Fitzpatrick & anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [2019] IESC 23 (11 April 2019)

Fitzpatrick & anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [2019] IESC 23 (11 April 2019)

The Board was only required to carry out an EIA of the specific proposed developments (data centre and substation) for which planning permission was sought, not the entire masterplan. There was no functional or legal interdependence between phase one and future phases. The Board properly took account, as far as practically possible, of the masterplan in its EIA. The law was clear and no reference to the CJEU was required.

Citation
[2019] IESC 23
Parties
Applicant / Appellant: Sinead Fitzpatrick; Applicant / Appellant: Alan Daly; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Notice Party: Galway County Council; Notice Party: Apple Distribution International; Amicus Curiae: Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government; Amicus Curiae: Ireland; Amicus Curiae: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Project Splitting, Planning Permission, Directive 2011/92/eu, Masterplan Assessment, Judicial Review
Planning Law Environmental Law EU Law Environmental Impact Assessment Project Splitting Planning Permission Directive 2011/92/eu Masterplan Assessment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinead Fitzpatrick

Applicant / Appellant

Alan Daly

Applicant / Appellant

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

Galway County Council

Notice Party

Apple Distribution International

Notice Party

Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government

Amicus Curiae

Ireland

Amicus Curiae

Attorney General

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority was obliged to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the masterplan rather than only the specific phase for which permission was sought
  2. 2 Whether the Board properly considered the masterplan in its EIA of the proposed data centre and substation
  3. 3 Whether a reference to the CJEU was required regarding interpretation of the EIA Directive

Ratio Decidendi

The Board was only required to carry out an EIA of the specific proposed developments (data centre and substation) for which planning permission was sought, not the entire masterplan. There was no functional or legal interdependence between phase one and future phases. The Board properly took account, as far as practically possible, of the masterplan in its EIA. The law was clear and no reference to the CJEU was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of judicial review upheld
  • No order for reference to the CJEU