The High Court found that the second phase of archaeological works at a proposed data centre site in County Meath amounted to unauthorised development. The works were carried out between August and October 2020 while the applicants’ appeal against the initial planning decision was before An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Justice Barr distinguished the two phases of work. He held that the first phase, carried out from May to June 2020, was preliminary archaeological testing and qualified as exempted development. The second phase included resolving archaeological finds from the first phase and further testing. The court found that this work implemented archaeological mitigation measures required by conditions attached to Meath County Council’s planning permission, which was under appeal at the time.
The applicants, Mannix Coyne and Sheila Coyne, live beside the site and sought relief under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. They argued that the respondent, Enginenode Limited, had begun part of the development before it had an operative planning permission. The company said the excavations were standalone investigations and that it held licences under the National Monuments Act. The court accepted that the first phase was for research and discovery, but held that a licence under that Act did not displace obligations under planning law.
The proposed data centre would include four data storage buildings, an energy centre and other facilities. The site is beside the applicants’ home, where they also train horses. The judgment records that the respondent’s planning application included an environmental impact assessment report and that planning permission was later granted by An Bord Pleanála in July 2021. The applicants challenged that later decision in separate judicial review proceedings; this section 160 application did not determine that challenge.
The court separately held that bore holes and soil sampling were exempted surveying work. It refused injunctive relief concerning hedges and ditches, which the judgment says had been cleared by the landowner, who was not a party to the proceedings. The site had been restored to its original condition by 6 October 2020.
Because the respondent did not accept that the second phase was unauthorised and gave no undertaking against repeating such activity, the judge proposed an order in the terms of paragraph one of the applicants’ notice of motion. He said no restoration order was needed and that the other requested orders did not arise in a section 160 application. The precise final order and costs remained open: the parties were given two weeks to make written submissions on those matters.