The Court of Appeal is set to reverse a directive that previously barred a company from peat extraction in select areas of its Midlands bogs. Harte Peat, in a hearing led by Justice Mary Faherty this week, successfully contended that the activity did not require an Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence as the extraction was confined to an area of nearly 26 hectares. An IPC licence is necessary once the extraction area spans 50 hectares.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had earlier argued, with the High Court concurring, that an IPC licence was required since the sum of the firm’s interconnected peatlands went beyond the 50-hectare threshold. Harte Peat countered this in the appeal, stating that certain tracts marked by the High Court were not being harvested when the EPA lodged its complaint, and suggested that prior and potential future activity was pertinent.
Justice Faherty reasoned that according to the applicable law, an injunction can only be sought when the conduct is ongoing. The law does not consider if activity has taken place in the past or will happen in the future.
Based on this, the court ruled that the High Court had “no legal grounds” to issue the injunction, as the extraction area did not go over 50 hectares at the time when EPA filed its injunction request in March 2021. Justice Faherty also added that the High Court injunction, granted in spring 2022, will remain active until the appeal’s final verdicts are made.
In the same judgment, the three-judge bench sided with the EPA in a distinct case filed against it by Harte Peat. This was regarding the EPA’s refusal to consider the firm’s application for an IPC licence to mine approximately 80,000 tonnes of peat annually in Co Westmeath. According to the EPA, the application should have been coupled with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) acquired through planning permission under European Union law.
Harte Peat, a supplier to the Irish mushroom farming sector, conceded that their business actions necessitate an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), however, they contended that this should not be procured through standard planning procedures. Harte Peat posited that it does not require planning approval, due to the historical use of the lands for peat extraction, dating back to a period “before any planning legislation” existed. Hence, they believe it doesn’t come under the purview of the 2000 Planning and Development Act.
However, the Court of Appeal determined that the potential environmental consequences of Harte Peat’s operations must be examined through an EIA, a process that can only be executed within the context of regular planning procedures. Justice Faherty asserted that the demand for an EIA acts as a catalyst for the need for planning consent.
In addition, she dismissed Harte Peat’s assertion of exemption, based on its business operating for over 60 years, as baseless. Her verdict was endorsed by Justice Maurice Collins and Justice Ann Power.