The Four Courts in Dublin Image: Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie The Four Courts in Dublin Image: Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie ONE OF THE country’s largest suppliers of peat to the mushroom industry argued before the High Court today that the Environmental Protection Agency erred in law in its refusal to examine its application for a peat extraction licence.
Harte Peat is challenging the lawfulness of the Agency’s decision, with Michael McDowell SC arguing on behalf of his client that the EPA erred in law in its conclusion that planning permission was required.Central to Harte Peat’s argument is that it is exempt from the need for planning permission as peat extraction commenced on the bogs prior to 1964 when modern planning laws were introduced.
McDowell argued on Friday, however, that the fact that an EIA is required does not mean that pre-1964 activity requires planning permission. He argued that a “fundamental mistake of law was being made by the EPA” as it is “conflating the notion of pre ’64 development with exempted development”. In his closing comments, McDowell argued that the suggestion the development consent requirement under the EIA Directive can only be achieved through planning permission from a local authority is “wholly untrue and incorrect”.
While planning permission alone would not constitute development consent, he said, EPA licensing alone would also not be considered development consent. McDowell argued that Harte Peat’s application was made in “good faith” during a period when peat operations were deemed to be wholly exempt from the need for planning permission.
McDowell said that the EPA then decided in November 2020 “to refuse point blank to consider our EPA application” on the basis that Harte Peat could not show any evidence of active planning permission, or that it was in the process of seeking permission.
It's it not better for bogs to be left alone for the moment for carbon sequestration