PL08.243129

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development : Ten year permission for a wind farm consisting of 9 no turbines (8 with a maximum tip height of 125m and 1 with a maximum tip height of 110m), a meteorological mast up to 80m in height, 2 no borrow pits, 2 no peat deposition areas, a sub-station including 2 no control buildings and associated internal and external equipment, wastewater holding tank, groundwater well, access road, underground cables and ancillary works in the townlands of Derrincullig, Curraglass South, Cappanlivane, Redrench North, Meelick and Coologes, The construction of 2 no. hardstanding areas and ancillary works adjacent to the local road L-7060 (Bog Road) in the townland of Meelick to facilitate turbine delivery. A construction haul road approximately 1km long connecting the R569 Regional Road to the local road L-7060 (Bog Road), incorporating new entrance onto the R569 Regional Road and ancillary works in the townland of Churchground.

Location: Townlands of Derrincullig, Curraglass South, Cappanlivane, Redrench North, Meelick and Coologes and Churchground, Kilgarvan, Co Kerry. .

Planning Application

Planning Authority Kerry County Council

Planning Authority Register Ref. 13/790

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 38

Applicant SWS Energy Limited.

Type of Application Permission

Planning Authority Decision Refuse Permission

Planning Appeal

Appellants SWS Energy Limited

Type of Appeals First Party v Refusal

Observer(s) Kevin Deering Paul McSweeney An Taisce Patrick Cremins

Date of site inspection 1st June 2014

Inspector: Bríd Maxwell

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 38

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is a first party appeal of a decision by Kerry County Council to refuse permission for the development of the proposed Derrincullig Windfarm within the townlands of Derrincullig, Curraglass South, Cappanlivane, Redrench North, Meelick and Coologes and Churchground, Kilgarvan, Co Kerry on grounds of visual impact, impact on ecology and road capacity.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 The appeal site is located within an upland rural area circa 3.5km to the north east of Kilgarvan Village, 13km to the northeast of Kenmare, and 16km to the south east of Killarney, in County Kerry. The land at the site consists predominantly of peat bogs with some lands in pasture, and transitional woodland scrub. Land in the local area is used predominantly for sheep farming with conifer plantation on the lower slopes.

2.2 The appeal site has a stated area of 62.4hectares and is made up of a number of separate land parcels within a larger EIS Study Area (767hectares). The proposed development will involve 14 separate landholdings. Access to the site is via local road L-7060 (referred to as Bog Road) which runs north-south along the western boundary of the site and connects to the R569 Regional Road (which connects the national primary road between Cork and Killarney N22 with Kenmare) within the village of Kilgarvan.

2.3 The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 30m to 370m OD. The main portion of the site forms part of Esknabrock Hill (400m OD) which is part of the Mangerton Mountain Range. The settlement pattern in the area is sparse. EIS notes 10 dwellings within 1km of the proposed turbine locations. (The nearest being a distance of approximately 543km to the north east of proposed turbine T5.)

2.4 The site is not itself within a designated conservation site, however there are a number of designated sites within 10km which include 11 proposed natural heritage areas (pNHA), three Natural heritage Areas (NHAs), five candidate Special Areas of conservation cSAC and one Special Protection Area. One of the NHAs are also designated as cSACs. EIS identified a total of 20 habitat types within the EIS study area. Of these 20 four are identified as EU Annex I habitats namely Blanket Bogs. Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica Tetralix, “Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion and “European Dry Heaths”. One Annex I species (White tailed sea Eagle) and one Red listed species (red Grouse) are known to occur regularly on the site particularly in the central upland area of the site.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 38

2.5 Two recorded archaeological monuments are located within the EIS Study Area, a limekiln KE085-046 and an enclosure KE 085-021. There are 45 recorded monuments within 2km of the EIS Study Area. Twelve sites of archaeological / cultural heritage note were recorded within the EIS study area as a result of field surveys.

3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The application as set out in the public notices describes the proposed development as follows:

• A wind farm consisting of 9 no turbines (8 with a maximum tip height of 125 m and 1 with a maximum tip height of 110m), a meteorological mast up to 80m in height, 2 no borrow pits, 2 no peat deposition areas, a sub-station including 2 no control buildings and associated internal and external equipment, wastewater holding tank, groundwater well, access road, underground cables and ancillary works in the townlands of Derrincullig, Curraglass South, Cappanlivane, Redrench North, Meelick and Coologes.

• The construction of 2 no. hardstanding areas and ancillary works adjacent to the local road L-7060 (Bog Road) in the townland of Meelick to facilitate turbine delivery.

• A construction haul road approximately 1km long connecting the R569 Regional Road to the local road L-7060 (Bog Road), incorporating new entrance onto the R569 Regional Road and ancillary works in the townland of Churchground. Road improvement works are also proposed at Drominadeelis Bridge.

3.2 The proposed windfarm footprint is 24.7 hectares. Access to the proposed turbines will be via the proposed internal site track network 7.5km in extent. Due to the challenging topography of the site, the construction of the access road on the western approach will require significant earthworks to allow for an acceptable road gradient (maximum 16% to facilitate turbine delivery). A hardstanding area will be provided at each turbine location to facilitate turbine delivery and assembly and operational maintenance. To minimise the importation of rock and cohesive fill, 2 no borrow pits (borrow pit A and B) have been identified within the proposed development footprint. Peat Deposition areas will be developed for the storage of peat excavated during the windfarm construction.

3.3 It is proposed to construct a sub-station as part of the development. The substation comprises a compound 28mx67m and will contain 2 single storey buildings approximately 13mx7mx 6.5m and 16m x 6m x 6m high.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 38

The substation will be equipped with external electrical equipment and will be surrounded by a secure fence. As regards Grid connection, the proposed Derrincullig Wind Farm will connect to the grid via a proposed on site 38/20 kV substation which will connect to the permitted ESB 110/38kV substation at Grousemount located approximately 7.5km southeast of the EIS Study Area. Possible grid connection routes are considered in Section 3.6 of the EIS.

3.4 Given that the site is unsuitable for on site treatment system due to the presence of peat, an alternative by the way of a sealed holding tank of minimum capacity 10m 3 is proposed.

3.5 The proposed turbines will be of a typical modern design, incorporating tubular towers and three blades attached to the nacelle. The windfarm will have a maximum power output capacity of up to 27MW. An 80m permanent meteorological mast is proposed on site to allow independent monitoring of wind farm performance. Anemometers and wind vanes will be mounted at various levels and connected to a locked data logger near the base of the mast or connected to the site SCADA system.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 National Policy and Guidelines 4.1.1 Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland – The Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020 This is a Government White Paper. The overriding objective is to ensure that energy is consistently available at competitive prices, with minimal risk of supply disruption. It is an objective to achieve 15% of electricity consumption, on a national basis, from renewable energy sources by 2010, and 33% by 2020 (target increased to 40% in Government budget speech of 2009).

4.1.2 National Renewable Energy Action Plan 2010 This Plan implements EU Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, which sets out agreed new climate and energy targets- 20-20-20 by 2020 – 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; 20% energy efficiency, and 20% of the EU’s energy consumption to be from renewable sources. In relation to the electricity sector, the plan has set a target of 40% electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020.

4.1.3 Strategy for Renewable Energy, 2012–2020 The Strategy for Renewable Energy, 2012–2020 is the most recent policy statement on renewable energy. It reiterates the Government’s view that the development of sources of renewable energy is critical to reducing

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 38

dependency on fossil fuel imports, securing sustainable and competitive energy supplies and underpinning the move towards a low-carbon economy. The Strategy sets out specific actions the Government will take to accelerate the development of wind, ocean and bio-energy, R&D, sustainable transport energy, and supporting energy infrastructure. Strategic Goal 1 aims to achieve progressively more renewable electricity from onshore and offshore wind power for the domestic and export markets.

4.1.4 Ireland’s Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan to 2020 (March 2013) This Plan sets out strategy to reduce Ireland’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency across a number of sectors and ensure a sustainable energy future.

4.1.5 Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Wind Farm Development and Wind Energy Development 2006 The Guidelines offer advice on planning for wind energy through the Development Plan process, and in determining applications for planning permission, and are intended to ensure consistency of approach in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy developments, and acknowledge that locational considerations are important. These considerations include ease of vehicular access and connection to the electricity grid. It is acknowledged that visual impact is amongst the more important issues when deciding a particular application. Whilst there is no set-back distance specified, it is indicated at section 5.6 that noise is likely to a problem at less than 500m. In relation to shadow flicker, section 5.12 states that impact at neighbouring offices and dwellings within 500m should not exceed 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day. It goes on to state that at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters, the potential for shadow flicker is very low. Section 5.13, dealing with 'windtake', states that distances between turbines will generally be 3 rotor diameters in the crosswind direction and 7 rotor diameters in the prevailing downwind direction. This section goes on to state- ‘Bearing in mind the requirements for optimal performance, a distance of not less than two rotor blades from adjoining property boundaries will generally be acceptable, unless by written agreement of adjoining landowners to a lesser distance. However, where permission for wind energy development has been granted on an adjacent site, the principle of the minimum separation distances between turbines in crosswind and downwind directions indicated above should be respected’.

4.1.6 Proposed Revisions to Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006 These Draft Guidelines were introduced by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, in December 2013, to

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 38

deal with limited aspects of wind farm developments. A consultation period was allowed – up to 21 st February 2014. The revisions proposed are- • A more stringent absolute outdoor noise limit (day and night) of 40 dB for future wind energy developments. • A mandatory setback of 500m between a wind turbine and the curtilage of the nearest dwelling, for amenity considerations. • A condition to be attached to all future planning permissions for wind farms to ensure that there will be no shadow flicker at any dwelling within 10 rotor diameters of a wind turbine. If shadow flicker does occur, the wind energy developer/operator should be required to take necessary measures, such as turbine shutdown for the period necessary to eliminate the shadow flicker. There is no indication to date as to proposed changes, if any, to the 2006 Guidelines.

4.2 Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015

4.2.1 The majority of the site is within an area zoned Rural Secondary Special Amenity and a small section is zoned Rural General.

4.2.2 View and prospects are protected from the Regional Road R569 to the east of the site.

4.2.3 The Council adopted the 8 th variation to the County Development Plan 2009-2015 on November 5 th 2012. This incorporated a Renewable Energy Strategy into the development plan and replaced the earlier policies and maps relating to renewable energy. The variation also incorporates a landscape character assessment prepared for the renewable energy strategy and adopted / proposed archaeological landscapes.

4.2.4 The landscape character assessment identifies 46 separate landscape units. The majority of the site is contained within Landscape Character Area 20: Mangerton Mountain and Owbaun River Valley. The development capacity summary is as follows: “This area has a low level of population density and the land is marginal. Development on higher grounds would be sensitive to views, and would have a negative impact, especially when combined with existing turbines further east. A large amount of wind development has taken place or is permitted to the southeast of the area. Cumulative impact on the area is therefore being considered. Development north/west of the R569 would result in this busy road being surrounded by turbines. Lands to the west/north of the R569 are also more sensitive to development with Mangerton Mountain dominating the landscape. Views towards this mountain from the R569 should therefore be protected. The existing Views & Prospects on the R569 reflect the importance of the views towards this

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 38

scenic mountainous landscape. The capacity for wind development in this area is therefore limited as a result. An area in the southeast corner has been identified as part of a larger Open to Consideration area which allows for the extension of existing windfarms on the eastern side of the R569.” Map 7.5 of the Kerry Renewable Energy Strategy identifies an ‘Archaeological landscape’ immediately to the west of the proposed site on the southern slopes of the Mangerton Range.

4.2.5 Wind Deployment Zones are set out on Map 7.6. The site is within an area which is “Open for Consideration for windfarm development” . In relation to these areas it is stated : “ Open-to-consideration has been applied to areas with some capacity to absorb wind development but, which are sensitive enough to require a site-by-site appraisal to ascertain the suitability of the area for development. These zones were identified based on the sensitivity and the capacity of receiving landscapes to absorb wind development, without a significant impact on the quality and visual integrity of the county’s landscapes.”

(Relevant Extracts from the County Development Plan 20 are attached in appendices to this report.)

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

• 11/489 Permission to retain one temporary meteorological mast of 80 metres in height for the limited purpose of monitoring wind and climate conditions. Permission for a period of 5 years on 10/6/2011. • 93/1836 Outline permission for two dwellinghouses at Churchground Kilgarvan. 18/2/1994 • 07/1145 Permission refused for the construction of 10 detached and 4 semi-detached two storey houses, two storey apartment building comprising 12 apartments including temporary on site proprietary wastewater treatment plant Refusal on grounds of prematurity pending adoption of Local Area Plan for Kilgarvan and upgrading of Kilgarvan wastewater Treatment plant.

6.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION

6.1 Submissions 6.1.1 A number of submissions from local residents and other third parties who object on various grounds which I have summarised as follows: - Overshadowing - Negative visual impact. Photomontage unrepresentative.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 38

- Detrimental impact on property values. - Flood risk. - Impact on wildlife in particular white tailed eagle, merlin and hen harrier. - Lack of proper public consultation. - Noise. - Risk of peat slippage. - Applicant’s history of development on previous windfarm.

6.1.2 Irish Aviation Authority submission requests that in the event of permission, the applicants be required to provide an agreed scheme of aviation obstacle warning lighting for the wind turbines and coordinates and elevation details of the built turbines for charting purposes. IAA to be notified at least 30 days prior to the erection of the development.

6.1.3 Environmental Health Officer Health Service Executive notes involvement in pre planning consultations in respect of the development and notes the detail of the application in relation to a number of aspects including geology, hydrogeology and slope stability, baseline noise monitoring, shadow flicker and air quality.

6.1.4 Manager of Kerry Airport - submission advised that it was not intended to make observations on the application.

6.1.5 An Taisce, Kerry Association submission noted that the site is within an area zoned “Unsuitable for wind development” in the first draft of the “Renewable Energy Strategy 2012”. As regards cumulative impact, notably existing permissions are south of R659. Visual impact is stark as demonstrated in View DR2, DR3. DR4, MR3 and LC1. Industrial type development inappropriate in unspoilt scenic area. Concerns in respect of significant cumulative impact and risk to White Tailed Eagle and Red Grouse.

6.1.6 An Taisce, Planning and Environmental Officer, asserts that the development of the site for wind energy needs to be justified on the basis of appropriate national regional and local authority strategies for wind energy development to ensure optimum site selection, while similarly avoiding locations with significant adverse impacts on ecology, significant landscapes and residential amenity.

6.1.7 Inland Fisheries Ireland notes that the site is in the headwaters of the tributaries of the Roughty and Flesk Rivers. These headwaters hold productive spawning and nursery habitats for salmonids with populations of salmon trout and eel present. Extensive works have significant potential for impact. Measures outlined in the EIS should be implemented.in full. Conditions recommended in the event of permission.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 38

6.2 Internal Reports

6.2.1 County Archaeologist notes recommendation within the archaeological assessment in respect of provision of fenced 30m buffer zone around archaeological monuments KE085-021 and KE 085-046 and previously unrecorded archaeological features identified during the course of the study in particular Field enclosure 2 which is adjacent to a borrow pit location. Archaeological testing should be undertaken.

6.2.2 Environment Section report recommends a number of conditions including appointment of environmental manager, measures to prevent sedimentation discharge to watercourses. It is noted that annexed habitats and species not designated as part of the Natura 2000 network are likely to be affected by the application.

5.2.3 Site Assessment Unit Report - effluent holding tanks are not an option usually favoured, however in this instance considered acceptable, given minimal effluent generation and likely unfavourable soil conditions.

6.2.3 Biodiversity Officer’s report asserts that further to the information provided in the NIS (and EIA) the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of a European Natura 2000 Site. It is notable the annexed habitat – Blanket Bog (including active blanket bog), northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchospotion and European dry heaths recorded on the site are located outside a designated Natura 2000 site. The ecological chapter of the EIA indicates several areas shown on the habitat map containing annexed habitats including priority habitat. At least 8 of the 9 turbines (and associated works) are proposed in lands classed as annexed habitats with areas 1,2 3 4. 5 and 9 showing active blanket bog. Direct loss of annexed habitat including priority habitat will occur as a result of the proposed works. Blanket bog and the other typical upland habitats noted on site are also highly dependent on hydrological processes. Any interference with these processes is likely to have indirect impacts on habitats outside the immediate area of the works. Loss of annexed habitat is permanent. Key issues are collision risk for White tailed Sea Eagle and the direct loss and potential further degradation of annexed habitat in particular priority annexed habitat. Adverse impacts cannot be ruled out and are unlikely to be mitigated against if the application is granted. Loss / degradation of habitat is likely to occur and there is the potential for negative impacts on a species listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive. Refusal is recommended.

6.2.4 A/SEE Roads Transportation and Safety. L-7060 should be assessed to determine capacity of the pavement structure and the underlying ground conditions to support the loads being hauled to the site. A stage 1/2 road safety audit should be undertaken to examine the 3 new junctions being

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 38

created. An Inventory and Principle Inspection Report in accordance with the Eirspan Bridge Management System should be carried out on all structures including Drominadeelis Bridge and all other culverts on the L- 7060.

6.2.5 Planner’s report asserts that the visual impact is a major issue. Refusal is recommended for three reasons related to visual impact, impact on species and habitats listed on Annex 1 of the Birds and Annex 1 of the Habitats Directives and road capacity issues.

6.3 Decision 6.3.1 By Order dated 14 th February 2014, Kerry County Council issued a Notification of decision to refuse permission for 3 reasons as follows:

1. Having regard to : (a) The extensive, elevated, open and exposed nature of the application site in an area mainly zoned Rural Secondary Special Amenity in the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-15 (b) The location of the site in the Mangerton Mountain and Owbaun River Valley landscape Character Area set out in the Kerry County Council Renewable Energy Strategy 2012 (c) The designation of views and prospects for protection from the R569 Regional Road to the east of the site. (d) The Zones of Potential Visibility (ZVT) Maps and photomontages submitted with the application (e) Existing and permitted wind energy developments in the area It is considered that the proposed development would seriously impact the visual amenities of the area, would give rise to an extension of development into an unspoiled open area, and would interfere with the character of the landscape, which Is necessary to preserve in accordance with Objective ZL 12-1 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015. The development therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2 It is considered that the proposed development would negatively impact on a species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, namely White Tailed Sea Eagle, and would cause a loss and degradation of annexed habitats, including priority habitat listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. The proposed development would seriously injure the ecology of the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. Based on the information submitted, and without the benefit of the further information requested by the Roads and Transportation Dept., in relation to the capacity of the pavement structure and the underlying

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 38

ground conditions to supports loads being hauled to the site, a Road Safety Audit and an Inspection Report on all bridges and culverts on the Local roadway L-7060, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development can be adequately served by the existing public road network and proposed improvement works and new roadway development. The proposed development would, therefore, endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and an obstruction to road users. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. “

7.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7.1 The First party appeal is submitted by Fehily Timoney and Company, Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences on behalf of SWS Energy Ltd. The appeal submission includes a number of appendices including a landscape and visual report by MosArt, a White Tailed Sea Eagle Mitigation Evaluation by Ecology Ireland, A Survey of Habitats report by Dr John Conaghan, Enviroscope Environmental Consultancy, PMA Pavement Study Reports, a Road Safety Audit Report, Eirspan Inventory and Principal Inspection Report, a Structural Assessment Report and other detailed matters.

7.2 The grounds of appeal address the Council’s specific reasons for refusal as well as the wider issues in terms of the detailed proposal. Grounds of appeal are summarised as follows: • The County Development Plan identifies the ridges of the Mangerton Range c 2.5km to the northwest of the site as being of prime special amenity whereas the site is within secondary special amenity which is the median amenity rating of the three classes of rural landscape. Established wind energy developments to the southeast of the site are within the same secondary special amenity zoning. • ZTV maps show that the extent of visibility of the proposal is largely contained within the Roughty River Valley due to the high terrain to the north and south. • Location within LCA20 Mangerton Mountain and Owbaun River Valley should not preclude its development for wind energy and this is reflected in the “open for consideration” zoning in the Kerry Renewable Energy Strategy zoning. • Esknabrock Hill, on which the site is located, lies wedged between the sweeping slopes of the Mangerton Range and the more fissured Derrynasaggart range. It is distinct from both. The Derrynasaggart range is extensively developed for wind energy and the Mangerton range is not. In order to protect the Mangerton range from wind energy development, it is logical to define a western limit to the Derrynasaggart wind farm clusters.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 38

This limit should not be arbitrarily defined as the R560 road, but should instead be dictated by the landscape. In this respect the hill at Esnabrook is a more obvious western limit. • The principle viewing context for the southern side of the Mangerton range is from within the Roughty valley and the proposal will not introduce turbines into this viewing context rather it will add to the number of turbines visible at the head of the valley. • Turbines will not obstruct or significantly intrude on views of the Mangerton Range because at the only point where they lie between the viewer and the range (along the R569) the view of the range is screened by Esknabrook Hill. • There is a discrepancy between the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015 and the Renewable Energy Strategy 2012 in the interpretation of the scenic values associated with the scenic route designation on the R569. Views of Mangerton are not afforded from the designated section of road due to screening provided by Esnabrock Hill in the immediate foreground therefore there can be no obstruction or intrusion of this view. Visual effects from the scenic route are not considered to be higher than moderate. • It is accepted that there is a proliferation of windfarms in the area. The cumulative impact of the proposal is of medium magnitude. • The EIS provided for a thorough and robust assessment of the potential impact of the windfarm on White Tailed Sea Eagle. Given the presence and activity of released eagles in the wider area of the Derrincullig windfarm site, a precautionary approach was taken at the time of the EIS study in regard to impact assessment. • The White tailed sea eagle is listed as an Annex 1 species on the EU Birds Directive (2009/148/EC). Given its recent reintroduction, is not currently listed as a conservation objective of the Killarney National Park SPA. • Notably the recent publication “Birds of Conservation Concern” in Ireland 2014-2019 (after Colhoun and Cummins 2013) has added the white tailed sea eagle to the new Red List. • Derringcullig wind farm site is not relevant in terms of breeding White Tailed Sea Eagles now or in the future. • Studies have shown the ongoing establishment of breeding territories nationally and continued decline in roost usage in the vicinity of Derrincullig. It is expected that young birds that are born here will act in a similar manner to the released eagles – i.e. stay relatively close to their natal areas for their first two winter seasons, with dispersal during the first summer season, followed by a more long term dispersal into future breeding areas from their third year • More recent developments regarding the establishment of breeding territories and subsequent dispersal away from the Killarney National Park region represent a significant change that has occurred since the core

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 38

assessment of the EIS study was completed. While some developments were anticipated (dispersal, establishment of breeding territories) the distributional changes have since become far clearer with other relevant information has also come to light (eg return to release / natal areas for the first two winters). • The EIS study coincided with the initial stages of the White Tailed Sea Eagle reintroduction programme. The release site for this programme was at Killarney National Park which is relatively close to the Derrincullig wind farm site. The programme involved combined release of 100 eagles between 2009 and 2011 where small groups were released each year. The released eagles were given supplementary feeding in the Killarney National Park region for the first few months after release. The general pattern of dispersal found from satellite tracking data shows that released eagles stayed relatively close to the release sites for the first two winter seasons, with dispersal during the first summer followed by more long term and long range dispersal into future breeding areas for their third year. Therefore there were relatively high numbers of immature eagles present in the Killarney National Park region, including in the vicinity of Derrincullig, during the reintroduction period. This was especially the case in 2009-2011, after which a decline in activity and roost use was noted. This decline coincided with the dispersal of eagles away from the Killarney National Park Region and their establishment of long-term breeding territories from 2012. Notably no further releases of reintroduced eagles are anticipated in the Killarney National Park Region. • While the roosts in the vicinity of Derrincullig wind farm site is expected to continue, the numbers of eagles in the long-term is expected to be at much less numbers than previously experienced during the release period of reintroduced eagles. Consequently this represents a reduction in the potential collision risk in comparison to that potentially envisaged at the time of the EIS study. • Mitigation measures through the use of automated bird detection and collision avoidance systems are proposed to reduce the potential collision risk to an acceptable residual level. The application of the mitigation measures will result in a neutral imperceptible residual impact regarding white tailed sea eagle and the proposed wind farm development. A fatality prevention and monitoring programme will be implemented. • As regards the impact on annexed Habitats, a further habitat survey was carried out in February 2014 to assess in detail the habitats / vegetation which occur within the footprint of the proposed windfarm. There will be 17.97hectares of Annex 1 habitat affected by the proposed windfarm infrastructure. Four Annex 1 habitats are impacted by namely Wet heath, Blanket bog, Dry heath and Exposed iliceous Rock. 4 hectares of priority Annex 1 Habitat Active Blanket bog representing approximately 0.004% of the blanket bog resource within the country will be impacted. • Habitat and Species Management Plan will include monitoring of Annex 1 habitats in order to ensure that the remaining areas of Annex 1 habitats

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 38

are managed to maintain or improve their conservation status. Monitoring of the Annex 1 habitats will take place to assess the efficacy of the management plan and to determine if any adjustments to the management plan are required. • In relation to roads, results of the falling weight deflectometer testing indicates that there is peat or other compressible soil underlying sections of the existing L-7060 and that the road would need to be strengthened to cater for the anticipated traffic • The applicant is committed to ensuring that the existing road is appropriately strengthened to cater for the anticipated loads and that other road users are not adversely affected and is agreeable to an appropriate condition requiring payment of a financial contribution or arrangement of road strengthening. • The applicant commits to implementing recommendations arising from the road safety audit in consultation with the roads department. • This development if progressed is in accordance with European and national energy policy and will assist Ireland in meeting its 2020 targets. • Comprehensive Environmental assessment was undertaken EIS prepared identifying all impacts and outline suitable mitigation measures. NIS stage II assessment concluded that the proposed development would not impact significantly on Natura 2000 sites. • Reasons for refusal are unfounded. • Legitimate concerns of local residents with regard to landscape and visual impacts were addressed in the EIS. • Additional information provided in relation to the white tailed sea eagle reintroduction programme and trends in relation to breeding / roosting and flight activity emerging provides clearer definition of likely impact on the species from the proposed development and facilitates the development of suitable mitigation in order to reduce this impact from significant to imperceptible / negligible. • Loss of priority Annex 1 habitat is considered to be small in the context of the widespread distribution of such habitats both in Kerry and in western Ireland. Detailed mitigation will minimise impact on habitats. Notably the habitats on site comprise of a complex mosaic, no large areas of habitat are being fragmented as a result of the proposed development. • The development of a wind farm at Derrincullig is in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development and the Board is requested to reflect this in granting permission subject to appropriate conditions.

8.0 Observer’s Submissions

8.1 Observations are submitted by a number of local residents and other interested parties who support the refusal of the application and cite objection on numerous grounds. Submissions are summarised as follows:

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 38

8.2 Kevin Deering, Swanlibar Co Cavan objects on grounds of • Potential for peat slippage. • Impact on sensitive landscape. • Best international practice shows that buffer zones should be created to protect these designated areas. • Significant cumulative impact when taken with existing and permitted wind farms in the area.

8.3 Paul McSweeney, Clonkeen Killarney refers to • SWS energy responsible for the construction of an illegal road at Sillahertane, Kilgarvan. (PL08.231423 refers.) The Board should form an option on whether there has been failures by the applicant and related parties to comply with previous permission or with any condition to which that permission is subject of such a substantial nature that it would lead to determine that there is real and substantial risk that the development in respect of which permission is sought would not be completed in accordance with such permission if granted or with a condition to which such permission if granted would be subject and if so that planning permission should not be granted to the applicant concerned in respect of that development. • Proposal will set precedent for ribbon wind development to the west of the R569. • Detrimental to the natural beauty and amenities of the area.

8.4 An Taisce, Kerry Association concur with reasons for refusal. • The area was designated ‘Unsuitable for Wind Development’ in the first draft of the ‘Renewable Energy Strategy 2012’. • Significant visual impact on an unspoilt scenic area. • Detrimental to visual amenity and tourism. • Significant adverse visual impact • Risk to wildlife in particular white tailed eagle due to collision risk. • Two communal roosts known to seasonably hold up to twelve eagles are located within 5km of the site but significantly one roost within 1.5km of the site. According to Dr Allan Mee of the Golden Eagle Trust there have already been three eagle deaths due to collisions with turbines in the Kilgarvan area. • Cumulative impact with neighbouring windfarms is not fully addressed in particular the cumulative effect of the Derrynasaggart wind farm to the south east of the site. • Negative impact on a number of habitats and species protected under national and European legislation.

8.5 Patrick Cremins, Muinganaire, Knocknagoshel object on grounds of

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 38

• Overshadowing on scenic route. • Loss of ecological habitats. • Design and appearance. • Effect on conservation areas

8.6 RESPONSE SUBMISSIONS

8.6.1 Planning Authority.

8.6.1.1The Planning Authority did not respond to the first party appeal.

8.6.2 Prescribed Bodies.

8.6.2.1 The application was referred by the local authority to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS of the Department of the Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The NPWS made no submissions in relation to the proposed development however they were involved in pre planning discussions in relation to the development and correspondence in this regard is provided within the appendices volume 3 of the EIS.

9.0 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Having examined the file, considered the prevailing local and national policies inspected the site and assessed the proposal, the appeal and all submissions, I consider the key issues to be considered in the Board’s de novo assessment can be considered under the following broad headings:

• Policy Compliance – Principle of Development • Impact on the amenities of the area - Shadow Flicker, Noise & Vibration, Electromagnetic Radiation and Telecommunications Interference. • Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage • Impacts on drainage, hydrology and hydrogeology • Roads & Traffic Impact • Ecological Impact • Landscape and visual impact • Appropriate Assessment. • Environmental Impact Assessment.

9.2 Policy Compliance – Principle of Development.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 38

9.2.1 The proposed development is in accordance with national and EU policies which seek to promote the reduction of greenhouse gases and the advancement of renewable energy resources. Within the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015, it is the policy objective to secure the maximum potential for the generation of electricity from wind energy resources that is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development of the County.

9.2.2 The appeal site is located within an area which is “open for consideration” for wind energy proposals where, in accordance with the development plan, open-to-consideration has been applied to areas with some capacity to absorb wind development but, which are sensitive enough to require a site-by-site appraisal to ascertain the suitability of the area for development. These zones were identified based on the sensitivity and the capacity of receiving landscapes to absorb wind development, without a significant impact on the quality and visual integrity of the county’s landscapes.

9.2.3 On the basis of the policies and objectives of the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015, I consider that there is no policy objection to the principle of development which is acceptable having regard to EU, National and Local policy considerations.

9.3 Impact on the amenities of the area - Shadow Flicker and Noise, Vibration, Electromagnetic Radiation and Telecommunications Interference.

9.3.1 As regards shadow flicker, the Wind Energy Development Guidelines (2006) note that the effect known as shadow flicker occurs where the blades of a wind turbine cast a shadow over a window in a nearby house and the rotation of the blades causes the shadow to flick on and off. This effect lasts only for a short period and happens only in certain specific combined circumstances. It is recommended that shadow flicker at neighbouring dwellings within 500m should not exceed 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day.

9.3.2 At distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for shadow flicker is very low. Turbine diameter in this case will typically be 90m, such that ten rotor diameters would equate to a maximum distance of 900m. It is outlined within the EIS that there are 10 houses within the 1000m zone of the proposed wind farm the closest being 543m from T5. Shadow Flicker assessment is set out in Section 11 of the EIS. Based on a worst case scenario and assuming 100% sunshine, four dwellings could, in theory, experience shadow flicker durations greater than 30 hours per

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 38

year. It is asserted that assuming 40% sunshine throughout the year the number of hours per year for which shadow flicker will occur will be significantly below the guideline limit of 30 hours. It is noted that guidelines limit applies to dwellings or offices within 500m of turbines. At distances of greater than 500m the potential shadow flicker will be less intense and less distinct. It is asserted that given the overly conservative nature of the assessment model and distance from the turbines that the guidelines will in fact be met at these locations. Mitigation measures are set out in the event that they are required including provision for screening and turbine control.

9.3.3 As regards noise levels, the wind energy guidelines state that generally noise at receptors should not exceed 45dBA or represent a maximum increase of 5dBA above the background noise level. The closest occupied dwelling to a turbine is located approximately 543m to the northeast of Turbine T5. Predicted noise levels demonstrate general satisfaction with noise criteria. Where construction phase impacts are expected during peak traffic flows they will be short term in duration and mitigation measures to reduce the impact to below significant will be applied. On the basis of the information provided in the EIS, I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of noise impact. Impact or nuisance caused by vibration during the construction, operational and decommissioning phase of the development is not anticipated as neither blasting nor piling are required.

9.3.4 As regards electromagnetic radiation and telecommunications interference potential, appropriate mitigation measures are outlined. No negative impact on aviation is predicted subject to compliance with the lighting and notification requirements of the IAA. It is possible that the proposed wind farm could extend the interference zone for TV reception into areas where wind farm interference is not currently an issue. A protocol has been put in place between 2rn and the developer which outlines the developer’s obligations to correct any potential deterioration in television and radio reception caused by the proposed windfarm.

9.3.5 On the basis of the information provided within the EIS, I consider that it has been demonstrated that the development is acceptable in terms of impacts on the amenities of the area relating to noise, shadow flicker, and telecommunications. I note that the developer proposes a community benefit scheme proposed will support local environmental improvements and recreational social or community amenities and initiatives in the locality.

9.4 Archaeology Architectural and Cultural Heritage.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 38

9.4.1 Approximately 1200m of the EIS study area abuts the boundary of the designated Mangerton Archaeological Landscape. (Figs 12.8 and 12.10 of EIS). The designated archaeological landscape contains 143 monuments described within the landscape character assessment as follows: “Standing stones, hut sites, enclosures, cashels, ogham stone, field systems, fulachtai fiadh, cairns and a radial stone cairn. Location on the southern facing slopes of Mangerton mountain of an extensive range of Bronze Age monuments with associated field systems and later monuments such as cashels, ringforts and enclosures. Important in a Kerry & Regional context.”

9.4.2 There are two recorded monuments within the study area, a limekiln KE085-046 circa 395m south of the proposed entrance to the site and 1.8km from the nearest turbine T3 and an enclosure KE085-046 which is to the west of the R569 east of nearest turbine T7 and T8. Mitigation measures include provision for both recorded sites are to be fenced off during construction and a buffer zone of 30m to be established. Field inspection of the site records twelve sites of archaeological / cultural heritage note within the site boundary and a buffer zone and fencing is to be provided in respect of these newly identified cultural heritage / archaeological features.

9.4.3 Proposed mitigation also includes further archaeological testing of turbine bases, hardstands and access roads and archaeological monitoring of topsoil/peat removal.

9.4.4 An impact on the archaeological resource arising from the change to the character of the surrounding landscape is identified within the EIS. It is stated that although a slight to moderate visual impact may occur arising from the proposed development no significant impacts will occur. It is acknowledged that that the majority of the proposed turbines will be visible from the surrounding monuments including those within Mangerton Archaeological Landscape, however the argument is put forward that the distance of the turbines from the sites should negate any significant impacts. I refer to photomontage Viewshed Reference Point LC1 which depicts view subject to 3 turbine visibility from an area adjacent to the east of the designated Mangerton archaeological landscape. I note the omission of any view depiction from within the designated archaeological landscape where 4-6 and 7-9 turbines are potentially visible, as displaced in the ZTV Fig 9.1. I am not entirely satisfied that this matter is given due consideration in terms the cumulative visual impact and the interaction between landscape impact and impact on archaeological cultural heritage. In this regard I question the assertion that the overall residual impacts are likely to be low medium and that the visual impact on the archaeological landscape is slight to moderate. This issue is further addressed in relation to landscape and visual impact at 9.9 below.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 38

9.5 Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat Stability

9.5.1 Within the EIS, Chapter 7 details the issues of geology, hydrogeology and peat stability and Chapter 8 addresses the issue of hydrology and water quality. It is outlined that the primary mitigation measure has been in the design of the wind farm in terms of locating wind turbines, access roads, borrow pits, peat deposition areas and other site infrastructure with a view to reducing impacts on geology, hydrogeology and peat stability primarily through the avoidance of areas of deep or saturated peat or potentially unstable slopes. The design mitigation is based on extensive peat probing, trial pit excavation and sheer vane testing and the preparation of a peat stability report which is included as Appendix F of Volume 3 of the EIS.

9.5.2 The Peat Stability Assessment Report contends that the proposed wind farm is of low or low to medium residual risk with regard to geology, hydrogeology and slope stability subject to design construction in accordance with best practice and mitigation measures as outlined. The primary issue with regard to geological stability of the site is to ensure that existing drainage is maintained where possible and to ensure that existing slopes are not surcharged, undermined or left unsupported as a result of the construction of the works. The turbines and road network are largely located outside a 50m buffer from the main watercourses on the site. Detailed design best practice with regard to development in upland areas and slop stability issues will also be implemented.

9.5.3 As a result of the detailed assessments, the site layout has been optimised to minimse risk to the underlying soils, geology and hydrogeology as well as to minimise risk of instability associated with construction in areas of peat. With the exception of a section of floating road across a flat zone of deep peat, infrastructure will be founded on intact bedrock or glacial till which will provide stability and will not compromise the stability of adjacent peat.

9.5.4 On the basis of the information provided within the EIS, I considered that the potential impacts on geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and peat stability have been assess and appropriately mitigated.

9.6 As regards Hydrology and Water Quality

9.6.1 The EIS study area boundary is located within five waterbody catchments while the development is concentrated within four waterbody catchments. The hydrological environment is considered to be of high sensitivity for receptors draining to the environmentally designated areas downstream, Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC Site Code

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 38

00365) and Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC (Site code 00364) which are situated 0.73km and 2.73km from the development respectively via hydrological links. There are also proposed pNHA designations for Kilgarvan Wood (Site Code 001787) 2km downstream, Kilgarvan Ice House pNHA (Site Code 00365) 1km downstream and the Roughty River (Site Code 001376( adjacent to the south eastern boundary of the EIS study area.

9.6.2 The Owbeg (tributary of the Roughty River) and Loo rivers (Tributary of the Flesk (contain extensive salmonid spawning and nursery areas. The water quality in the receiving waters varies between good to high however the Kealgorm stream, a tributary of the Roughty is at risk of not achieving ‘good’ status by 2015. A freshwater pearl mussel survey was completed in June 2013 in seven survey locations with Freshwater Pearl Mussel being found in one of the seven locations. Two adult mussels were found in the Roughty River upstream of the first bridge east of Kilgarvan.

9.6.3 Potential impacts in terms of increased rates of run off, erosion and sedimentation and chemical pollution are explored. Detailed mitigation measures for all stages of construction, operation and decommissioning are set out and include provision for roadside swales, silt traps and stilling ponds at the end of the swale run are proposed as part of drainage design. It is contended that subject to mitigation measures the proposed windfarm will have a negligible impact on the receiving environment in terms of an increase in flooding or sedimentation. The residual significance of the development on environmentally sensitive receptors downstream after mitigation is rated as negligible. The Construction Environmental Management Plan CEMP will ensure complete application of mitigation for water quality run off and protection of salmonid and designated waters through contractual obligations. Implementation will be coordinated as part of any outlined planning compliance with the local authority, IFI and OPW.

9.6.4 Based on the details provided, I consider that the proposal is appropriately mitigated. I consider that there is no impediment to development in terms of impact on water quality.

9.7 Roads and Traffic.

9.7.1 The main traffic impact arising from the development will arise during the construction phase. The proposed development will be accessed using a portion of the L-7050 (Bog Road) and the proposal also involves the construction of a construction of a not insignificant section of haul road, approximately 1km in length, with a view to bypassing the centre of Kilgarvan Village.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 38

9.7.2 In relation to road capacity, Pavement Evaluation Reports were included as Appendix 5 to the first party appeal, and these include a falling weight deflectometer based structural evaluation of the L7060 Bog Road. Also provided was an Eirspan Principal Inspection and Inventory and structural assessment report in respect of six structures along the relevant 2.9km stretch of L7060 Bog Road, which will form part of the Turbine Delivery Route. A conservative initial assessment indicates that Dromindeelis Bridge has a load carrying capacity of 10 tonnes. It is recommended that a more detailed survey and assessment be carried out prior to construction, which should confirm that the bridge can safely carry the axle loads associated with the development. It is noted that if improvements are required the load carrying capacity of the bridge can be increased sufficiently by raising the road level (100-150mm approximately) over the arch with a suitable bituminous overlay. As regards other structures the three span masonry culvert and single span masonry culvert are reported to be in good condition and should be capable of carrying windfarm construction traffic. Concrete pipes are reported to be in good condition.

9.7.3 A Stage 1 /2 road safety audit undertaken in respect of the three junctions (two junctions of proposed construction haul route) and proposed T junction with L7060 to provide access to the windfarm and recommendations have been accepted. The first party has indicated a commitment to ensuring appropriate inspection, strengthening, monitoring and repair to mitigate any adverse effects.

9.7.4 I consider that given that the impacts are short term and subject to the provision for remedial measures the impact on roads and traffic is appropriately mitigated. On this basis I consider that traffic and roads issues are not an impediment to the proposed development.

9.8 Ecology

9.8.1 The EIS is includes detailed information including a Number of ecological surveys (habitat mammal and bat surveys), Habitat and Botanical Surveys and Avian Surveys, Fish survey and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Survey. Further updated survey and detailed ecological evaluation reports are provided within the first party appeal.

9.8.2 As regards the potential for impact on Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment SPA designated or Merlin and Greenland White-Fronted Goose. These species were not found to commonly utilise the EIS study area.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 38

9.8.3 A number of sites designated for the protection of the Lesser Horseshoe Bat are located within 10km of the EIS study area, most notably the protected nursery roost in the Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood cSAC and pNHA, Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC and pNHA, Glanlough Woods cSAC, Old Domestic Building, Lettir NHA. It is asserted that the loss of potential foraging habitat for Lesser Horseshoe bats is on a relatively small scale considering the surrounding habitat, and it is not expected to cause significant impacts on the designated sites associated with lesser horseshoe bats. No loss of habitat will take place surrounding the Lesser Horseshoe bat cSACs and pNHAs or the commuting corridors between them.

9.8.4 As regards impact on fisheries, the small streams within the study area were found to be of low fisheries importance. The small stream draining towards the Loo River in the west of the EIS study area was the exception with moderately dense populations of young salmonids recorded. The Kealgorm Stream to the west and the loo River to the east, are designated Salmonid waters under the European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988. No adverse impacts on fish species expected subject to implementation of the mitigation measures outlined to protect watercourse from siltation or any other deterioration in water quality.

9.8.5 As regards potential for impact on Freshwater Pearl Mussel, the distance from the proposed development to any hydrological link to the Roughty River and with the implementation of mitigation measures to protect receiving waters from siltation, there will be no impact on known locations for Freshwater Pearl Mussel as a result of the proposed development.

9.8.6 The Kerry Slug listed on Annex II and IV of the EU Habitats directive is known to be present in apparently low numbers in the vicinity of the EIS Study area (found near VP2 in low numbers). EIS study area is within the normal range of this species and is likely to be present in this upland area. It is asserted that loss of permanent habitat will provide a small proportion of the available habitat for the Kerry Slug in the EIS study area and is not expected to have a significant impact.

9.8.7 As regards impact on habitats and botanical species, the turbine locations access tracks, borrow pit B and part of borrow pit A and peat deposition areas and permanent met mast are located in areas that contain EU Annex I habitats and will result in some direct loss of habitat at these locations. Four Annex 1 habitats are impacted namely Wet heath, Blanket bog, Dry heath and Exposed iliceous Rock. The loss and degradation of annexed habitats including priority habitat listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive was the basis for the Local Authority’s second reason for refusal.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 38

9.8.8 The first party acknowledges that the construction of the windfarm is likely to have a significant negative impact on Annex I habitat located within the development footprint (including priority annex I habitat). Survey of Habitats by Dr Conaghan of Enviroscope Environmental Consultancy, February 2014, notes that the construction of the windfarm will result in the loss of approximately 17.97 hectares of habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive, of which approximately 4 hectares comprise the priority Annex I habitat active blanket bog. It is argued that this area is small given the widespread distribution of these habitats both in Co Kerry and in western Ireland. In the case of blanket bog distribution for example, exact figures are lacking however the best estimate by NPWS (2013) suggests that the national areas of blanket bog habitat is approximately 3591.01km2 or approximately 349,100 hectares. Based on corine data it has been estimated that 110,619 hectares of intact blanket bog occurs in County Kerry. Although this estimate may contain areas of wet and dry heath it is clear that the relatively small area impacted at Derrincullig amounts to much less than 0.1% of the blanket bog resource within the County. Notably the blanket bog habitat that occurs at Derrrincullig mostly occurs in small areas in mosaic with heath and exposed rock and the construction of roads and other infrastructure does not fragment the larger areas of continuous Priority Annex 1 blanket bog that occur on the site.

9.8.9 Mitigation by avoidance has been adopted in the overall design and layout and the footprint is routed away from areas of deeper peat in favour of areas of shallower peat and outcropping rock. The footprint of the development has also been minimised. The habitat and species management plan proposes measures including those in respect of grazing and controlled vehicular access. Localised degradation of blanket bog / wet heath areas due to grazing / poaching will be addressed. Monitoring of Annex I habitats is also proposed.

9.8.10 On the basis if the evidence provided in respect of the impact on Annex 1 habitat, and having regard to the location outside a designated SAC, to the extent of Annex 1 habitat resource within the county and to the stated provision of mitigation measures including a habitat and species Management Plan to offset the removal of areas of high value habitat, I consider that the proposed development is acceptale in terms of impact on ecology. I note that recommendations are made to improve the biodiversity of lesser value habitats to include control of grazing, prevention of fires, prevention of turf cutting activities and hydrological management. The commitment to provide for monitoring of the Annex 1 habitats to assess the efficacy of the management plan and to determine and devise any necessary adjustments to the management plan in order to ensure that the remaining areas of Annex 1 habitats are managed to maintain or improve their conservation status is a significant mitigation proposal.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 38

9.8.11 As regards construction impacts on Avifauna these are considered in terms of habitat loss or change impacts and disturbance impacts. The impact on the White Tailed Sea Eagle, Annex I species arose as a significant concern, given that the species is particularly prone to collision impacts. The White Tailed Sea Eagle is listed as an Annex 1 species on the EU Birds Directive (2009/148/EC). Given its recent introduction, it is not currently listed as a conservation objective of the Killarney National Park SPA.

9.8.12 The potential for use of Derrincullig Windfarm site by a breeding pair of white tailed sea eagles was assessed and the site was not found to be suitable. The nearest potential site was 5km away at Lough Guitane. Communal roosts were confirmed within 5km of the study area however evidence is presented that the use of communal roosts in the vicinity of Derrnincullig has continued to decline and it is asserted that numbers of eagles in this area is likely to be much less than previously experienced.

9.8.13 As regards mitigation, the use of automated bird detection systems and collision avoidance system is proposed. A white tailed sea eagle monitoring programme to include breeding and winter season vantage point surveys during the years of construction and at least years 1,2,3,4,10 and15 after the wind farm becomes operational. Carcass searches and sheep carrion removal protocol are also recommended.

8.9.14 I note that the application was referred by the Council to the Department of Arts Heritage and Gaeltacht who have not commented on same. I note that the Department was consulted at pre planning stage and correspondence in this regard is provided within the EIS appendices – Voume 3.

8.9.15 Based on the information provided and in particular the detailed measures outlined in the Application, EIS and in the appeal I consider that the proposed development subject to the detailed mitigation measures as set out is acceptable in terms of its impacts on ecology.

9.9 Landscape and Visual Impact

9.9.1 The EIS provides a detailed description and analysis of the landscape context and predicted impact of the proposal. The landscape is appropriately described as a steeply rolling one of glaciated mountains and valleys. The site is within the Mangerton Mountain range, on top of Esknabrock Hill (400mOD) which forms a rounded plateau ridge, is quite discrete in the context of the mountain range and is surrounded on all sides by river valleys. These include the Roughty River to the south and

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 38

the headwaters of the Loo River and Kealgorm Stream to the north east and northwest respectively. Beyond these valleys the land rises steeply to the north towards the summits of Stoompa (705mOD) and Crohane (650mOD). The land remains rugged to the south of the Roughty River Valley, but with peaks and ridges in the order of 300m - 500mOD. The Roughty valley broadens as it makes its way towards the sea at Kenmare Bay.

9.9.2 The northern portion of the study area contains a more subtly undulating landscape that includes the Killarney Lakes; Lough Leane, Lough Guitane and Muckross Lake. In the lowland valleys the predominant use is pastoral farming which gives way to combination of rough grazing and commercial conifer plantations on higher slopes with naturalistic land cover of blanket bog on the upper slopes and ridges.

9.9.3 The appeal site is within the “Open to Consideration” zone identified in map 7.6 of the Renewable Energy Strategy. Notably it straddles the boundary between LCA 20 and LCA 36. The majority of the site is contained in LCA 20. I note that the capacity summary for LCA36 excludes wind energy developments on ecological grounds. I note development capacity summary for LCA 20 refers to “cumulative impact on the area”. Reference is made to protection of existing views and prospects on the R569 towards the scenic mountainous landscape.”

9.9.4 As regards the zone of theoretical visibility, it is notable that due to containment by mountain ranges to the northwest and southeast, theoretical visibility is concentrated within a band passing through the study area from the northeast to the southwest. Theoretical visibility is relatively extensive within the nearest 5km of the site. Potential views from the east and north east are afforded from upper slopes and ridgelines due to the rugged nature of the landscape. Notable landscape features within the ZTV pattern include the R569 regional road, a section of the Kerry Way walking route, the settlements of Kilgarvan and Kenmare and a sliver of the N22.

9.9.5 The assessment of landscape impacts is based on a comparison of landscape sensitivity against the magnitude of effects on the physical landscape and on landscape character. As regards the magnitude of landscape effects, it is asserted that the windfarm proposal represents the introduction of an already familiar form of development in the context of the central and eastern portions of the study area. Whilst the proposal contributes to wind energy development becoming a more characteristic feature of the study area, it is not yet the defining feature of this landscape context. There will also be some noticeable physical disturbance of the site in particular to form the site access track on the western approach. It

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 38

is asserted that a medium sensitivity judgement coupled with an impact magnitude of low results in a slight significance of landscape impact.

9.9.6 As regards mitigation is was outlined that design and layout was incorporated into the early stage site selection and design phases. The design of the proposed wind farm is in general compliance with the design criteria as outlined in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Wind Energy Development Guidelines (2006).

9.9.7 The analysis of Viewshed Reference Points is set out in Section 9. I have a number of concerns in relation to the conclusions in respect of the significance of visual impact. I refer to viewshed reference point AV1 which is from the scenic route from the eastern summit of ‘The Paps’ where the first party submission deems the significance of the visual impact to be moderate. I note the cumulative impact and the impact in terms of extent or spread of windfarm development is significant.

9.9.8 I would question the conclusions in respect of Viewshed Reference Point AV2 - Stoompa Mountain on Devils Punch Bowl loop walk it is asserted that the magnitude of the visual impact is deemed to be low and CP2 Kilgarvan GAA Ground where it is asserted that the significance of visual impact is moderate.

9.9.9 I note that in respect of Viewshed Reference Point DR1 - The scenic route near Lough Guitane, during the evolution of the proposal design mitigation measures including repositioning of turbine 1 and reduction in height by 15m was employed to reduce visual impact. The resulting magnitude of visual impact deemed to be low and significance deemed to be moderate.

9.9.10 DR2 on the R569 1km to the north east of the proposed windfarm, DR3 - R569 near Inchincoosh and DR4 R569 near Caher are relevant in consideration of impact on designated views and prospects on R569 as depicted on Map 12.1 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015. The first party asserts that magnitude of the visual impact is deemed to be medium and significance of visual impact moderate in respect of the first two and low and light in respect of the later. I would consider that the impact is significant and detrimental to the designated views and prospects. I would tend to concur with the local authority that the proposed development would seriously impact on the visual amenities of the area and interfere with the character of the landscape.

9.9.11 I note that in reference to LC1 it is highlighted that the substantial fill embankment and associated borrow pit A required for the sites’ western access track will be most apparent. Whilst this section of road will occur below the skyline and will not interrupt the profile of the hill, it represents a

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 38

road construction that is unfamiliar in this remote upland valley. It is predicted that the engineered embankment slopes will visibly contrast against the rugged natural slopes of the site to a high degree than the cut faces of the borrow pit.

9.9.12As regards cumulative impact, notably there are ten existing and six permitted windfarms within the EIS study area. I consider that this is a significant concern and in this regard I would refer particularly to figs 9.18 and 9.19 and a number of Viewshed Reference Points notably AV1, AV2, CP1, MR2, MR4, LC2. The concern in respect of the issue of cumulative impact is further clearly recognised as a significant issue in terms of the renewable energy strategy landscape character assessment and in my view this matter would need to be addressed from a strategic perspective. I note the first party submissions question the arbitrary definition of the westerly limit of the Derrynasaggart windfarm clusters by the R569 however this is supported by the Landscape Character Assessment within the adopted Renewable Energy Strategy. Whilst I would concur that Esknabrock hill is distinct in itself, having regard to the character and scenic qualities of the landscape the arguments raised in third party submission in respect of the maintenance of buffer zones adjacent to designated sites is equally valid.

9.9.13 Based on the submitted details I conclude that the potential impacts of the proposed windfarm results in a significant change in the existing visual and landscape environments. I acknowledge that there appears to be a contradiction in terms of the zoning of the the site as open to consideration for wind farm development and the recognised landscape sensitivity as for instance acknowledged in the development capacity summary for LCA 20 and in terms of the designated views and prospects. On the basis of my assessment I consider that the proposed development will have a detrimental landscape and visual impact in particular from designated Mangerton Archaeological Area and from the designated views and prospects on the Regional Road R569 to the southeast of the site. On this basis I concur with the Council’s reason for refusal on visual amenity grounds.

9.10 Appropriate Assessment

9.10.1 The obligation to undertake appropriate assessment derives from Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Essentially it involves a case by case examination for Natura 2000 site and its conservation objectives. Appropriate Assessment involves consideration of whether the plan or project alone or in combination with other projects or plans will adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives and includes consideration of any mitigation measures to

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 38

avoid reduce or offset negative effects. This determination must be carried out before a decision is made or consent given for the proposed plan or project. Consent can only be given after having determined that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of a European Site in view of its conservation objectives.

9.10.2 The Natura Impact Statement, dated December 2013 and included as Appendix E9 Volume 3 of EIS is prepared by Fehily Timoney and Company. The report notes that there are no designated nature conservations sites within the EIS study area however there are six Natura 2000 sites within 10km of the study area; one SPA and five sacs namely : • Killarney National Park SPA [Site Code 004038] • Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC [site code 00365] • Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood cSAC [site code 002041] • Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC [site code 000364] • Glenlough Woods cSAC [site code 002315] • Derryclogher (knockboy) Bog cSAC [site code 001873]

9.10.3 Killarney National Park SPA [Site Code 004038] is 4.2km from the site / development footprint. The site is of ornithological importance because it supports good diversities of birds typical of upland and woodland habitats. Several nationally rare woodlands species are present, notably Redstart. Two species Red Grouse and Ring Ouzel are red listed species of high conservation concern. Three of the species which occur regularly as listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, (Peregrine, Merlin and White-fronted Goose) The Goose population is also of significance as it is the most southerly in the country.

9.10.4 The Killarney National Park Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC [site code 00365] this lies 250m away from the northeastern corner of the study area (and approximately 715m from the proposed development footprint). This large cSAC encompasses mountains, rivers and lakes of the Iveragh peninsula, and the Paps mountains, which stretch eastward from Killarney towards Millstreet. The site is of great ecological interest, with at least ten habitats which are listed on Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive for example blanket bog, yew wood and alluvial woodlands. The cSAC has also been designated for a number of Annex II species, including Killarney Fern, Slender Naiad, Salmon. Freshwater Pearl Mussel and Kerry Slug.

9.10.5 The Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood cSAC [site code 002041] is 0.2km from the EIS Study area and approximately 1km north of the development footprint. The site is used as a nursery site for the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) a species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 38

9.10.6Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC [site code 000364] is 1.2km from the EIS study area and approximately 2km from the development footprint. The site comprising three buildings and some woodland contains three buildings and some woodlands used by the Lesser Horesehoe Bat, (Rhinolophus hipposideros) a species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

9.10.7 Glenlough Woods cSAC [site code 002315] is 3.3km from the EIS study area / development footprint. The site consists of a two storey, derelict stone farmhouse and adjacent outbuildings. It is a cSAC because it contains an important maternity roost of the Lesser Horesehoe Bat, (Rhinolophus hipposideros) a species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

9.10.8 Derryclogher (Knockboy) Bog cSAC [site code 001873] is 8.6km from the EIS study area / development footprint. The site is of conservation interest for its blanket bog habitat, which shows gradations to heath, grassland and stream flushes.

9.10.9 As regards the three sites designated for the Lesser Horeshoe Bat, the NPWS standard data forms notes that the main indirect threat to the integrity of these designated sites would be removal of nearby woodland, used by bats for commuting and foraging. No woodland removal is proposed along the Roughty River which is likely to be commuting corridor between the roost sites and Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC. The removal of habitats including the ash hazel woodland along the public road 1.2km north of Kilgarvan village to facilitate construction of hardstanding areas and the construction of haul route within an area of scrub, wet grassland, young conifer plantation and improved agricultural grassland, could lead to the loss of some foraging habitat for the lesser horseshoe bats though on a relatively small scale. The provision of native Oak Ash and Hazel trees at the edge of the hardstanding areas will help towards compensating tree loss and enable habitat connectivity with surrounding hedgerows and treelines.

9.10.10 It is asserted that taking into account mitigation the small scale of tree removal and distance from the cSACs, this habitat removal is not expected to cause significant impacts on the designated sites associated with lesser horseshoe bat. As regards increased turbine collision risk it is unlikely that the species regularly forages over the site given the exposed upland location. The nearest horseshoe bat roost site is the nursery roost located 200m from the EIS study area (Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood cSAC). However the nearest turbine T2 to the roost site is approximately 1km away. On the basis of the foregoing, a finding of no significance is presented for these three Natura 2000 sites.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 38

9.10.11 As regards the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC (240m from EIS study area and approximately 715m from development footprint), there are hydrological links by the way of small streams in the northeast of the study area draining to the east and into the Loo Tributary running north along the valley floor and into the cSAC. The remaining streams in the EIS study area drain to the Roughty River and to tributaries of the Roughty river. Due to proximity, there is potential for impacts on water quality in the cSAC from construction activities. Any deterioration in water quality resulting from the development could indirectly cause negative impacts on the qualifying features of the cSAC.

9.10.12 As regards impact on Killarney National Park SPA which is 4.2km to the northwest of the EIS study area. The SPA is so designated for a number of species including Merlin and Greenland White fronted Goose. Peregrine Falcon is another species of note. As these species are highly mobile, potential disturbance impacts are possible should individuals from the SPA forage on the proposed development site. The screening assessment is informed by 126 hours of vantage point surveys carried out within the EIS study area during breeding and winter seasons. The study recorded no Greenland white fronted geese, only one merlin and no peregrine falcon. On this basis a finding of no significance report is presented for the SPA.

9.10.13Derrycloghter (Knockboy) Bog cSAC 8.6km to the south of the EIS study area, designated for its Annex I blanket bog habitat. The cSAC does not receive any drainage from the EIS study area. Due to the distance and absence of hydrological connection, will not be impacted by the proposed development. A finding of no significance is presented in relation to this Natura 2000 site.

9.10.14 As regards the potential cumulative impact from the numerous neighbouring windfarms and other developments is considered to be low in terms of impact on water quality given the relative distances involved.

9.10.15 Screening assessment concludes that there will be no significant impacts on the Old Domestic Building Curraglass Wood, cSAC, Kilgarvan Ice House cSAC, Glanlough Wood cSAC, Killarney National Park SPA or Derryclogher (Knowgboy) Bog cSAC as a result of the proposed development. There may be a slight adverse impact on the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchement cSAC, through temporary deterioration of water quality in watercourse within the cSAC. Without mitigation measures it cannot be concluded that the proposed works will not impact on the qualifying features of the site.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 38

9.10.16 The stage 2 NIS considers activities during each phase of the development (construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning) which have the potential to cause impacts on the hydrological and hydrogeological regime at the site. Potential hydrological impacts of the development include an increase in run off from a storm event due to the change in land use and an increase in impermeable ground conditions, incorrect site management of excavations or peat slippage leading to the release of suspended solids to surface waters, silt laden run off caused by construction activities near watercourse or contamination of receiving waters by construction activities. As the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC has been designated for many aquatic Annex I habitats and Annex II species, any deterioration in water quality from the proposed development could indirectly cause negative impacts on the qualifying features of the cSAC. Mitigation measures to protect watercourses including measures to prevent runoff erosion from vulnerable areas and consequent sediment release into the watercourses. Mitigation measures include the installation of roadside swales with silt traps, stilling ponds and silt fencing to be installed as construction progresses across the site, measures to prevent peat slippage and prevent watercourses from siltation. It is asserted that with the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined, there will be no significant impact on the structure and function of the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC from either construction, operational and / or reinstatement phases of the development.

9.10.17Having considered the submitted report, I am satisfied that the methodology used in the NIS report is clearly explained and information sources set out. I consider that the level of information provided allows the Board as the competent authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the integrity of the adjacent Natura 2000 sites. Having regard to the mitigation measures proposed I consider that the conclusion that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment cSAC is reasonably supported.

9.10.18On the basis of the details provided I accept the assertion of the first party that it has been demonstrated that the cumulative impact of the development will not have adverse effect on the adjacent Natura 2000 sites in the light of their conservation objectives and that subject to the mitigation measures and habitat and species management plan, construction and environmental management plan and surface water management plan the proposed project will not adversely affect the integrity and conservation status of any Natura 2000 sites.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 38

9.11 Environmental Impact Assessment

9.11.1 On the matter of the Environmental Impact Assessment, I note that that the proposal involves the erection of 9 turbines, each with a rated capacity of approximately 27 megawatts MW. The relevant threshold in terms of the prescribed development for the purposes of part 10 provides that EIA is required for “Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) with more than 5 turbines or having a total output greater than 5 megawatts”, as set out in Category 3(i) of Part 2 Schedule 5 – Development for the purposes of Part 10 (Environmental Impact Assessment) of The Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended. An EIS is therefore mandatory for the proposed development. The Environmental Impact Statement submitted is dated December 2013 is in four volumes in the grouped format structure. Volume 1 contains a Non Technical Summary. Volume 2 contains the Main Report of the EIS. Volume 3 contains the appendices. Volume 4 contains the photomontages. I consider that the EIS provides a significant level of detail and scientific evidence.

9.11.2 Compliance with Requirements of Articles 94 & 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended)

I consider that the proposed development, in overall terms, is in compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended. To this extent I would observe that- The EIS contains the information specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. The EIS- • Describes the proposal, including the site and the development’s design and size; • Describes the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; • Provides the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects the project is likely to have on the environment; • Outlines the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice of site and development, taking into account the effects on the environment. • The EIS contains the relevant information specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. This includes- • A description of the physical characteristics of the project and its land use requirements; • The main characteristics of the wind energy process to be pursued; • The emissions arising; • A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposal;

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 38

• A description of the likely significant effects on the environment resulting from the development’s existence, the development’s use of natural resources, the emission of pollutants and creation of nuisances, and • a description of the forecasting methods used; and • There is an adequate summary of the EIS in non-technical language.

I note however that the EIS does not provide a clear summary indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information.

9.11.3 The main likely effects can be identified under the range of headings as follows: Human Beings - Employment and economic impact at the construction stage and operational phase - Health and Safety impacts during construction. - Shadow flicker. - Visual impact - Traffic Noise and Vibration - Noise & other disturbance to residents. Ecology - Flora & Fauna - Effects on SPA, SAC pNHA - Impacts on on-site habitats. - Species impact. - Avifauna disturbance. Aquatic Ecology - Undermining water quality in streams during construction phase. - Affecting important habitats downstream of the site. - Fisheries. Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology - Removal of soil - Peat stability. - Impact on natural drainage patterns - Hydrology and Water Quality. - Sediment release - Surface water runoff - Water quality Landscape and Visual Impact - Scale, height and extent of visibility. - Impact on landscape character. - Impact on important views. - Cumulative impact with other permitted wind farms. Cultural Heritage - Effects on archaeology. - Impact on structures of heritage significance.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 38

Air Quality and Climate, - Dust - Climate Change. Material Assets - Tourism and amenity. - Impact on local road network. - Electromagnetic radiation - Shadow cast shadow flicker - Interference with telecommunications. - Impact on land use

9.11.4 Interactions Matrix Table 15.1. - Humans and noise, flora and fauna, landscape and visual, cultural heritages, soils geology and hydrology, water quality and fisheries. - Flora and Fauna, noise, soils geology hydrology, water quality and fisheries - Cultural Heritage, Landscape and visual material assets. - Geology and Hydrology. Direct indirect and cumulative impacts were considered during the siting of turbines for the proposed wind farm to satisfy geotechnical considerations, hydrology and noise generation. Other factors and constraints such as the habitat at each location, proximity to archaeological features, visual impact, telecommunications requirements and the requirements of the Kerry County Development Plan were also addressed. The remaining interactions between the various aspects of the environment after the optimisation of the layout design and implementation of proposed mitigation measures are tabulated in Table 15.1.

The effects of the interactions between humans and air quality, the visual landscape, flora & fauna and water and soils; and landscape and the natural environment are implicit in the range of preceding issues listed.

9.11.5 As regards alternatives, consideration is given to alternative infill options of development at or near to existing windfarms in the Kilgarvan area, alternative Designs and layouts, alternative delivery options, alternative land use and alternative Sources of energy.

9.11.6 Assessment of the Likely Significant Effects Identified having Regard to the Mitigation Measures Proposed

The assessment preceding this section of the report under the relevant headings fully considers the range of relevant likely significant effects with due regard given to the mitigation measures proposed to be applied if the

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 38

to address the range of potential significant impacts arising from the proposed development.

9.11.7 Conclusions Regarding the Acceptability or Otherwise of the Likely Residual Effects Identified The conclusions regarding the acceptability of the likely main residual effects of this proposal are clearly addressed under the various headings of the main assessment. The principal areas of concern focus on cumulative visual and landscape impact, impact on archaeology and impact on ecology.

9.11.8 I consider that the EIS is adequate and of an acceptable standard that the document is generally in compliance with the provisions of Article 94 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

10.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

10.1 The site is within an area which in the context of the development plan is open to consideration for wind development subject to normal planning criteria. Having considered the contents of the application, the decision of the planning authority, the provisions of the development plan, national policy as set out in the Windfarm Development Guidelines issued by the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, the grounds of appeal and third party submissions, my site visit and assessment of the planning issues, I conclude that subject to the stated mitigation the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the adjacent European Sites, would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of traffic impact. However having regard to the open elevated nature of the site, to designated views and prospects in the vicinity and to the scale design and layout of the development, I consider that the proposal would create a significant visual intrusion in this landscape and would be excessively dominant and visually obtrusive. Accordingly I recommend refusal.

REASONS

Having regard to :

(a) the extensive elevated nature of the receiving environment and the open nature of the immediately adjoining lands,

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 38

(b) location of the site within an area zoned Rural Secondary Special amenity in the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015, (c) location within the Mangerton Mountain and Owbaun River Valley Landscape Character Area as set out in the Kerry County Council Renewable Energy Strategy 2012, (d) designation of views and prospects for protection from the R569 Regional Road to the east of the site, (e) location adjacent to the Mangerton Archaeological Landscape as set out in the Kerry County Council Renewable Energy Strategy 2012, (f) to the existing and permitted wind energy developments in the area;

it is considered that the proposed wind farm development of the scale proposed would create a significant visual intrusion in this landscape and would be excessively dominant and visually obtrusive when viewed from the surrounding landscape. The proposed wind energy development would, therefore, seriously injure the designated views and prospects in the vicinity and the visual amenities of the area, would be contrary to the provisions of the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______

Bríd Maxwell, Inspectorate.

PL 08.243129 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 38