Supreme Court defers ruling over An Bord Pleanála's approval for Apple data hall in Athenry
The Supreme Court will rule on a later date whether An Bord Pleanála breached its legal obligations in how it approved the first phase of tech giant Apple’s planned €850m data centre in Athenry.
Although Apple is not now proceeding with the project, the judgment is likely to affect the Board’s consideration of other data centre developments.
An appeal by two local residents over the Board’s decision was heard by a five-judge Supreme Court, sitting at NUI Galway, on Wednesday.
At the conclusion of submissions, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Frank Clarke said the court was reserving its judgment.
The appeal by Sinead Fitzpatrick, who lives close to the planned development, and Allan Daly, of Athenry, concerns the High Court's dismissal of their challenge concerning how the Board dealt with the company’s proposal. It was opposed by the Board.
The State, which applied to be joined to the appeal as an amicus curiae (assistant to the court on legal issues), supported the Board’s position.
Apple is no longer involved in the case, initiated by the residents after Apple got planning permission from the Board on August 11, 2016 for a development of one data hall and associated grid connection at Athenry.
The core issue concerns the extent to which the Board is obliged to assess the environmental impact of the balance of the Apple "masterplan" for eight data halls as part of the Board's obligation to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The appellants, represented by Micheal McDowell SC, with Oisin Collins BL, contend the Board is obliged to carry out a full EIA on the entire masterplan.
They argued the masterplan is a significant development both in terms of physical scale and its ultimate energy demands and the Athenry site was specifically chosen to accommodate the large physical scale of all eight data halls.
The Board had identified the project’s energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions were significant adverse environmental effect but failed to assess the energy usage and emissions of the entire masterplan development or to require Apple to take measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy those, it was submitted.
They also argue, as an alternative plea, the Board was obliged to assess environmental impacts in a manner that fell short of being required to assess the entire masterplan but exceeding the EIA actually carried out by the Board.
In submissions opposing the appeal, the Board, represented by Nuala Butler SC, with Fintan Valentine BL, argued there was no legal requirement to conduct an EIA in respect of the overall masterplan.
The Board disputed arguments by the appellants that the court, before finally deciding the appeal, should refer that particular issue for determination by the Court of Justice of the EU.
The Board also submitted it had adequately discharged its obligations to take account of the masterplan “as far as practically possible”.
In its submissions, the State, represented by James Connolly SC, with Claire Hogan BL, argued there was no element of “project-splitting” to avoid the carrying out of an EIA on any part of the project. An EIA was carried out on the project for which planning approval was sought - one data hall - and any future development of the additional data halls under the “masterplan” would have to secure planning consents based on further EIAs, it submitted.
