Gardai oversaw blasting at disputed quarry

Property owners in Ashford, Co Wicklow, have been advised by gardaí to leave their property when blasting is taking place at a nearby unauthorised quarry, it has emerged.

The Garda Síochána, which is normally present in a supervisory role when explosives are being used at quarries, said it had sought advice from the Office of the Attorney General, before officers attended while explosives were being used at Ballylusk quarry.

Ballylusk quarry does not have planning permission. In 2003 Bord Pleanála ruled that the then level of operation at the quarry was not an exempt activity and planning permission was required.

Locals were surprised when gardaí subsequently visited neighbouring landowners, warning them to leave their property as blasting was about to take place.

A spokeswoman for the Garda Press Office told The Irish Times that the quarry owners, the O'Reilly brothers, had appealed the Bord Pleanála decision to the High Court.

Because the quarry operator intended to go ahead with blasting, which requires the co-operation of the Garda, the force had sought legal clarification. The Attorney General's office had advised that the Garda should go ahead with monitoring and co-operation with the arrangements for blasting, the Garda spokeswoman said.

A Government spokesman said the Attorney General never commented on such advice and referred questions to the Garda Press Office.

The situation has, however, prompted Wicklow Green Party councillor Deirdre de Burca to question "whether it is right for the gardaí to be involved" when An Bord Pleanála had found the operation was unauthorised, and when that decision was not overturned.

Calls to the O'Reilly brothers' legal representative, Fachtna Whittle, who is also a Fianna Fáil member of Wicklow County Council, were returned by a public-relations consultant.

The consultant told The Irish Times that the O'Reilly brothers did not accept that the quarry was unauthorised, claiming it had been registered by Wicklow County Council as a quarry in 1994.

In relation to planning permission, he insisted there had been continuous operation of the quarry on the site since the late 1800s, which pre-dated the planning laws and obviated the need for formal planning permission.

He did not accept the board's finding that the current level of operation was an intensification of use that required planning permission.

Locals were reluctant to discuss the case last week, partly because of an earlier agreement with the quarry owners under which they accepted compensation for loss of amenity, in return for a confidentiality clause.