A plastic sheeting manufacturer has offered to provide accommodation to its neighbour who claims that she and her family's health has been damaged due to excessive noise being generated by the facility.
Ita Madden from Virginia House Lough Gowna, Co Cavan has brought High Court proceedings against Xtrupak Limited which makes and distributes extruded thermoplastic sheeting for the print, packaging and display markets.
As well as suing the company Ms Madden's action is also against Darragh Reilly, John Reilly Snr, Christine Reilly and John M Reilly who it is alleged are directors of Xtrupak.
Ms Madden, who previously obtained permission from the High Court to serve short notice of her injunction application against the company and its directors, has sought the order because of the levels of noise and air pollution generated by the defendants' premises.
Her property borders the defendant's facility, the court heard.
In her action, she seeks orders from the court restraining the company from continuing with any commercial activity around its premises at Lough View Loch Gowna until all works and modifications sought by her have been completed to her satisfaction.
Noise complaints
She claims that the levels of noise generated from the plant exceed the conditions in the defendant facility's planning permission.
The plant has been in operation since 2012, but it is claimed that there was no serious problem with noise levels until January of this year when the defendant allegedly expanded its operations.
Ms Madden claims that the increase in noise levels has resulted in her and her families' lives have been severely disrupted and upset, and their health has suffered.
In a sworn statement Ms Madden said in relation to her home that "what had once been her heaven, I can only truthfully only describe as my living hell for the past few months. "
The company's machines she claimed had been running 24/7 and had adversely affected her family's health. On occasions she has had to sleep in her car in order to get away from the noise, she claims.
She said that she contacted the defendants with a view to finding a resolution.
While some discussions had taken place, she said that any steps taken by the defendants had made no difference to reducing levels of noise.
Her claims of excess noise were supported in an expert's report she commissioned into the alleged nuisance; the court also heard.
When the matter returned before the High Court on Tuesday Mr Justice Brian O'Moore was told by lawyers for the defendant that while they were prepared to contest the injunction application if required, the defendants' preferred option was to come to an arrangement with Ms Madden.
Risk of job losses
Daniel McNamara Bl for the defendants said that over 44 people would be at risk of being laid off if the injunction sought by Ms Madden was granted.
However, counsel said that his client was actively taking steps to address her concerns regard the level of noise from the defendant's premises.
Those works would take several weeks to complete, and counsel said his clients are prepared to offer Ms Madden accommodation until the noise alleviation works had been done.
In response Ms Madden, who represented herself in the action. asked the court for time to consider everything that had been proposed by the defendants in their response to her application.
In particular, she was seeking time to see if a solicitor would be prepared to represent her in the action.
Mr Justice O'Moore agreed to adjourn the matter to a date later this month and encouraged the parties to continue to seek to resolve the matter.
By High Court reporters
Keep up to date with all the latest news on our website Beat102103.com.
