Quarry application refused

Cavan County Council had approved John Nulty's plans to extend the existing quarry at Carrickaboy subject to 22 conditions.

An Bord Pleanála has overturned a decision by Cavan County Council to grant planning permission for a quarry extension at Ardkill More, Carrickaboy, Cavan. The local authority approved the development in February but that has now been successfully appealed to the planning appeals board by a third party, R. Lee.

Cavan County Council had approved John Nulty's plans to extend the existing quarry at Carrickaboy subject to 22 conditions.

Mr Nulty sought to extend the quarrying facility on a site of around 10.25 hectares.

The development proposal consisted of plans for the additional extraction of 1.04 hectares to the southeast boundary. The quarry extension was sought to a maximum depth of 40 metres and to be extracted at a rate of 50,000 tonnes per annum.

The proposed works included site development, stockpiling, landscaping and boundary treatment. An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) was submitted to the planning authority with the application.

The decision was appealed to the national planning authority by R. Lee of Grove Park, Rathmines Dublin. The case was due to be decided by an Bord Pleanála on July 7. However, due to a backlog as a result of Covid restrictions, the planning process only concluded at the end of last month.

In his submission to Cavan County Council Mr Lee raised concerns including environmental reporting, planning compliance and safety.

In her report the An Bord Pleanála inspector, Deirdre MacGabhann, outlined the main issues for the appeal as site justification, compliance, public consultation, working height, visual impact, impact on archaeology and cultural heritage, hydrology, the adequacy of EIAR, and the need for Natura Impact Statement.

The inspector recommend that permission for the development be refused for two reasons. She said the proposed development would form a “discordant and visually obtrusive feature on the landscape” and suggested that the board was “not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated that the arrangements for the management and discharge of water are adequate to cater for the proposed development, without giving rise to the risk of environmental pollution”.