The High Court has ruled that An Bord Pleanála must assess the environmental effects of peat extraction when considering planning permission for the continued operation of the Edenderry power plant.
Mr Justice Michael White said the Board had interpreted environmental impact assessment law too narrowly by excluding those effects from its assessment of the plant’s proposed continued use. He granted An Taisce a declaration requiring the Board to address the effects of extracting peat used as fuel before granting planning permission for the plant.
The judgment concerned two judicial review proceedings challenging the Board’s permission for the plant’s continued operation at Clonbullogue, Co Offaly. The permission was granted in November 2013 for ten years. The plant had previously received permission to operate until the end of 2015, and the application at issue did not involve new structures.
An Taisce argued that peat extraction was an indirect environmental effect of the plant and should have been assessed. The judgment records that the plant’s peat had historically come from licensed bogs controlled by Bord na Móna companies, with the fuel transported to the plant by rail. The court said the plant relied on those bogs for most of its raw material and found possible indirect environmental effects from that supply.
The Board and notice parties argued that the planning application concerned the power plant site, while peat extraction took place at separate, licensed sites. The court agreed it was not deciding the legality of peat extraction or the EPA licences, and said the proceedings did not concern whether extraction was exempted development. It also found this was not a project-splitting case. However, it held that the separate licensing regime did not itself justify excluding peat extraction’s effects from the Board’s consideration. The Board could take the licences into account and could consider those effects when assessing the application or possible conditions.
Friends of the Irish Environment made a separate challenge under the Habitats Directive, alleging effects on protected sites and failures to meet conservation obligations. The court refused all relief sought by that applicant, finding that its evidence fell substantially short of the standard needed to support its case. It also declined to refer an issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The judgment did not quash the planning permission. It granted An Taisce the declaration described above and stated that any further orders would be addressed later if required.