2360198
Permission for amendments to (i) extant planning permission PD18/313, which amended planning application PD/11/126, (ii) extant planning permission ABP-303677-19, which amended planning permissions PD11/126 and PD18/313 and (iii) extant planning permission ABP-307726-20, which amended planning permission PD18/313. The output from the development will be 4.9MW, similar to the extant planning permissions. The amendments will provide for 1. Erection of two bespoke Enercon E138 turbines models in lieu of the Vensys 121 turbine models agreed with the Planning Authority, under condition 4(a) of planning permission ABP-3037726-19. Turbine T1 will have a hub height of 99m, a blade diameter of 138m and a blade tip height of 168m.Turbine T2 will have a hub height of 81m, a blade diameter of 138m and a blade tip height of 150m. The maximum combined output from the turbines will be 4.9MW. 2. Relocation of the access road serving the development, as permitted under planning permissions PD11/126, PD18/313, ABP-303677-19 and ABP-307726-20. 3. The relocation of underground electrical cabling to the relocated access road referred to under paragraph 2 above and additional underground electrical cabling to the proposed modular windfarm control room/switch room and ESB modular MV station referred to in paragraph 6 below. 4. Increase in the hub height of turbine T1 to 99m, increasing the blade tip height from 150m to 168m and micro-siting of turbine T1 by 12.75m. 5. Increase in the area of the hardstands associated with each turbine. 6. Amended substation structure to incorporate a proposed modular windfarm control/switch rooms and an ESB modular MV station. 7. Revised site boundaries at
Core Refusal Reason
The proposal was refused due to unacceptable visual impact on a high-value landscape, failure to demonstrate that the development would not exceed the 5MW threshold for mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and insufficient information to rule out significant adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The significant increase in turbine height would visually dominate the 'High Value' landscape character area to an unacceptable extent, contrary to Policy Objective NH10.25 of the County Development Plan.
- The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the 'bespoke' turbine models would definitively remain below the 5MW threshold, meaning a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) may be required.
- Insufficient information was provided to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, specifically regarding the risk of collision for protected bird species like the Whooper Swan and Greenland white-fronted goose.