Fowler -v- Keegan Quarries Ltd [2016] IEHC 602 (28 October 2016)

Fowler -v- Keegan Quarries Ltd [2016] IEHC 602 (28 October 2016)

The Respondent carried out unauthorised development by breaching planning permissions, including excavation below the water table, importing materials, failing to restore lands, and continuing operations after permissions expired. Substitute consent was not applied for, rendering the development unauthorised. The court exercises its discretion under s.160 to order restoration of the lands to their prior condition.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 602
Parties
Applicant: Robert Henry Fowler; Respondent: Keegan Quarries Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Section 160 Planning and Development Act Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Restoration of Land, Planning Permission Compliance, Substitute Consent, Environmental Impact Assessment, Appropriate Assessment
Planning Law Environmental Law Unauthorised Development Restoration of Land Planning Permission Compliance Substitute Consent Environmental Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Henry Fowler

Applicant

Keegan Quarries Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 160 Planning and Development Act Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent carried out unauthorised development
  2. 2 Whether restoration of the lands is required
  3. 3 Whether substitute consent regularises unauthorised development

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent carried out unauthorised development by breaching planning permissions, including excavation below the water table, importing materials, failing to restore lands, and continuing operations after permissions expired. Substitute consent was not applied for, rendering the development unauthorised. The court exercises its discretion under s.160 to order restoration of the lands to their prior condition.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Respondent ordered to restore the lands to their condition prior to commencement of unauthorised development
  • Respondent to carry out restoration works as specified by the court