Court dismisses challenges to grant planning for proposed data centre

Court dismisses challenges to grant planning for proposed Data centre and associated works.

Aodhan O'Faolain

The High Court has dismissed a father and daughter's claim that An Bord Pleanala's decision to allow a data centre to be built near their home has breached several Constitutional rights, including their right to a healthy environment.

Those claims, which were denied by the State, and the board, forms part of an action that raises important points of domestic and EU law, were brought by Mannix Coyne and his daughter Amy Coyne.

The Coynes live at Bracetown, Clonee, Co Meath, close to the 24.5-hectare site where permission has been given to allow EngineNode Ltd to build a data centre.

The proposed data centre includes four two storey data storage buildings, offices as well as associated roads and a car park.

In a second set of related proceedings the Coynes also sought to quash the board's decision to allow a substation and grid connection works, associated with the proposed data centre, at Bracetown and Gunnock which are north of Clonee.

In a lengthy and deled judgement on Friday Mr Justice David Holland rejected all grounds of the Coyne's arguments in the two separate actions they brought.

EngineNode Ltd, which also opposed the challenges, was a notice party to the proceedings.

The Coynes had claimed that the proposed centre will require of 180 megawatts of electricity per year and will generate an estimated 1% of Ireland's total annual carbon dioxide emissions.

They claimed that the board's decision in early July 2021 granting planning permission for the centre was flawed, invalid and should be set aside.

They claimed the decision to grant permission will make a significant contribution to the current climate crisis and that there was a failure by the board to assess the environmental consequences of carbon dioxide emissions that will be produced by the proposed development.

The Coynes claimed that the board's decisions infringed their Constitutional Rights and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to bodily integrity, life and a right to a healthy environment.

The respondents and the notice party rejected all of the Coyne's claims and in a statement and had argued that a right to a healthy environment has not been recognised as existing under either the Constitution or the ECHR.

The Coynes also claimed that the decisions did not comply with planning regulations, the 2000 Planning and Development Act and the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessments and Habitats.

No regard was given by the board to the 2015 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, it was also alleged.

They also claimed they will suffer a major loss of amenity, privacy as well serious disturbance to the equine business they operate from their home if the centre and the associated works are carried out.

The matter will return for final orders before the court at a later date.