The High Court has refused a judicial review brought by Sinead Fitzpatrick and Allan Daly against An Bord Pleanála’s 2016 planning permission for the first phase of Apple’s proposed data centre near Athenry, Co. Galway.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 12 October 2017. The applicants had sought to quash the permission and obtain a declaration that the Board’s decisions breached European environmental assessment requirements. The court rejected their grounds and refused the application.
The permission concerned one data hall, with a maximum power demand of 30MW, and associated works. Apple’s masterplan envisaged up to eight data halls, which could require 240MW in total, but those later phases were not part of the permission under challenge. The Board had also granted permission for a 220kV substation and grid connections in a separate decision.
The applicants argued that the environmental impact assessment should have covered the full masterplan, including its energy demand, climate effects and backup generators. They also challenged the assessment of the site alternatives and the Board’s treatment of Apple’s stated aim to match the data centre’s annual electricity use with renewable generation.
The judge found that the Board’s decision, read with the inspector’s report, adequately recorded the environmental assessment. The Board had adopted the inspector’s report and accepted his assessment that the case for future data storage demand and the site’s capacity was robust. The court found that the Board had considered the wider masterplan when assessing site choice and potential future impacts, as far as was practicable with the information available.
The court held that permission was sought for a standalone first phase, capable of operating without later halls. It found no obligation to assess the entire masterplan as though permission for all eight halls had been sought. Any future expansion would require further planning permission and environmental assessment, allowing effects such as increased energy consumption and grid impacts to be considered in light of circumstances at that time.
The judgment also noted the inspector’s conclusion that it could not be definitively stated that electricity supplied at any particular time would come from renewable sources. For the permitted phase, the inspector considered the likely climate effects limited and found existing grid capacity could accommodate it. The court rejected the claims that the Board had failed to assess effects or identify mitigation measures. It also rejected the challenge concerning generators: 18 were associated with the permitted phase, while the full masterplan would require 144, and the inspector had assessed their potential noise and air effects so far as practicable.
The court concluded that the applicants had not established their grounds. The permission remained in place; the ruling did not grant permission for the seven possible later data halls.