The High Court has refused Brian McDonagh’s application for judicial review of planning permission for Phase 1 of Apple’s data centre development near Athenry, finding he had no standing to bring the case and had not fully disclosed relevant interests when he sought leave to proceed.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 12 October 2017, concerned An Bord Pleanála’s August 2016 decision to grant permission to Apple Distribution Ltd. Galway County Council and Apple Distribution were notice parties. McDonagh represented himself. The case was heard alongside related proceedings by Sinead Fitzpatrick and Allan Daly, but this judgment addresses McDonagh’s application.
The court said McDonagh was based in Dublin, was not physically close to the site and had not taken part in the planning process before Galway County Council or An Bord Pleanála. It found no evidence that he had the local or conservation interest he initially relied on, or a particular connection to the area’s amenities. The court also noted he had not been granted leave to pursue the ground concerning alleged forestry impacts.
The judgment found that McDonagh’s grounding affidavit did not disclose his role as company secretary, director and shareholder of Ecologic Datacentre Ltd, or his connection to land in County Wicklow that had planning permission for a data centre. The court considered his ownership of the land, company role and advice to the project’s promoters material to the leave application. It was not satisfied with his later explanation that his experience in the Wicklow project established a sufficient interest in the Athenry case. The court concluded that significant non-disclosure and lack of candour also justified refusing relief.
The court additionally considered the grounds on which leave had been granted. It rejected the claim that An Bord Pleanála had ignored an An Taisce letter, saying the issues raised had been addressed in the inspectors’ reports. It found the State aid arguments irrelevant or without merit, the challenge to Galway County Council’s contribution fee moot because the Board’s permission replaced the council’s decision, and the complaint about distance from a nuclear facility unsupported by the inspector’s assessment.
On energy demand, the court said the applicant was attempting to argue matters beyond the leave granted. It found the Board had considered energy supply so far as practicable and that Phase 1 could be met by existing grid capacity. Any issues from later phases would be considered in future planning applications, which would require further environmental impact assessment.
The court refused the application, finding the grounds advanced were without substance. It did not quash the planning permission.