringements.
Attempts to secure a comment from O'Reilly Brothers over a number of days have not been successful.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
O'Reilly Brothers quarry at Ballylusk near Ashford was found to be operating without planning permission, and not to be exempt from the requirement for planning permission, by An Bord Pleanála in 2003.
The Bord Pleanála decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in December 2006, when Mr Justice John Quirke criticised the council's role in the affair, describing its documentation as "deplorable" and "rag-tag".
However, the quarry has continued to operate and on a number of occasions, when blasting was taking place, local people were asked by gardaí to leave their homes in the interests of safety.
Now O'Reilly Brothers Ltd has asked the council for planning permission to extend operations at the site, including an increase in the rate of extraction of up to 60,000 tonnes per year of stone.
The company has also asked the council for permission to retain existing screening along the northern boundary of the site, and for the retention of a 19sq m works canteen.
It has also asked the council to approve the importation of up to 300 tonnes of stone per week, along with a wheel-cleaning unit, a settlement lagoon, provision of an effluent treatment system and improvements to the existing quarry entrance among other ancillary works.
The council is due to decide on the application by December 11th.
Local residents have criticised the application, claiming they have "no faith left that the council will support the rule of law".
Residents, who said they did not want to be named, said they had initially objected to the quarry because of the noise, nuisance and the number of heavy lorries using a country lane.
A number said they had believed the quarry would be forced to close when the planning board and the High Court found against it, and questioned the council's efforts to enforce the court's decision.
Director of services for planning with Wicklow County Council Des O'Brien said an enforcement action taken by the council on foot of the Bord Pleanála and High Court decisions was due to come before the Circuit Court early next year.
He said the council was not in a position to "simply put a chain on the gate" but had to go through the courts.
He said the legal system frequently contributed to making enforcement a slow process, an aspect he claimed was seldom reported in the media.
He added that the council had successfully prosecuted a number of planning enforcement cases at Bray Circuit Court in recent times. These had included houses built without planning permission, unauthorised quarries and other infringements.
Attempts to secure a comment from O'Reilly Brothers over a number of days have not been successful.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 14 November 2008
High Court refers unauthorised Slane quarry's papers to DPP
A HIGH court judge has ruled that a stone quarry at Slane, Co Meath, which employs 50 people, constitutes unauthorised development and is operating without the required planning permission.
Mr Justice John Hedigan also referred papers in the case to the DPP after finding there were grounds to suspect a "carefully-planned" effort to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form to the advantage of quarry owner, Patrick Shiels.
He upheld arguments by Meath County Council that operations intensified at the quarry since 2004, when it was purchased for €1 million by Mr Shiels, amounting to a material change of use for which planning permission was required.
He noted local residents had complained from 2006 about long hours, dust, noise and explosions. Less than 20 loads of stone daily were taken from the quarry in 2004 but that had increased to 60 loads. Blasting was now common and there was no objective evidence of blasting before 2006.
The judge was told a planning application had been lodged on October 15th and he adjourned to next week the issue of final orders in the case. The judge said the court should make orders restraining unauthorised development and prohibiting intensification of quarrying .
Mr Shiels had urged the judge to take into account that the quarry employs 50 people and provides stone to major infrastructural projects such as the M50.
Restriction to 20 loads of stone per day, as sought by Meath County Council, would put him out of business, he said.
Mr Justice Hedigan said Mr Shiels was on notice from 2006 of the council's concerns and the complaints of local residents but had acted in deliberate and conscious disregard of council attempts to ensure compliance.
The judge said evidence before the court had indicated Mr Shiels had fabricated evidence "on at least one occasion" in the hearing - a page on the 2004 quarry registration form stating its output would be up to 100 loads per week. Mr Shiels had said that page was submitted in error and his version of the form provided for up to 1400 loads per week.
The judge said there were grounds to suspect a serious and carefully-executed effort was made to subvert the planning process. He said he would refer papers in the case to the DPP with a view to criminal proceedings.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Justice John Hedigan also referred papers in the case to the DPP after finding there were grounds to suspect a "carefully-planned" effort to subvert the planning process by altering or forging an official form to the advantage of quarry owner, Patrick Shiels.
He upheld arguments by Meath County Council that operations intensified at the quarry since 2004, when it was purchased for €1 million by Mr Shiels, amounting to a material change of use for which planning permission was required.
He noted local residents had complained from 2006 about long hours, dust, noise and explosions. Less than 20 loads of stone daily were taken from the quarry in 2004 but that had increased to 60 loads. Blasting was now common and there was no objective evidence of blasting before 2006.
The judge was told a planning application had been lodged on October 15th and he adjourned to next week the issue of final orders in the case. The judge said the court should make orders restraining unauthorised development and prohibiting intensification of quarrying .
Mr Shiels had urged the judge to take into account that the quarry employs 50 people and provides stone to major infrastructural projects such as the M50.
Restriction to 20 loads of stone per day, as sought by Meath County Council, would put him out of business, he said.
Mr Justice Hedigan said Mr Shiels was on notice from 2006 of the council's concerns and the complaints of local residents but had acted in deliberate and conscious disregard of council attempts to ensure compliance.
The judge said evidence before the court had indicated Mr Shiels had fabricated evidence "on at least one occasion" in the hearing - a page on the 2004 quarry registration form stating its output would be up to 100 loads per week. Mr Shiels had said that page was submitted in error and his version of the form provided for up to 1400 loads per week.
The judge said there were grounds to suspect a serious and carefully-executed effort was made to subvert the planning process. He said he would refer papers in the case to the DPP with a view to criminal proceedings.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 29 September 2008
Information Commissioner directs Kildare County Council to release information on Roadstone’s quarry at Hill of Allen
In a major decision released on 23rd September, the Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly has directed Kildare County Council to turn over to the Hill of Allen Action Group documents concerning planning at Roadstone’s quarry that the Council has fought to keep secret for more than a year.
A spokesperson for the Group said “We are delighted that the Information Commissioner has agreed that the public has a right to know why KCC has failed to enforce its 2006 decision to require Roadstone to submit an EIS and planning application for its quarry at the Hill of Allen. KCC has persisted in denying the public its right to see these documents. Maybe now we’ll finally get some answers.”
In September 2007, under Directive 2003/4/EC and the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (S.I .No 133 of 2007), the Hill of Allen Group made a formal request to KCC for court papers and all other documents relating to the planning case which have not been made available to the public.
In October the Council released some documents but refused others which were deemed too sensitive.
The Group asked for an internal review of the decision, and when none was forthcoming, in January 2008 they appealed to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The information being sought originated in KCC’s decision on the 21st July, 2006 under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to require Roadstone to submit a planning application and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its quarry at the Hill of Allen.
Roadstone applied for judicial review of the decision in the High Court.
The Hill of Allen Group, concerned that KCC was not vigorously defending its side, applied to be added to the case as a Notice Party, but Roadstone and KCC asked the judge to strike out the case on the 30th July 2007, the day he was to rule on the Group’s application. This move denied the Group access to court documents which might explain why KCC failed to enforce its 2006 planning decision.
Since the case was struck out, the Council and Roadstone have been engaged in negotiations to secure agreement on the operation of the quarry under section 47 of the Planning Act.
At various times since August 2007 the Council has announced to the public and to government officials that completion of the agreement was “imminent”.
In the Commissioner’s decision, Ms. O’Reilly noted that “my Office was informed at various times by officials of the Council that completion of the section 47 agreement was imminent”. On the 20th of February 2008 the Council told the Commissioner that the agreement would be finalised “within the next 10 days" (by the 1st of March 2008), and on the 21st of May they wrote that it would be signed “within 21 days” (by the 11th of June). The Commissioner noted, “At the date of the drafting of this decision in September 2008 I am advised that the Agreement has still not been signed”.
A spokesperson for the Group said: “The continual delays are a real embarrassment, and for the Council to now say that they’re waiting on Roadstone’s lawyers to sign the agreement is just more evidence that they have completely ceded their authority over planning to the company. What motivation does Roadstone have to complete the deal? It appears that they’ve been quarrying the Hill illegally for the past two years with no regulation at all.”
She added, “The long-awaited agreement will be meaningless unless it requires Roadstone to submit an EIS and a planning application, and allows for public observation, objection, and appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Anything less is unacceptable to us, and invalid under Irish and EU law.”
In her decision, the Information Commissioner wrote:
“There is a strong public interest in the public being aware how a quarry operation is regulated, particularly given the potential emissions and effects that the operations could have on the environment. In the normal course of events, the applicant would have been in a position to inspect a planning application, make submissions and have these considered by the planning authority. It would have had access to an Environmental Impact Statement and would have had appeal rights to An Bord Pleanála if it considered that the Council's conditions were insufficient to protect the environment. As things stand, the Council has, apparently, decided that it cannot exercise its powers under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to have a planning application and EIS submitted and that a section 47 agreement with Roadstone will be drawn up instead. . . . I draw attention to the fact that the Section 47 Agreement process has being going on for over a year. The public interest in release of information might be weaker if the public had already had an opportunity to be informed of the reasons for decisions taken and for the delay in regulating the operation.”
The documents that must be released to the Group do not include legally privileged communications between planning officials and Council lawyers, or “commercially sensitive” information. The Group had agreed that they would not insist on seeing that information.
By law, the Council must turn the documents over to Group within three weeks. If it doesn’t, the Office of the Information Commissioner may secure a High Court order to force compliance.
Spokespersons,
Hill of Allen Action Group
www.buckplanning.ie
A spokesperson for the Group said “We are delighted that the Information Commissioner has agreed that the public has a right to know why KCC has failed to enforce its 2006 decision to require Roadstone to submit an EIS and planning application for its quarry at the Hill of Allen. KCC has persisted in denying the public its right to see these documents. Maybe now we’ll finally get some answers.”
In September 2007, under Directive 2003/4/EC and the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (S.I .No 133 of 2007), the Hill of Allen Group made a formal request to KCC for court papers and all other documents relating to the planning case which have not been made available to the public.
In October the Council released some documents but refused others which were deemed too sensitive.
The Group asked for an internal review of the decision, and when none was forthcoming, in January 2008 they appealed to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The information being sought originated in KCC’s decision on the 21st July, 2006 under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to require Roadstone to submit a planning application and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its quarry at the Hill of Allen.
Roadstone applied for judicial review of the decision in the High Court.
The Hill of Allen Group, concerned that KCC was not vigorously defending its side, applied to be added to the case as a Notice Party, but Roadstone and KCC asked the judge to strike out the case on the 30th July 2007, the day he was to rule on the Group’s application. This move denied the Group access to court documents which might explain why KCC failed to enforce its 2006 planning decision.
Since the case was struck out, the Council and Roadstone have been engaged in negotiations to secure agreement on the operation of the quarry under section 47 of the Planning Act.
At various times since August 2007 the Council has announced to the public and to government officials that completion of the agreement was “imminent”.
In the Commissioner’s decision, Ms. O’Reilly noted that “my Office was informed at various times by officials of the Council that completion of the section 47 agreement was imminent”. On the 20th of February 2008 the Council told the Commissioner that the agreement would be finalised “within the next 10 days" (by the 1st of March 2008), and on the 21st of May they wrote that it would be signed “within 21 days” (by the 11th of June). The Commissioner noted, “At the date of the drafting of this decision in September 2008 I am advised that the Agreement has still not been signed”.
A spokesperson for the Group said: “The continual delays are a real embarrassment, and for the Council to now say that they’re waiting on Roadstone’s lawyers to sign the agreement is just more evidence that they have completely ceded their authority over planning to the company. What motivation does Roadstone have to complete the deal? It appears that they’ve been quarrying the Hill illegally for the past two years with no regulation at all.”
She added, “The long-awaited agreement will be meaningless unless it requires Roadstone to submit an EIS and a planning application, and allows for public observation, objection, and appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Anything less is unacceptable to us, and invalid under Irish and EU law.”
In her decision, the Information Commissioner wrote:
“There is a strong public interest in the public being aware how a quarry operation is regulated, particularly given the potential emissions and effects that the operations could have on the environment. In the normal course of events, the applicant would have been in a position to inspect a planning application, make submissions and have these considered by the planning authority. It would have had access to an Environmental Impact Statement and would have had appeal rights to An Bord Pleanála if it considered that the Council's conditions were insufficient to protect the environment. As things stand, the Council has, apparently, decided that it cannot exercise its powers under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to have a planning application and EIS submitted and that a section 47 agreement with Roadstone will be drawn up instead. . . . I draw attention to the fact that the Section 47 Agreement process has being going on for over a year. The public interest in release of information might be weaker if the public had already had an opportunity to be informed of the reasons for decisions taken and for the delay in regulating the operation.”
The documents that must be released to the Group do not include legally privileged communications between planning officials and Council lawyers, or “commercially sensitive” information. The Group had agreed that they would not insist on seeing that information.
By law, the Council must turn the documents over to Group within three weeks. If it doesn’t, the Office of the Information Commissioner may secure a High Court order to force compliance.
Spokespersons,
Hill of Allen Action Group
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 2 May 2008
Locals appeal Saggart quarry
SAGGART RESIDENTS are appealing a decision by South Dublin County Council to grant planning permission to allow Roadstone resume quarrying activities at the De Selby Quarry near the Dublin mountains in Saggart, Co Dublin.
Requesting an oral hearing, a resident of Lugmore, Saggart said in his appeal to An Bord Pleanála that his home shares a boundary of more than 900 metres with the quarry. He contends that main operations ceased at the quarry in the early 1980s “and recommenced in 1997 on a low frequency basis”.
Calling it “most incredible” that planning permission has been granted by South Dublin County Council to continue quarrying activities, he says the main issues are “severe nuisance and intrusion caused by noise, dust, blasting, vibration, fencing, security, traffic hazard and water”.
The appellant says he is “not ideologically opposed” to the quarry “if it is operated properly” and requested that, if it is granted planning permission, a buffer zone of 60 to 80 metres be implemented “between the quarry and boundary fence to give us some degree of quality of life for us and our livestock”.
The appellant says that the site needs to be fenced off to prevent children and livestock gaining access to sheer cliff faces.
Another family living in the vicinity says in their appeal that the area is in the Dublin mountains with a zoning objective of “H”, “to protect and enhance the outstanding natural character of the Dublin mountains area”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Requesting an oral hearing, a resident of Lugmore, Saggart said in his appeal to An Bord Pleanála that his home shares a boundary of more than 900 metres with the quarry. He contends that main operations ceased at the quarry in the early 1980s “and recommenced in 1997 on a low frequency basis”.
Calling it “most incredible” that planning permission has been granted by South Dublin County Council to continue quarrying activities, he says the main issues are “severe nuisance and intrusion caused by noise, dust, blasting, vibration, fencing, security, traffic hazard and water”.
The appellant says he is “not ideologically opposed” to the quarry “if it is operated properly” and requested that, if it is granted planning permission, a buffer zone of 60 to 80 metres be implemented “between the quarry and boundary fence to give us some degree of quality of life for us and our livestock”.
The appellant says that the site needs to be fenced off to prevent children and livestock gaining access to sheer cliff faces.
Another family living in the vicinity says in their appeal that the area is in the Dublin mountains with a zoning objective of “H”, “to protect and enhance the outstanding natural character of the Dublin mountains area”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Exclusion by quarry developer at heart of Bord Pleanala hearing
THE approach of the Kilkenny Block Company, Troyswood, Kilkenny towards local people in its attempt to start a huge quarry operation at Clashacrow, Freshford was described by one local resident as being one of selective exclusion.
Mild mannered Richard Gordon did not mince his words at the Bord Pleanala hearing into the proposed quarry on Thursday afternoon. Held over two days at Hotel Kilkenny it attracted a large number of people including Green Party Tls Mary White who supported local opposition to the plan.
He claimed that neither he or his neighbours had been contacted by the block company or any of its advisors at any stage of the planning process to date.
"The EIS report submitted by the block company to the County Council included a map which excluded many of the homes belonging to local residents. The EIS report excluded any impacts of the applicants stated intention to subsequently locate the concrete and block manufacturing operations to the proposed quarry site," he said.
He also maintained the report excluded a significant listed buildings from its Heritage assessment - Wellbrook House and also excluded the significant impact the proposed development would have on local equine businesses.
"The applicant has excluded nearly all impact of the proposed development on everybody who lives outside 300 or 350 metres of the site: Dust pollution/noise pollution/water pollution/light pollution/ground vibration/Increased Traffic - no impacts on local residents according to the Applicant's experts.
"It is clear from submissions to the planning authority and evidence at the oral hearing that there are a number of vulnerable people in the local community on the basis of age or serious medical conditions, but again the block company has chosen to apply its "selective exclusion policy" and failed to consult or adequately respond to their concerns and worries on the impacts of the proposed development on their health and welfare," he stated.
He claimed that the boundary map, submitted by the company on which the County Council based their original decision to grant permission was inaccurate. "Land, owned by John Keoghan was included by the Applicant without his permission and without any preconsultation. The correction of this map and the re-submission of it to the County Council has, in my opinion clearly been delayed by the applicant until he was forced to do so at this oral hearing," he said. ;
"With regard to the applicants numerous expert reports and submissions I find it difficult to understand how some of the professional reports clearly lacked a balance in their assessment of the positive and negative impacts of the proposed development, while others /had some serious omissions of relevant facts.
"An EIS means a statement of the effects, which the proposed development, if carried out, would have on the environment. The onus to ensure all impacts on the environment are correctly and fairly presented in an EIS report should rest with the Applicant and not be dependent upon on the extensive work of a local community group like 'Keep Clashacrow/Carrigeen Beautiful Group.
Mary White
Green Party T,D. for Carlow/Kilkenny, Mary White said she went into politics »in 1999 because of a proposed) open cast mining on Mount Leinstpr.
"I am now delighted,/ to support and represent this small close-knit community in County Kilkenny. I support proper planning and sustainable development and while I understand that everything which isn't grown is either mined or quarried I believe that it is the scope and scale of this quarrying development and its location which must be taken into account at the planning stage."
"I want to congratulate the local community on the strength and professionalism of their input at the oral hearing. Their regard for the local area, their homes and their farms was openly demonstrated and shows the depth of local feeling on this issue," she said.
Brenda Cooper
The main objector to the quarry is The Keep Clashacrow/Carrigeen Beautiful Group (KCCBG) which represents 124 people.Many of these people live within a three mile radius of the proposed site.
Brenda Cooper; speaking on behalf of the KCCBG said the site identified for the quarry is in an area of High Amenity (as identified in the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan 2002). This didn't happen by chance, one only has to look around at the beautiful picturesque landscape to realise that this is a very special place. There are green fields everywhere, with cows grazing, and a wonderful array of wildlife that live and thrive in the natural native woodland. The area is serviced with a church and public house and has main road access.
"There are so many reasons; a huge increase in truck traffic, unbearable noise, blasting and excessive dust, peoples wells will be interfered with, there will be more flooding, because even the ordinary person knows that the small river Arigny couldn't possibly cope with the run-off from the quarry. Because it is an Area of High Amenity, that itself contrasts completely with the proposed quarry.
"There is a Mass Rock on the site in question where locals have gone to hear Mass for hundreds of years and this tradition has carried on even into the 21st century. It is referred to in Canon Ca rrigan's History and Antiquities of the Diocese of Ossory. It is also referred to here in the book Threecastles. The previous Bishop, Bishop Laurence Forristal, expressed his concerns very strongly when he wrote to us about this in December 2006.
"Many of the locals speak of the folklore which has been passed down from generation to generation. One such piece refers to the Rath or Raheen in Carrigeen. It is said- that if "you cut a bush in a Raheen the fairies will haunt you". Another piece of folklore refers to the big rocks in Carrigeen called the Jackdaw Rocks. It is said that fairies are supposed to live in the Jackdaw Rocks. (Ref; Threecastles, Eleanor Cantwell). While these references may seem somewhat trivial when we are discussing such serious issues many of the locals, who are now in their senior years, are very concerned about what might happen if all of this is interfered with?
"A poem called Carraigeen, I came across depicts very appropriately, not only my sentiments about the area, but the sentiments of everyone I represent, who object to this proposed quarry.
See the gaily coloured foxglove growing by the hedge
And the faintly scented woodbine trailing o'er the edge
The ivy, yew and holly whose teaves are evergreen
All planted there by nature's hand in the fields of Carraigeen
The Mass Rock in the centre where the priests had oft said Mass
In the far off dismal Penal Days when the people were harassed.
The prayers of att the faithful had echoed o'er the scene
As they knelt upon the hallowed ground in the fields of Carraigeen
The cave beside the Mass Rock where the priest fled on the run
That later served as refuge for the widow and her son
Who were thrown out on the roadway by the landlord cruel and mean
When she couldn't pay the paltry rent in the fields of Carraigeen.
Thank God these days are over. We've peace and rest once more,
We pray for all the gallant men who drove tyranny from our shore.
If you want to know the history of the days that once had been
You need only take a stroll around the fields of Carraigeen.
Kilkenny People
www.buckplanning.ie
Mild mannered Richard Gordon did not mince his words at the Bord Pleanala hearing into the proposed quarry on Thursday afternoon. Held over two days at Hotel Kilkenny it attracted a large number of people including Green Party Tls Mary White who supported local opposition to the plan.
He claimed that neither he or his neighbours had been contacted by the block company or any of its advisors at any stage of the planning process to date.
"The EIS report submitted by the block company to the County Council included a map which excluded many of the homes belonging to local residents. The EIS report excluded any impacts of the applicants stated intention to subsequently locate the concrete and block manufacturing operations to the proposed quarry site," he said.
He also maintained the report excluded a significant listed buildings from its Heritage assessment - Wellbrook House and also excluded the significant impact the proposed development would have on local equine businesses.
"The applicant has excluded nearly all impact of the proposed development on everybody who lives outside 300 or 350 metres of the site: Dust pollution/noise pollution/water pollution/light pollution/ground vibration/Increased Traffic - no impacts on local residents according to the Applicant's experts.
"It is clear from submissions to the planning authority and evidence at the oral hearing that there are a number of vulnerable people in the local community on the basis of age or serious medical conditions, but again the block company has chosen to apply its "selective exclusion policy" and failed to consult or adequately respond to their concerns and worries on the impacts of the proposed development on their health and welfare," he stated.
He claimed that the boundary map, submitted by the company on which the County Council based their original decision to grant permission was inaccurate. "Land, owned by John Keoghan was included by the Applicant without his permission and without any preconsultation. The correction of this map and the re-submission of it to the County Council has, in my opinion clearly been delayed by the applicant until he was forced to do so at this oral hearing," he said. ;
"With regard to the applicants numerous expert reports and submissions I find it difficult to understand how some of the professional reports clearly lacked a balance in their assessment of the positive and negative impacts of the proposed development, while others /had some serious omissions of relevant facts.
"An EIS means a statement of the effects, which the proposed development, if carried out, would have on the environment. The onus to ensure all impacts on the environment are correctly and fairly presented in an EIS report should rest with the Applicant and not be dependent upon on the extensive work of a local community group like 'Keep Clashacrow/Carrigeen Beautiful Group.
Mary White
Green Party T,D. for Carlow/Kilkenny, Mary White said she went into politics »in 1999 because of a proposed) open cast mining on Mount Leinstpr.
"I am now delighted,/ to support and represent this small close-knit community in County Kilkenny. I support proper planning and sustainable development and while I understand that everything which isn't grown is either mined or quarried I believe that it is the scope and scale of this quarrying development and its location which must be taken into account at the planning stage."
"I want to congratulate the local community on the strength and professionalism of their input at the oral hearing. Their regard for the local area, their homes and their farms was openly demonstrated and shows the depth of local feeling on this issue," she said.
Brenda Cooper
The main objector to the quarry is The Keep Clashacrow/Carrigeen Beautiful Group (KCCBG) which represents 124 people.Many of these people live within a three mile radius of the proposed site.
Brenda Cooper; speaking on behalf of the KCCBG said the site identified for the quarry is in an area of High Amenity (as identified in the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan 2002). This didn't happen by chance, one only has to look around at the beautiful picturesque landscape to realise that this is a very special place. There are green fields everywhere, with cows grazing, and a wonderful array of wildlife that live and thrive in the natural native woodland. The area is serviced with a church and public house and has main road access.
"There are so many reasons; a huge increase in truck traffic, unbearable noise, blasting and excessive dust, peoples wells will be interfered with, there will be more flooding, because even the ordinary person knows that the small river Arigny couldn't possibly cope with the run-off from the quarry. Because it is an Area of High Amenity, that itself contrasts completely with the proposed quarry.
"There is a Mass Rock on the site in question where locals have gone to hear Mass for hundreds of years and this tradition has carried on even into the 21st century. It is referred to in Canon Ca rrigan's History and Antiquities of the Diocese of Ossory. It is also referred to here in the book Threecastles. The previous Bishop, Bishop Laurence Forristal, expressed his concerns very strongly when he wrote to us about this in December 2006.
"Many of the locals speak of the folklore which has been passed down from generation to generation. One such piece refers to the Rath or Raheen in Carrigeen. It is said- that if "you cut a bush in a Raheen the fairies will haunt you". Another piece of folklore refers to the big rocks in Carrigeen called the Jackdaw Rocks. It is said that fairies are supposed to live in the Jackdaw Rocks. (Ref; Threecastles, Eleanor Cantwell). While these references may seem somewhat trivial when we are discussing such serious issues many of the locals, who are now in their senior years, are very concerned about what might happen if all of this is interfered with?
"A poem called Carraigeen, I came across depicts very appropriately, not only my sentiments about the area, but the sentiments of everyone I represent, who object to this proposed quarry.
See the gaily coloured foxglove growing by the hedge
And the faintly scented woodbine trailing o'er the edge
The ivy, yew and holly whose teaves are evergreen
All planted there by nature's hand in the fields of Carraigeen
The Mass Rock in the centre where the priests had oft said Mass
In the far off dismal Penal Days when the people were harassed.
The prayers of att the faithful had echoed o'er the scene
As they knelt upon the hallowed ground in the fields of Carraigeen
The cave beside the Mass Rock where the priest fled on the run
That later served as refuge for the widow and her son
Who were thrown out on the roadway by the landlord cruel and mean
When she couldn't pay the paltry rent in the fields of Carraigeen.
Thank God these days are over. We've peace and rest once more,
We pray for all the gallant men who drove tyranny from our shore.
If you want to know the history of the days that once had been
You need only take a stroll around the fields of Carraigeen.
Kilkenny People
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Frank Harrington: Mayo Person Of The Year
THE WEST'S wealthiest quarryman, Frank Harrington, finally got his dues recently when the Mayo Association bestowed upon him the honour of Mayo Person of the Year. More good news for Frank has come from An Bord Pleanála (ABP), which recently ruled that four of his quarries - all unauthorised - cannot be subject to stringent conditions from Mayo County Council.
The Council decided a few years ago that the four sizeable quarries - which Harrington has been operating since the 1970s - were unauthorised. Council officials duly imposed conditions on the operation as - according to their legal advice - the complicated quarrying legislation (the Planning & Development Act 2000) exempted Harrington's quarries from having to seek planning permission.
Things got even more complicated when Harrington appealed the imposed conditions to ABP in May 2007. Strangely, ABP decided not to actually make a ruling on the case but, instead, ABP member Jane Doyle issued a "notice" to Harrington and the Council, stating that there was "no basis [in the quarrying legislation] for ... the imposition of conditions" on Harrington's "unauthorised" quarries. A delighted Harrington duly withdrew his appeal and the quarries continue to turn a hefty profit. Indeed, Frank Harrington Ltd (FHL) sold €40m worth of concrete and tarmac in 2006, a 21% increase on the previous year. FHL had accumulated a whopping €13m in profits at the end of 2006, which was shared between Frank and his wife, Patricia, who each own 50% of FHL.
ABP also recommended that Harrington now seek planning permission for the troublesome quarries, although Council officials believe that he may be exempt from this requirement. As a result, the Council is now considering legal action against Harrington with a view to closing the quarries until the mess is sorted out, which would might a bit embarrassing for the Mayo Person of the Year.
The Phoenix
www.buckplanning.ie
The Council decided a few years ago that the four sizeable quarries - which Harrington has been operating since the 1970s - were unauthorised. Council officials duly imposed conditions on the operation as - according to their legal advice - the complicated quarrying legislation (the Planning & Development Act 2000) exempted Harrington's quarries from having to seek planning permission.
Things got even more complicated when Harrington appealed the imposed conditions to ABP in May 2007. Strangely, ABP decided not to actually make a ruling on the case but, instead, ABP member Jane Doyle issued a "notice" to Harrington and the Council, stating that there was "no basis [in the quarrying legislation] for ... the imposition of conditions" on Harrington's "unauthorised" quarries. A delighted Harrington duly withdrew his appeal and the quarries continue to turn a hefty profit. Indeed, Frank Harrington Ltd (FHL) sold €40m worth of concrete and tarmac in 2006, a 21% increase on the previous year. FHL had accumulated a whopping €13m in profits at the end of 2006, which was shared between Frank and his wife, Patricia, who each own 50% of FHL.
ABP also recommended that Harrington now seek planning permission for the troublesome quarries, although Council officials believe that he may be exempt from this requirement. As a result, the Council is now considering legal action against Harrington with a view to closing the quarries until the mess is sorted out, which would might a bit embarrassing for the Mayo Person of the Year.
The Phoenix
www.buckplanning.ie
Frank Harrington: Mayo Person Of The Year
THE WEST'S wealthiest quarryman, Frank Harrington, finally got his dues recently when the Mayo Association bestowed upon him the honour of Mayo Person of the Year. More good news for Frank has come from An Bord Pleanála (ABP), which recently ruled that four of his quarries - all unauthorised - cannot be subject to stringent conditions from Mayo County Council.
The Council decided a few years ago that the four sizeable quarries - which Harrington has been operating since the 1970s - were unauthorised. Council officials duly imposed conditions on the operation as - according to their legal advice - the complicated quarrying legislation (the Planning & Development Act 2000) exempted Harrington's quarries from having to seek planning permission.
Things got even more complicated when Harrington appealed the imposed conditions to ABP in May 2007. Strangely, ABP decided not to actually make a ruling on the case but, instead, ABP member Jane Doyle issued a "notice" to Harrington and the Council, stating that there was "no basis [in the quarrying legislation] for ... the imposition of conditions" on Harrington's "unauthorised" quarries. A delighted Harrington duly withdrew his appeal and the quarries continue to turn a hefty profit. Indeed, Frank Harrington Ltd (FHL) sold €40m worth of concrete and tarmac in 2006, a 21% increase on the previous year. FHL had accumulated a whopping €13m in profits at the end of 2006, which was shared between Frank and his wife, Patricia, who each own 50% of FHL.
ABP also recommended that Harrington now seek planning permission for the troublesome quarries, although Council officials believe that he may be exempt from this requirement. As a result, the Council is now considering legal action against Harrington with a view to closing the quarries until the mess is sorted out, which would might a bit embarrassing for the Mayo Person of the Year.
The Phoenix
www.buckplanning.ie
The Council decided a few years ago that the four sizeable quarries - which Harrington has been operating since the 1970s - were unauthorised. Council officials duly imposed conditions on the operation as - according to their legal advice - the complicated quarrying legislation (the Planning & Development Act 2000) exempted Harrington's quarries from having to seek planning permission.
Things got even more complicated when Harrington appealed the imposed conditions to ABP in May 2007. Strangely, ABP decided not to actually make a ruling on the case but, instead, ABP member Jane Doyle issued a "notice" to Harrington and the Council, stating that there was "no basis [in the quarrying legislation] for ... the imposition of conditions" on Harrington's "unauthorised" quarries. A delighted Harrington duly withdrew his appeal and the quarries continue to turn a hefty profit. Indeed, Frank Harrington Ltd (FHL) sold €40m worth of concrete and tarmac in 2006, a 21% increase on the previous year. FHL had accumulated a whopping €13m in profits at the end of 2006, which was shared between Frank and his wife, Patricia, who each own 50% of FHL.
ABP also recommended that Harrington now seek planning permission for the troublesome quarries, although Council officials believe that he may be exempt from this requirement. As a result, the Council is now considering legal action against Harrington with a view to closing the quarries until the mess is sorted out, which would might a bit embarrassing for the Mayo Person of the Year.
The Phoenix
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Status of Allen Quarry Unclear
Campaigners want clarity on Hill of Allen development
Hopes of an early determination by Kildare County Council on the status of the Roadstone quarry at the Hill of Allen were dashed this week.
The campaign group Hill of Allen Action Group had invoked a section of the planning laws which forces the council to declare whether a development is exempt or not. A response was due last Friday, November 2, but instead the council has sought further information from the group. While disappointed, the group say they are studying the request and have pledged to respond fully.
There’s also no end in sight to negotiations on the agreement between the council and Roadstone, three months after they began. The agreement is intended to provide the basis for the regulation of the land by the council, but campaigners fear it will mean Roadstone doesn’t have to get planning permission for it. A council spokesman told the Leinster Leader that “technical issues” had prevented the conclusion of the agreement as early as they would have hoped. “We are hopeful that agreement will be concluded in the very near future but at this stage we’re not predicting a date.”
A spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group reacted angrily to the news. “This is a delaying tactic so that Roadstone can continue to blast away our heritage without any interference. It’s been more than a year since they were first instructed to get planning permission for the quarry, and between one thing and another, they’ve managed to continue quarrying at a ferocious pace without any regulation.”
Furthermore, the Leinster Leader has learned that even when the agreement is finally reached by council officials and the company, it will not have to be ratified by councillors.
“The agreement will be an executive function. As soon as it is finalised it will be entered into the planning register and will therefore be, ipso facto, a public document available to all,” a county council spokesperson explained. “It’s not a matter that requires the input of councillors.”
But the spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group wasn’t impressed. “This is yet another example of the council’s complete lack of transparency in this matter. The councillors are elected to represent the people and they are not being allowed to have a say on such an important issue. This is proof, if ever it was needed, that the council is not going to open up this process to anyone.” The spokesperson added: “Fundamentally, if you have a quarry in this country, you should have permission for it. It seems the council and Roadstone are trying to avoid that inconvenient fact. No wonder they’re being so secretive!”
“It’s not only odd, it’s very, very unfair,” said Cllr Pat Black, one of a number of local councillors who have raised the matter at council meetings. “It’s unfair that those who have been democratically elected by the people of Kildare have no say in the matter, and I personally will be making a very strong appeal to the Minister for the Environment to have his officials examine this case in detail.”
Cllr Fiona O’Loughlin said she was, in the first instance, “totally opposed to the fact that an agreement will be in place without the company being required to go for planning permission with full public consultation. Every other process is flawed,” she said. “Having said that, I am opposed to any agreement that does not include a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement, a process for public consultation, and a commitment not to further erode the profile of the Hill.”
Conor McHugh
Leinster Leader
www.buckplanning.ie
Hopes of an early determination by Kildare County Council on the status of the Roadstone quarry at the Hill of Allen were dashed this week.
The campaign group Hill of Allen Action Group had invoked a section of the planning laws which forces the council to declare whether a development is exempt or not. A response was due last Friday, November 2, but instead the council has sought further information from the group. While disappointed, the group say they are studying the request and have pledged to respond fully.
There’s also no end in sight to negotiations on the agreement between the council and Roadstone, three months after they began. The agreement is intended to provide the basis for the regulation of the land by the council, but campaigners fear it will mean Roadstone doesn’t have to get planning permission for it. A council spokesman told the Leinster Leader that “technical issues” had prevented the conclusion of the agreement as early as they would have hoped. “We are hopeful that agreement will be concluded in the very near future but at this stage we’re not predicting a date.”
A spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group reacted angrily to the news. “This is a delaying tactic so that Roadstone can continue to blast away our heritage without any interference. It’s been more than a year since they were first instructed to get planning permission for the quarry, and between one thing and another, they’ve managed to continue quarrying at a ferocious pace without any regulation.”
Furthermore, the Leinster Leader has learned that even when the agreement is finally reached by council officials and the company, it will not have to be ratified by councillors.
“The agreement will be an executive function. As soon as it is finalised it will be entered into the planning register and will therefore be, ipso facto, a public document available to all,” a county council spokesperson explained. “It’s not a matter that requires the input of councillors.”
But the spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group wasn’t impressed. “This is yet another example of the council’s complete lack of transparency in this matter. The councillors are elected to represent the people and they are not being allowed to have a say on such an important issue. This is proof, if ever it was needed, that the council is not going to open up this process to anyone.” The spokesperson added: “Fundamentally, if you have a quarry in this country, you should have permission for it. It seems the council and Roadstone are trying to avoid that inconvenient fact. No wonder they’re being so secretive!”
“It’s not only odd, it’s very, very unfair,” said Cllr Pat Black, one of a number of local councillors who have raised the matter at council meetings. “It’s unfair that those who have been democratically elected by the people of Kildare have no say in the matter, and I personally will be making a very strong appeal to the Minister for the Environment to have his officials examine this case in detail.”
Cllr Fiona O’Loughlin said she was, in the first instance, “totally opposed to the fact that an agreement will be in place without the company being required to go for planning permission with full public consultation. Every other process is flawed,” she said. “Having said that, I am opposed to any agreement that does not include a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement, a process for public consultation, and a commitment not to further erode the profile of the Hill.”
Conor McHugh
Leinster Leader
www.buckplanning.ie
Status of Allen Quarry Unclear
Campaigners want clarity on Hill of Allen development
Hopes of an early determination by Kildare County Council on the status of the Roadstone quarry at the Hill of Allen were dashed this week.
The campaign group Hill of Allen Action Group had invoked a section of the planning laws which forces the council to declare whether a development is exempt or not. A response was due last Friday, November 2, but instead the council has sought further information from the group. While disappointed, the group say they are studying the request and have pledged to respond fully.
There’s also no end in sight to negotiations on the agreement between the council and Roadstone, three months after they began. The agreement is intended to provide the basis for the regulation of the land by the council, but campaigners fear it will mean Roadstone doesn’t have to get planning permission for it. A council spokesman told the Leinster Leader that “technical issues” had prevented the conclusion of the agreement as early as they would have hoped. “We are hopeful that agreement will be concluded in the very near future but at this stage we’re not predicting a date.”
A spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group reacted angrily to the news. “This is a delaying tactic so that Roadstone can continue to blast away our heritage without any interference. It’s been more than a year since they were first instructed to get planning permission for the quarry, and between one thing and another, they’ve managed to continue quarrying at a ferocious pace without any regulation.”
Furthermore, the Leinster Leader has learned that even when the agreement is finally reached by council officials and the company, it will not have to be ratified by councillors.
“The agreement will be an executive function. As soon as it is finalised it will be entered into the planning register and will therefore be, ipso facto, a public document available to all,” a county council spokesperson explained. “It’s not a matter that requires the input of councillors.”
But the spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group wasn’t impressed. “This is yet another example of the council’s complete lack of transparency in this matter. The councillors are elected to represent the people and they are not being allowed to have a say on such an important issue. This is proof, if ever it was needed, that the council is not going to open up this process to anyone.” The spokesperson added: “Fundamentally, if you have a quarry in this country, you should have permission for it. It seems the council and Roadstone are trying to avoid that inconvenient fact. No wonder they’re being so secretive!”
“It’s not only odd, it’s very, very unfair,” said Cllr Pat Black, one of a number of local councillors who have raised the matter at council meetings. “It’s unfair that those who have been democratically elected by the people of Kildare have no say in the matter, and I personally will be making a very strong appeal to the Minister for the Environment to have his officials examine this case in detail.”
Cllr Fiona O’Loughlin said she was, in the first instance, “totally opposed to the fact that an agreement will be in place without the company being required to go for planning permission with full public consultation. Every other process is flawed,” she said. “Having said that, I am opposed to any agreement that does not include a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement, a process for public consultation, and a commitment not to further erode the profile of the Hill.”
Conor McHugh
Leinster Leader
www.buckplanning.ie
Hopes of an early determination by Kildare County Council on the status of the Roadstone quarry at the Hill of Allen were dashed this week.
The campaign group Hill of Allen Action Group had invoked a section of the planning laws which forces the council to declare whether a development is exempt or not. A response was due last Friday, November 2, but instead the council has sought further information from the group. While disappointed, the group say they are studying the request and have pledged to respond fully.
There’s also no end in sight to negotiations on the agreement between the council and Roadstone, three months after they began. The agreement is intended to provide the basis for the regulation of the land by the council, but campaigners fear it will mean Roadstone doesn’t have to get planning permission for it. A council spokesman told the Leinster Leader that “technical issues” had prevented the conclusion of the agreement as early as they would have hoped. “We are hopeful that agreement will be concluded in the very near future but at this stage we’re not predicting a date.”
A spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group reacted angrily to the news. “This is a delaying tactic so that Roadstone can continue to blast away our heritage without any interference. It’s been more than a year since they were first instructed to get planning permission for the quarry, and between one thing and another, they’ve managed to continue quarrying at a ferocious pace without any regulation.”
Furthermore, the Leinster Leader has learned that even when the agreement is finally reached by council officials and the company, it will not have to be ratified by councillors.
“The agreement will be an executive function. As soon as it is finalised it will be entered into the planning register and will therefore be, ipso facto, a public document available to all,” a county council spokesperson explained. “It’s not a matter that requires the input of councillors.”
But the spokesperson for the Hill of Allen Action Group wasn’t impressed. “This is yet another example of the council’s complete lack of transparency in this matter. The councillors are elected to represent the people and they are not being allowed to have a say on such an important issue. This is proof, if ever it was needed, that the council is not going to open up this process to anyone.” The spokesperson added: “Fundamentally, if you have a quarry in this country, you should have permission for it. It seems the council and Roadstone are trying to avoid that inconvenient fact. No wonder they’re being so secretive!”
“It’s not only odd, it’s very, very unfair,” said Cllr Pat Black, one of a number of local councillors who have raised the matter at council meetings. “It’s unfair that those who have been democratically elected by the people of Kildare have no say in the matter, and I personally will be making a very strong appeal to the Minister for the Environment to have his officials examine this case in detail.”
Cllr Fiona O’Loughlin said she was, in the first instance, “totally opposed to the fact that an agreement will be in place without the company being required to go for planning permission with full public consultation. Every other process is flawed,” she said. “Having said that, I am opposed to any agreement that does not include a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement, a process for public consultation, and a commitment not to further erode the profile of the Hill.”
Conor McHugh
Leinster Leader
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Quarry plan refused permission
AN BORD Pleanala has refused to grant permission for the development of a limestone quarry and retention of existing facilities in South Roscommon. The operators of the quarry, Central Quarries Ltd, appealed a decision of Roscommon County Council to refuse planning permission for retention and expansion of quarry facilities at Castlesampson, Bealnamullia, County Roscommon.
The quarry company had sought planning permission for the development of a limestone quarry and retention of an existing sand and gravel quarry at Castlesampson but was refused permission by Roscommon County Council on the grounds of traffic hazard, groundwater and impact on residential amenities.
In its appeal against the decision, the quarry company argued that the planning authority had previously granted planning permission for a quarry on the site on two previous occasions and that the decision of Roscommon County Council to refuse permission was not consistent with previous decisions made.
The company also argued that a quarry had been operating on the site in question for over 40 years.
The North West Regional Fisheries Board acted as observers on the appeal and expressed concerns about the potential for groundwater pollution at the site, given the high water table in the area.
The site of the proposed development is located in the source protection area for the main ground source of the South Roscommon Regional Water Supply Scheme (Killeglan Springs).
On assessing the appeal, planning inspector with An Bord Pleanala, Paul Caprani, recommended refusal for the development on a number of grounds, including the pollution risk to groundwater.
The Bord also stated that it was not satisfied that noise generated by the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of residential property and occupants of the adjoining school in the vicinity.
Maresa Fagan
© Roscommon Herald
The quarry company had sought planning permission for the development of a limestone quarry and retention of an existing sand and gravel quarry at Castlesampson but was refused permission by Roscommon County Council on the grounds of traffic hazard, groundwater and impact on residential amenities.
In its appeal against the decision, the quarry company argued that the planning authority had previously granted planning permission for a quarry on the site on two previous occasions and that the decision of Roscommon County Council to refuse permission was not consistent with previous decisions made.
The company also argued that a quarry had been operating on the site in question for over 40 years.
The North West Regional Fisheries Board acted as observers on the appeal and expressed concerns about the potential for groundwater pollution at the site, given the high water table in the area.
The site of the proposed development is located in the source protection area for the main ground source of the South Roscommon Regional Water Supply Scheme (Killeglan Springs).
On assessing the appeal, planning inspector with An Bord Pleanala, Paul Caprani, recommended refusal for the development on a number of grounds, including the pollution risk to groundwater.
The Bord also stated that it was not satisfied that noise generated by the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of residential property and occupants of the adjoining school in the vicinity.
Maresa Fagan
© Roscommon Herald
Friday, 17 August 2007
Council takes legal action against quarry operators
THE owners of a quarry alleged to be illegal have been told to halt all operations.
Cork County Council has initiated legal proceedings against the operators of a large quarry at Curraglass, near Conna.
The quarry borders Cork and Waterford. It is believed to be a working quarry.
The matter is likely to come before the district court in Tallow, Co Waterford shortly.
Officials from the council’s Enforcement Section have visited the site twice in recent months and despite the threat of legal proceedings, council sources insist there are visible signs of recent work activity.
Cllr Liam O’Doherty, who had highlighted the situation on numerous occasions at county hall meetings, yesterday welcomed the council’s get-tough policy.
The county councillor said, however, that he was concerned at the length of time it had taken to progress the matter to a legal stage.
Significantly, it was a council official who made the first complaint about the quarry on October 24, 2006. A warning letter was then issued.
“An agent working for the quarry operator contacted the council requesting a pre-planning meeting and indicated that he would submit a planning application for retention,” a county council spokeswoman said yesterday.
On November 28, an inspector from the council’s enforcement section called to the quarry and reported that, as an unauthorised development, it contravened section 151 of the Planning and Developments Acts (2000).
“In February, we were again told by the agent that an application for retention would be submitted to the council by March 9. On March 8, the council started legal proceedings,” the spokeswoman said.
Meanwhile, on March 21, a planning application was finally lodged but council officials returned it to the quarry operator’s agent on as it was incomplete.
On May 8, the council received another letter from the agent saying that the application would be resubmitted with the additional information requested by the council.
“In early June, we got photographic evidence that plant and machinery were in use at the site,” the council spokeswoman said.
A planning application was finally submitted by the quarry operator last week, seeking permission to retain the quarry and temporary processing plant on an indefinite basis. The application has yet to be validated.
On the same day — August 8 — an inspector from the enforcement section visited the site again.
“There was no activity on that particular day but it appeared that work had been carried out there since the visit in June,” the spokeswoman claimed.
She said that last Wednesday the council had issued a notice to the quarry operator advising him to cease all quarrying and associated activities on the site and remove all plant and machinery.
“We will be closely monitoring the situation,” the spokeswoman said.
Mr O’Doherty said it was “high time” Cork County Council set an example.
“It’s not fair on local residents, especially when it’s hard enough to get one-off planning for houses in rural areas,” he said.
Irish Examiner
Cork County Council has initiated legal proceedings against the operators of a large quarry at Curraglass, near Conna.
The quarry borders Cork and Waterford. It is believed to be a working quarry.
The matter is likely to come before the district court in Tallow, Co Waterford shortly.
Officials from the council’s Enforcement Section have visited the site twice in recent months and despite the threat of legal proceedings, council sources insist there are visible signs of recent work activity.
Cllr Liam O’Doherty, who had highlighted the situation on numerous occasions at county hall meetings, yesterday welcomed the council’s get-tough policy.
The county councillor said, however, that he was concerned at the length of time it had taken to progress the matter to a legal stage.
Significantly, it was a council official who made the first complaint about the quarry on October 24, 2006. A warning letter was then issued.
“An agent working for the quarry operator contacted the council requesting a pre-planning meeting and indicated that he would submit a planning application for retention,” a county council spokeswoman said yesterday.
On November 28, an inspector from the council’s enforcement section called to the quarry and reported that, as an unauthorised development, it contravened section 151 of the Planning and Developments Acts (2000).
“In February, we were again told by the agent that an application for retention would be submitted to the council by March 9. On March 8, the council started legal proceedings,” the spokeswoman said.
Meanwhile, on March 21, a planning application was finally lodged but council officials returned it to the quarry operator’s agent on as it was incomplete.
On May 8, the council received another letter from the agent saying that the application would be resubmitted with the additional information requested by the council.
“In early June, we got photographic evidence that plant and machinery were in use at the site,” the council spokeswoman said.
A planning application was finally submitted by the quarry operator last week, seeking permission to retain the quarry and temporary processing plant on an indefinite basis. The application has yet to be validated.
On the same day — August 8 — an inspector from the enforcement section visited the site again.
“There was no activity on that particular day but it appeared that work had been carried out there since the visit in June,” the spokeswoman claimed.
She said that last Wednesday the council had issued a notice to the quarry operator advising him to cease all quarrying and associated activities on the site and remove all plant and machinery.
“We will be closely monitoring the situation,” the spokeswoman said.
Mr O’Doherty said it was “high time” Cork County Council set an example.
“It’s not fair on local residents, especially when it’s hard enough to get one-off planning for houses in rural areas,” he said.
Irish Examiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)