The High Court has ruled that commercial peat extraction at Timoney Bog requires an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) licence, finding that the area involved in the business exceeded the statutory 50-hectare threshold.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton delivered the judgment on 31 July 2019 in an appeal by Thomas Deegan from a 2014 Circuit Court order. That order restrained commercial peat extraction at the bog, subject to a limited allowance for removing turf from the low bank between 21 and 29 May 2014. The High Court said it would discuss the final form of its orders with counsel; the judgment did not set out those final orders.
The central dispute was how to calculate the land “involved” in the extraction business. Deegan argued that the active cutting operation occupied less than one hectare and that even counting the low bank would keep the total below 50 hectares. He also relied on the history of turf cutting, the Government’s decision to de-designate the bog, and environmental reports commissioned on his behalf.
The Environmental Protection Agency argued that the calculation should include land used for activities connected to extraction. The court accepted that interpretation. It found that drains across 82.8 hectares of high bog were directly associated with peat extraction, as were peripheral drains and the low bank, where cut sod turf was laid out to dry. The court concluded that those areas were reckonable in assessing the threshold.
The judgment recounted that Deegan deepened the high-bog drains in 2003 while preparing for milled peat production, later abandoning that plan and continuing sod-turf production. It also found that the low-bank area grew from 31.5 hectares in 2008 to 53.56 hectares in 2011, most probably because of peat extraction. Deegan had applied for an IPPC licence in 2009, but the application was not advanced through the required process and no licence was granted.
The court held that the licensing requirement was separate from the bog’s Natural Heritage Area designation and the Government’s stated intention to de-designate it. Those matters, along with environmental assessments, could be relevant during a licensing process, but did not determine whether a licence was required. It also rejected Deegan’s arguments that applying the licensing provisions was retrospective or breached principles of proportionality, legal certainty or legitimate expectation.
The court’s ruling was that an IPPC licence had been and would be required for commercial peat extraction on the bog. The judgment did not grant or assess a licence, conduct environmental assessments, or specify the final form of the orders to follow.