Fitzpatrick & anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellants sought judicial review of two planning permissions granted by Company A for the construction of a data centre (phase one of a larger master-plan) and for a high-voltage sub-station intended to service up to eight future data halls on a 202-hectare woodland site outside The City. Planning permission for the data centre was first issued by The City Council and later appealed to Company A; the sub-station application was made directly to Company A as strategic infrastructure.

Company A requested a revised Environmental Impact Statement (REIS) requiring explicit discussion of both the phase-one works and their interaction with future phases. After a joint oral hearing, an inspector recommended approval of both applications. Company A adopted the inspector’s reports and granted permission in August 2016.

Appellants obtained leave to seek judicial review, alleging non-compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. The High Court (Judge McDermott) dismissed the challenge and refused a certificate for appeal. The Supreme Court (Judge Clarke C.J. presiding) granted leave, limited the issues, and declined an immediate reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). During the appeal, Company B announced it no longer intended to build the project but the validity of the permissions remained live.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A was legally obliged to carry out an EIA of the entire master-plan rather than of the individual phase-one projects.
2. If not, what level of consideration of the master-plan was required when assessing the environmental impacts of the phase-one data centre and sub-station.
3. Whether a reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU was necessary before determining the above questions.
4. Whether, applying the correct legal standard, Company A’s EIA complied with statutory and EU requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The master-plan, not the single data hall, is the “project” under the EIA Directive; therefore Company A had to assess the entire plan.
• Approving phase one without a master-plan EIA constitutes impermissible “salami-slicing,” contrary to EU case-law preventing the circumvention of environmental assessment.
• Even on a phase-one approach, Company A failed adequately to analyse cumulative impacts—especially energy demand and climate-change effects—arising from all eight data halls.
• A reference to the CJEU was needed to clarify the extent of the assessment duty where only part of a larger plan is before the authority.

Respondent’s (Company A’s) Arguments

• The EIA Directive requires assessment of the specific development for which consent is sought; the master-plan falls outside that statutory remit.
• Company A nevertheless considered the master-plan “as far as practicable” within the phase-one EIA, fully addressing cumulative and indirect impacts.
• No EU law ambiguity exists; the Advocate General’s opinion in Bund Naturschutz confirms the limited obligation. A CJEU reference is therefore unnecessary.

Amici Curiae (Company C) Arguments

• Supported Company A’s interpretation of the 2000 Act and the EIA Directive, emphasising that Irish legislation mirrors the Directive’s focus on “proposed development.”
• Argued that practical and legal difficulties would arise if planning authorities were required to assess un-worked-out future phases.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Definition of “project”: The Court, adopting Advocate General guidance, held that the EIA Directive unambiguously requires assessment of the development for which consent is sought. Irish legislation mirrors this approach.

2. Functional independence: Examining factual findings, the Court agreed with the High Court that the phase-one data hall could operate on its own; therefore it was not functionally or legally interdependent with the remaining seven halls. Prior authorities (O Grianna, Brown) were distinguished.

3. Consideration of the master-plan: While a full master-plan EIA was unnecessary, Company A had to “take account, as far as practically possible” of future phases to ensure early awareness of potential environmental impacts and to inform design choices.

4. Application to facts: The inspector’s report—expressly adopted by Company A—quantified future energy demand, modelled greenhouse-gas emissions for both the single hall and full build-out, and weighed those impacts against national policy gaps, renewable-energy trends and socio-economic benefits. This satisfied the “practically possible” standard.

5. CJEU reference: Relying on the CILFIT “acte clair” doctrine, the Court deemed EU law sufficiently clear and found no need for a preliminary reference.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Direct Effect: The planning permissions for the data centre and sub-station remain valid. Broader Implications: The judgment re-affirms that Irish planning authorities must assess only the development actually before them, while still examining foreseeable cumulative impacts. No new legal test was created, but the decision clarifies the practical application of the “as far as practicable” standard in master-plan scenarios.