22363
Permission for: (A) amendments to (i) extant planning permission PD/18/313, which amended planning application PD/11/126, (ii) extant planning permission ABP-303677-19, which amended planning permissions PD/11/126 and PD/18/313 and (iii) extant planning permission ABP-307726-20, which amended planning permission PD/18/313; (B) Permission for the development of a battery storage unit and a transformer unit. The amendments in (A) above will provide for : 1. Erection of two Enercon E138 turbine 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 95.53m, a blade diameter of 138m and a blade tip height of 164.65m. Turbine T2 will have a hub height of 81m and blade diameter of 138m and a blade tip height of 150m. The combined output from the turbines will be 4.9MW; 2. Relocation of the access road serving the development, as previously permitted under planning permissions PD/11/126, PD/18/313, 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 serve the proposed modular windfarm control and switch rooms, the ESB modular MV station, referred to in paragraph 6 below and the new battery storage and transformer units referred to in (B) above; 4. Increase in the hub height of turbine T1 to 95.53m, increasing the blade tip height from 150m to 164.65m 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 and switch rooms and an ESB modular MV station; 7. Revised site boundaries at
Core Refusal Reason
The application was refused due to unacceptable visual impact on a 'High Value' landscape, potential adverse effects on residential amenity (noise and shadow flicker), and insufficient environmental and archaeological assessments.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The increased turbine height would visually dominate the immediate landscape, which is classified as 'High Value', contrary to Policy Objective NH10.25 of the County Development Plan.
- Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that the development would not seriously injure residential amenities or depreciate property values through noise and shadow flicker.
- The proposal failed to adequately assess potential impacts on recorded archaeological monuments and failed to provide sufficient information to rule out adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites.