The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Sinead Fitzpatrick and Alan Daly against planning permissions for an Apple data centre and an associated substation and grid connection near Athenry, Co Galway. It held that An Bord Pleanála was not required to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the full masterplan, but had to consider its potential later phases as far as practically possible when assessing the first phase.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 11 April 2019, concerned two Board decisions issued on 11 August 2016. The permissions covered a single data hall and associated works, and a 220kV substation and grid connection. Apple’s masterplan envisaged the possible construction of eight data halls on a site of about 202 hectares.
The appellants argued that the masterplan was the relevant “project” under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and should have been assessed before permission was granted. In the alternative, they said the Board had not sufficiently considered the energy use and climate effects that could result if all eight data halls were built.
The Court concluded that the required assessment was of the developments for which permission was sought, not the larger masterplan. It found that the first data centre could operate on its own and was not functionally or legally dependent on later data halls. The data centre and substation were interdependent, however, and their combined environmental impacts had been considered. The Court said this case did not involve project splitting intended to avoid an assessment.
The Court also held that the Board had to consider potential environmental effects of future masterplan phases as far as practically possible. That obligation did not amount to a full assessment of the masterplan. The Inspector’s report, which the Board expressly adopted, considered possible energy demand and climate effects from a full build-out, including the limits of Apple’s claim that the development would use 100% renewable energy. The Inspector identified a potentially material climate impact from future phases, while also considering employment, regional development and the possibility of changing energy conditions and policy.
The Court found that this assessment met the Board’s obligation in the circumstances. It declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, concluding that a reference was not necessary to decide the appeal. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment did not quash the permissions.