Dumping of rubble on Dublin farm not reclamation, says High Court

The High Court has held that the dumping of about 100,000 tons of rubble on lands in Co Dublin does not fall within the remit…

The High Court has held that the dumping of about 100,000 tons of rubble on lands in Co Dublin does not fall within the remit of land reclamation. A decision on what should be done with the rubble will be made at the end of the month.

The action relating to the dumping was taken by South Dublin County Council against Mrs Rose Fetherston, named as the registered owner of lands at Coolmine, Saggart; her son, Mr Paul Fetherston, to whom she transferred the lands but who is not yet the registered owner; and Austin McHale Plant Hire Ltd, Rathcoole, Co Dublin.

The defendants claimed they were exempted from requiring planning permission as they were engaged in land reclamation.

In an affidavit, Mr Anthony Donnelly, a council planning inspector, said that in a case in 1983, following a complaint, the High Court had ordered the removal or coverage of builders' waste or rubble which had been dumped on the lands. That same order allowed for the dumping of soil, stone or clay to level the surface of the lands, he said.

READ MORE

In the current action, the Fetherstons and McHale Plant Hire claimed the material brought on to the lands was for levelling. Mr Donnelly said that whatever levelling was required was completed following the 1983 proceedings. However, the council discovered dumping had started in 1995. Trucks depositing the material bore the name "McHales". Despite a warning notice, the dumping continued and was far in excess of material required for reclamation.

In an affidavit, Mrs Fetherston disagreed that whatever levelling was required was completed in 1983. The land was uneven and contained gorges, which left large portions unusable for farming. The 1983 High Court order did not restrain the dumping of soil or clay to level the surface. It was never envisaged that land unusable for agricultural purposes could not be reclaimed.

Mrs Fetherston said animals had been injured or killed as a result of the condition of the land, which contained swamp and marsh. She and her son intended to reclaim as much as possible for farming. With that in mind, she had entered into an arrangement with Mr McHale. In an affidavit, Mr McHale said he was contacted in 1995 by Mr Fetherston, who wished to infill two acres of marshy land. He undertook not to dump builders' rubble and only soil and stone.

Mr Pat Butler, for the council, said his clients claimed that upwards of 100,000 tons of rubble had been dumped.

Mr Justice Lavan held the activity was not land reclamation. He adjourned the matter to later this month, when he will decide whether to order the lands to be restored to their original condition.