Colin Doyle et al. v. An Bord Pleanála

In Colin Doyle, Friends of the Irish Environment CLG, Futureproof Clare, Martin Knox and Christine Sharp v. An Bord Pleanála, the Government of Ireland, Ireland, and the Attorney General ([2025] IEHC 158), the Irish High Court considered a judicial review challenge to two planning permissions granted for a large-scale data center and substation development in Ennis, County Clare. The applicants filed the case on May 30, 2024, seeking to quash the permissions issued by An Bord Pleanála on April 5, 2024. These permissions concerned (1) the construction of six two-story data center buildings with a combined floor area of over 118,000 square meters, powered in part by 66 diesel generators and a 120MW gas-powered facility, and (2) the construction of a new 110kV substation and underground transmission cables. The Court granted leave to apply for judicial review on June 26, 2024, and set a hearing for February 25, 2025. In advance of that hearing, An Bord Pleanála conceded one of the applicants’ key claims, leading the Court to focus on a limited but legally significant issue. Among the various legal grounds raised, the applicants argued that the Board failed to comply with its statutory obligations under Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended by the 2021 Act. That provision requires public authorities, insofar as practicable, to exercise their functions consistently with the national climate objective, the most recent approved Climate Action Plan, and the goals of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. The applicants contended that the Board’s approval of a fossil fuel–intensive project, with no binding requirement to transition to renewable energy sources, was irrational and inadequately reasoned. They further argued that the Board impermissibly relied on speculative claims about future availability of sustainable gas, while requiring no meaningful emissions mitigation measures. Although the Court ultimately did not rule on the climate issues at this stage of proceedings, the arguments remain part of the broader legal challenge. The Court’s March 21, 2025 decision centered on a discrete but critical factual error in the Board’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Specifically, the planning inspector incorrectly stated that no bat roosts were identified within the development site, despite the existence of a confirmed Leisler’s bat roost in Building 6C. This omission was acknowledged by the Board, which conceded that the inspector’s error undermined the legality of its assessment. The Court rejected arguments from the developer that the error was immaterial, emphasizing that under European Union law, any destruction of a protected bat roost constitutes a significant environmental impact. Because the Board failed to properly consider that impact—let alone assess the need for a derogation license under the Habitats Directive—the Court quashed both planning permissions.