Áine Ryan
MAYO Person of the Year, Mr Frank Harrington, may challenge a recent decision by An Bord Pleanála (ABP) which could force the closure of his quarry at The Stripe, Charlestown, The Mayo News has learned. While Mr Harrington has not yet lodged a challenge with ABP, he has until early September to lodge documentation.
A spokesman for Mr Harrington declined to comment on the matter but confirmed it was with the company’s legal team.
Meanwhile, County Secretary, Mr John Condon, confirmed yesterday (Monday) that the Council has written to Mr Harrington, advising him that in light of An Bord Pleanála’s (ABP) decision on July 11 last to refuse retention, he would now have to comply with the terms.
“The simplest way to comply is to close the place down. An alternative way would be to make a different application,” said Mr Condon. Reportedly, work is continuing at the controversial quarry.
Mr Condon also said the authority wrote to Mr Harrington around a month ago – shortly after the ABP ruling – and will now take a decision as to how to proceed with enforcement procedures.
“We will now, in the coming days, take a decision as to how to proceed with enforcement procedures. One way to enforce the ruling is to take out an injunction and another is to serve the operators with an Enforcement Notice. In the interim our people will inspect operations, so as to inform our decision and as part of the next stage,” said Mr Condon.
This could ultimately lead to Circuit Court proceedings as confirmed by Council Director of Services, Mr Joe Loftus, some weeks ago.
He warned that ‘not only could this lead to the closure of the quarry, but it could also result in an order to restore the relevant lands to their former state’.
Despite the recommendation last year of the ABP Inspector Paul Caprani that operations at the quarry at The Stripe, Charlestown, be retained – subject to ten conditions – the board decided to refuse retention at a meeting on July 8 last.
Originally recommending retention, subject to ten conditions, Mr Caprani had observed that the development ‘will not seriously injure the amenities of the area or property in the vicinity and would generally be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area’.
However, at the board meeting last month, it was decided to refuse permission since the quarry had ‘commenced operation after October 1, 1964 and therefore does not benefit from any planning exemptions under provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000’. These provisions effectively allowed a planning amnesty for quarries opened before 1964. The board also noted that it was the beneficiary of ‘more comprehensive information’ than was available to the Inspector, due to the receipt of further submissions by objector Mr James Leonard after its Section 137 notice.
In its directions, the board stated: “It is considered therefore that the quarrying activity on site constitutes unauthorised development, and that it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant permission for retention of the processing equipment as applied for (including crushing, screening, washing plant and ESB substations) since to do so would facilitate the continuation of unauthorised development on the site.”
