High Court refuses judicial review of two challenges to the planning status of a quarry, on the grounds that the applicant failed to make its case of breach of fair procedures, the conclusions were unimpeachable as a matter of law and process, and the Planning Board engaged fully with the applicant’s precise case.
Planning and development – judicial review - two sets of judicial review proceedings brought by the same applicant – challenges to decisions bearing upon the planning status of a quarry - challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 - Environmental Impact Assessment - breach of fair procedures - planning regime for quarries - material factual background - fair procedures – standard to be applied - right to a second opportunity to make submissions - 2013 proceedings – whether the applicant can seek to challenge the Council’s decision in the 2013 proceedings - challenge to Board’s 2013 decision - material which could have been obtained by the applicant and was material which could reasonably be envisaged as likely to be relied upon by Board in its decision-making process – applicant has not made out its case in breach of fair procedures against the Board in the 2013 proceedings and is not entitled to challenge the Council’s 2012 decision – 2020 proceedings - grounds of challenge – conclusions unimpeachable as a matter of law and process – Board engaged fully with the applicant’s precise case – constitutionality – no valid pleading – judicial review refused –