The High Court has refused Friends of the Irish Environment Limited’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s dismissal of a referral concerning peat extraction at three sites in County Westmeath.
In a judgment delivered on 9 March 2018, Mr Justice Meenan held that the Board’s decision to dismiss the referral was neither irrational nor unreasonable. The judicial review concerned the Board’s 3 May 2013 decision under section 138 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court did not determine whether the peat extraction was development requiring planning permission, or whether environmental assessments were required.
Friends of the Irish Environment had referred peat extraction in Lickny/Newcastle, Doon and Carlanstown to Westmeath County Council in August 2010, seeking a determination on whether the works were exempted development. The council referred the matter to the Board. The sites were substantial and separate, and the maps submitted with the original referral did not identify their owners or occupiers.
The Board sought further information, including land registry folios, and wrote to people identified through those records. The responses did not establish all relevant ownership and occupation details. The judgment records that the applicant supplied further information, but it did not resolve the identification problem. The court said owners or occupiers whose property rights might be affected were entitled to notice and an opportunity to make submissions.
The Board dismissed the referral, citing multiple parcels and parties, uncertainty about ownership and the individual circumstances of the plots, and the difficulty of evaluating the question as framed. The applicant argued that the Board could have affixed notices near the lands or dispensed with notice. The judge considered that affixing notices was not a reasonable solution given the subdivided plots and potentially different occupiers. He also said dispensing with notice could have caused injury or wrong to those affected.
The applicant further argued that it had not been given an opportunity to make submissions before dismissal and that the Board’s reasons were inadequate. The court found that the Board had involved the applicant in its consideration and that the reasons sufficiently identified the ownership and occupation difficulties. It also found no legal requirement for the Board to circulate a proposed determination before issuing it.
The court therefore refused the relief sought. The Board’s 2013 dismissal remained in place; the underlying planning referral was not decided on its merits.