Bad news for Varadkar – and for Ireland
SO IT appears that construction of Apple’s €850m data centre is far from a foregone conclusion. News from the tech giant’s CEO Tim Cook that Athenry will be “considered” in the context of Apple’s future plans is certainly a blow for Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who would have liked to have emerged from his meeting yesterday with a positive news story to tell.
It’s clear that whatever about the merits of data centres, firms need certainty around the planning and consenting process for projects of this scale. In this case, it wasn’t so much the planning process which was at fault, but delays in the courts system which delayed a final resolution.
The Government is working on streamlining the process for data centres, and plans to develop national policy in this regard. It should already be in place.
Notwithstanding the lack of policy, we are well-placed to secure this business, as evidenced by the fact that data centres are already operational here.
Our temperate climate and ability to produce renewable energy are key attractions for firms such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, all keen to present a green image to the world. But we have yet to really examine the climate impacts that arise from development of these energy-sucking facilities.
National grid operator EirGrid says data centres could account for 75pc of new electricity demand by 2030, and that the grid will have to be bolstered – particularly in Dublin – to meet projected growth, which could require additional power generation.
Assuming projects in the pipeline come to fruition, data centres will consume 20pc of all electricity generated in the State within a decade, which will pose an enormous challenge for Ireland in meeting its climate change targets.
There’s also the question of jobs. Apple would employ around 120 people in the first phase of the Athenry project, assuming the development was completed.
Given its effect on our emissions – coupled with the fact that the power needed will have to be renewable, which creates its own set of localised planning problems – are the jobs generated worth the hassle?
Leaving aside those arguments, it’s clear that when it comes to foreign direct investment, and investment from indigenous firms, delays in the consenting process put projects at risk.
Microsoft, which has a data centre in Dublin, doesn’t appear to have experienced major difficulties, perhaps helped by the fact that its facility is on industrial lands, and it has dealt with one local authority through the process.
But other large-scale projects, such as the Corrib gas field in Mayo, were delayed for years following a badly managed public consultation process that rightly fuelled opposition.
Given what’s happened with Apple, is this a problem confined to west of the Shannon? Of course not. But we have to think about where we go from here.
For a start, public consultation must begin before projects of this scale enter the planning process. The jobs, effect on the environment and other matters should be spelled out at the start.
Local authorities and An Bord Pleanála should also be properly resourced to deal with applications of this scale and complexity. Technical advice should be available at short notice, and statutory timelines introduced to ensure that if, for example, planners seek additional information, they are obliged to respond within a certain period of time to the developer, and vice versa.
If the case is decided, and appealed to the courts, the legal system should be able to fast-track a decision.
Objectors, as in the case of Apple, found to have no legal standing to take a case, should be removed from the process at an early stage.
But the system should also balance the needs of indigenous firms with those
of multi-nationals. If, for example, an applicant proposes to build a factory or supermarket that would provide 120 jobs, should it not enjoy the same fast-track process as applies to a tech-giant? In fairness, yes.
Apple has invested a lot in this project to date. It identified a site which allows for future growth, spent enormous sums of money on technical, legal and planning advice, and brought it through the consenting system.
The problem is it could well develop a second facility in Denmark, completely scuppering the Irish project. Time will tell.
What’s most notable about this saga is that the State does not yet have clear policies around development of projects of this kind, years after a global need was identified. And like most things climate-related, it has not assessed the impact these projects have on the wider environment in terms of emissions and other matters.
The public should be afforded the right to comment and object to projects like this. But marrying those rights with the need for certainty appears to be at some remove.