Doyle and Ors v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Ors [No. 3]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 156
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000708]

In the Matter of Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015

Between

Colin Doyle, Friends of the Irish Environment CLG, Futureproof Clare, Martin Knox and Christine Sharp

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála, The Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

and

Art Data Centres Limited (No. 3)

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 156

[H.JR.2024.0000708]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Planning permission – Judicial review – Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 – Applicants seeking an order of certiorari quashing decisions granting planning permission – Whether the respondent failed to apply its mandatory obligation under s. 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015

Facts: The applicants applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decisions, dated 5 April 2024, of the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Commission), granting planning permission to the notice party, Art Data Centres Ltd, for: the construction of a proposed data centre (PDC) located in Ennis, County Clare (the data centre decision); and the provision of a new 110 kilovolt (kV) Gas Insulated Switchgear grid substation, two 110 kV underground transmission cables connecting to existing 110kV overhead lines to the north of the proposed substation, and two 110kV underground transmission cables connecting to the existing Ennis 110kV grid substation (the substation decision). The core grounds of challenge were that: (1) the data centre decision was invalid as the Commission failed to apply and/or consider its mandatory obligation under s. 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015; (2) the data centre decision was invalid as the Commission acted irrationally, erred in law and/or failed to provide reasons and/or adequate reasons, in finding that the PDC would have potentially positive environmental impacts; (3) the data centre decision was invalid as the Commission acted irrationally by failing to require any mitigation of the greenhouse gas emissions from the PDC; (6) the data centre decision and the substation decision were invalid as the Commission failed to consider adequately or at all the environmental effects of the proposed development on the environment in terms of impacts on bat fauna; and (7) the data centre decision was invalid as the Commission granted planning permission in breach of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC (the Water Framework Directive) and/or Regulations 4 and 5 of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) certain of the applicants’ issues were not properly pleaded; (ii) the applicants’ failure to raise some of the pleaded issues in the process made it implausible and inappropriate to grant relief on the basis of alleged failure to observe the duties imposed by the 2015 Act on the basis of those issues, in circumstances where there was a clear engagement with the autonomous duty under the 2015 Act; (iii) the applicants had not discharged the onus of proof, and had misread policy documents as being mandatory and prescriptive when on a proper reading they were flexible; (iv) the decision was capable of being read as valid and rational; (v) the agreement to power the project with renewables via Corporate Power Purchasing Agreements was included in the general condition; and (vi) the applicants had not shown that a derogation licence was more than a possibility.

Humphreys J dismissed the proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 13 ^th day of March 2026

1 . The applicants who challenge a data centre development here comprise two environmental NGOs with a strong record of relevant activism, and three individuals who have obviously very genuine concerns and strong awareness of the ramifications of the climate emergency. The first named applicant Dr Doyle holds a BA (Mod) in Physics, an MSc in Physics, a Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Pollution, and a PhD in Climate Science. He has over twenty-five years of experience in environmental science in Ireland, including consultancy in the preparation of environmental impact assessments and emissions monitoring for a wide range of industrial and commercial projects. The fourth named applicant is a retired academic and environmental manager. The fifth named applicant is a horticulturalist and an environmental activist. Professor Daly who is well-known for her penetrating and lucid contributions to public understanding of climate science has weighed in to support the applicants, along with a body of other material and affidavits put forward. The primary question for the court, however, is not whether it would have interrogated the application for permission more sceptically. It is whether the applicants have overcome the onus to demonstrate that the permission fell outside the spectrum of options open to the commission in determining what was consistent with the matters referred to in climate legislation. Judicial review is not politics by other means. As far as jurisdictions like ours are concerned, a court's role, to state the obvious, is to limit itself to reviewing the legality rather than merits of any given decision, and to do so by reference only to the issues that are duly pleaded and that properly arise, having regard to what was before the decision-taker, and within the confines of the substantive law, particularly as definitively interpreted domestically by the apex court within the given jurisdiction, and by the CJEU in the case of European law issues where those arise, as well as subject to the rules of forensic engagement, particularly the onus of proof generally resting with a challenger. Upholding a decision is not necessarily an endorsement of its merits any more than quashing a decision is necessarily indicative of a lack of merit. Amongst the many aspects of the case one could highlight at the outset, three points particularly stand out. Firstly, by virtue of the game-changing response document from John Spain Associates, this is a project that is going to be powered from renewable energy. It is therefore a project that prima facie the commission was able to regard as not being one that in itself causes major net emissions. Secondly, the climate challenge is virtually exclusively pleaded as a matter of domestic law. No principle of EU law (such as the EU Charter, art. 191(2) TFEU, the polluter pays principle, the European Climate Law ( Regulation 2021/1119), Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 (see Case C-325/25 Eneco Wind) or otherwise) is pleaded in that regard. Even the environmental impact assessment (EIA)/ habitats directive/ derogation licence issue is focused on bats, not on climate. The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and water framework (WFD) directive points were not pursued. The glancing and purely narrative reference to the environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) in sub-ground 25 does not constitute a proper or any legal plea of contravention of EU law. And thirdly, this was a case where the applicants did not suggest to the other parties the possibility of seeking input from independent expert scientific entities (such as the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) for example) in an amicus role to assist the court on any of the more general questions, given the particular difficulties that arise in science-heavy climate litigation, as discussed in ( [2025] IEHC 407 Friends of Killymooney Lough v. An Coimisiún Pleanála No. 1 Unreported, High Court, 8 July 2025) at 174.

Judgment history

2 . In ( [2025] IEHC 158 Doyle v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) Unreported, High Court, 21 March 2025), I held that the inspector's failure to acknowledge the single Leisler's bat ( Nyctalus leisleri) roost in Building 6C constituted a harmless error which did not warrant quashing the permission and dismissed the applicants' case in relation to Module I of the proceedings.

3 . In ( [2025] IEHC 205 Doyle v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) Unreported, High Court, 11 April 2025), the applicants argued that their Module I costs of making failed points should be reserved rather than be the subject of no order, a submission which I rejected.

Geographical context

4 . Two related commission decisions are challenged here. The data centre decision ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/314474), involves the construction of six two-storey data centre buildings, associated structures and all ancillary site works on a 60 hectare site at Tooreen, Cahernalough and adjacent townlands, Tulla Road, Ennis, Co. Clare, subject to conditions for a 10-year period at Tooreen, Cahernalough, Knockanean, Ballymacahill, Muckinish and Rosslevan, Tulla Road, Ennis, Co. Clare

5 . The substation decision ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/313895) involves the development of a 110 kV GIS substation with two 110 kV underground transmission cables connecting to existing 110 kV overhead lines to the north, and two 110 kV underground cables connecting to the existing Ennis 110 kV substation and associated works in the Townlands of Tooreen, Cahernalough, Knockanean, Ballymacahill, Muckinish and Rosslevan to the north-east of Ennis, on the Tulla Road (R352), Co. Clare.

Facts

6 . On 16 July 2021, the notice party submitted a planning application to Clare County Council for a development comprising the construction of six two-storey data centre buildings, associated structures and all ancillary site works on a 60 hectare site at Tooreen, Cahernalough and adjacent townlands, Tulla Road, Ennis, Co. Clare (planning reg. ref. no. 21/757 refers). The data centre application was accompanied by, inter alia, an EIAR and a Natura impact statement (NIS).

7 . On 8 September 2021, the planning authority requested further information in relation to the data centre...