Judgment: 2025-03-21 · Court archive

Ennis data centre permissions survive first High Court challenge over overlooked bat roost

High Court · [2025] IEHC 158

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Colin Doyle
  • Futureproof Clare
  • Martin Knox
  • Christine Sharp (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála
  • ART Data Centres
What

Ennis data centre permissions survive first High Court challenge over overlooked bat roost

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Humphreys accepted that argument. He held that the inspector's mistake was a harmless error and excluded any reasonable possibility that the actual planning outcome would have been different had the single confirmed roost been correctly identified.

Planning permissions for a six-building data centre and associated electricity substation on a 60-hectare site north-east of Ennis have survived the first stage of a High Court environmental challenge despite an admitted error concerning a protected bat roost.

The proposed ART Data Centres development lies around 4km from Ennis, beside the Tulla Road and east of the M18. It includes six two-storey data centre buildings and associated infrastructure, while a related permission covers a 110kV substation and underground transmission cables.

Colin Doyle, Friends of the Irish Environment, Futureproof Clare, Martin Knox and Christine Sharp sought to quash both permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála in April 2024.

The board subsequently conceded that its inspector had made a factual error when stating that no bat roosts had been recorded during surveys. An updated environmental report had in fact identified a roost containing one Leisler’s bat in a crack in the wall of a farm structure known as Building 6C.

ART Data Centres nevertheless resisted the applicants' request to quash the permissions on that ground. It argued that the error made no difference to the environmental assessment because the project had been assessed using a broader 'roost resource' approach. Potential roosts were already anticipated and mitigation included pre-construction surveys, licensed removal where necessary, bat boxes, replacement hedgerows and restrictions on demolition and tree felling.

Mr Justice Humphreys accepted that argument. He held that the inspector's mistake was a harmless error and excluded any reasonable possibility that the actual planning outcome would have been different had the single confirmed roost been correctly identified.

The permissions therefore remain intact after this first module.

The ruling does not end the judicial review. Other grounds remain to be considered, including arguments concerning the timing of any derogation licence required for interference with protected bat roosts, climate obligations, water impacts and wider EU environmental-law issues. The case was listed for March 31, 2025 to arrange the next module.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review