The High Court has proposed an interlocutory injunction restraining implementation of the Planning and Development (Exempted Development) Regulations 2019 while a judicial review over peat-extraction rules proceeds. The order’s precise wording was left for counsel to address. The court scheduled the full hearing for the first week of September 2019.
Friends of the Irish Environment Limited challenges two sets of ministerial regulations that took effect on 25 January 2019. The applicant argues that they unlawfully disapplied existing planning controls before a replacement licensing and assessment regime was ready. The State respondents conceded, for this injunction application only, that the challenge was arguable.
At the time of the application, peat extraction involving 30 hectares or more was exempt from planning permission under the challenged rules. The judgment said the replacement regime would not take full effect for at least 18 months for unlicensed activity and 36 months for licensed activity. During the transition, the court said, some large-scale extraction could continue without development consent or the usual planning enforcement mechanisms.
The judge considered that the applicant’s arguments based on the EU Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Directives appeared strong at this stage. The State had not yet filed a substantive affidavit addressing the merits, and the court said it had not disclosed an arguable defence to those grounds on the material then available. It also weighed the alleged seriousness of the EU-law breach and the applicant’s evidence of environmental risk. The judgment stressed that the State might still succeed at the full hearing and that it had not decided the other grounds challenging the regulations.
The injunction was limited to the Exempted Development Regulations. The court declined to restrain implementation of the new licensing regime, finding that such a wider order was unnecessary before the judicial review hearing. The limited order was intended to preserve the pre-January 2019 planning framework and its enforcement mechanisms during the interim period.
The court did not determine whether the regulations were valid or whether the alleged breaches occurred. It found the applicant had not delayed unreasonably and said the injunction should not remain in place for a lengthy period. Counsel were to address the order’s precise wording and a timetable for evidence and written submissions.