An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: 14 wind turbine extension to approved Cappawhite Wind Farm, (South Tipperary Reg. Ref. P07/364) to include access tracks, an enlargement of the approved electrical transformer station comprising a single- storey control building and substation, anemometer masts, borrow pits and all associated site works, above and below ground at Bahagha, Curraheen, Foilaclug, Foildarg, Inchinsquillib, Kilmore and Oldcastle, Cappawhite, County Tipperary. Planning Application

Planning Authority: South Tipperary County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 11/6

Applicant: ESB Wind Developments Ltd.

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant permission

Planning Appeal

Appellants: 1. Cappawhite Environs against Wind Turbines Placement Group 2. ESB Wind Development Ltd.

Types of Appeal: 1. 3rd party against decision to grant permission 2. 1st party against condition of decision to grant permission, only.

Observer: Frank Casey

Date of Site Inspection: 1st December 2011

Inspector: Andrew Boyle.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 44 1.0 THE SITE

The site is in a rural upland location in the townlands of Bahagha, Curraheen, Foilaclug, Foildarg, Inchinsquillib, Kilmore and Oldcastle in County Tipperary. It is centred about 3.5 kilometres north-northeast of the village of Cappawhite and the same distance southwest of the village of Hollyford. It is about 21 kilometres northwest of Cashel and 14.5 kilometres north of Tipperary. The site is located towards the southeastern extremity of the Slieve Felim Mountains which straddle the Limerick/South Tipperary border. It has a stated area of 780 hectares. It is irregular in shape and deeply indented and extends for a distance of about 6 kilometres over its northeast-southwest long axis and up to 3 kilometres over its northwest-southeast short axis. Apart from Coillte, parts of the site are also in various private ownerships. Its altitude varies from about 140 metres up to a maximum of 440 metres. The individual sites of the proposed turbines vary in elevation from 258 metres up to 418 metres with a mean elevation of 354 metres. The site is a mixture of forestry and cleared areas. Access to the site is gained via minor county roads and forestry tracks.

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to extend the permitted, but as yet un-built, Cappawhite Wind Farm. This permitted 8 turbine wind farm is located primarily to the southwest of the proposed development, although one of the new turbines would be located to its south. Apart from this lone new turbine, the remaining turbines would be almost aligned, north -south, in “rows” of three, six and four going from west to east.

The turbine manufacturer remains to be chosen and, depending on the actual model, the hub height could range from 78 metres to 85 metres. Again, depending on the chosen manufacturer, the rotor diameter would range from 82 metres to 92 metres. Of the sample candidate wind turbines specified, that with the highest hub height would have the smallest rotor diameter, but would, nevertheless, have the greatest overall dimension at 126 metres. The triple bladed turbines would rotate at a rate of once every 3-5 seconds (12-20 RPM) with a yaw mechanism turning the turbines to face into the wind. The turbine towers would be of tubular steel design tapering from about 4 metres in diameter at the base to about 2 metres in diameter at the top, immediately below the nacelle (turbine casing). The turbines would have an active pitch regulation whereby the angle of the rotor blades can be adjusted by the machine control system. This system allows built-in braking, as the blades become stationary when they are fully “feathered”. The turbines would commence operation at a wind speed of about 4 metres per second (14.4kph), would attain a maximum output at about 15 metres per second (54kph) and would shut-down when the wind speed reaches about 25 metres per second (90kph ). It is claimed the nacelles would have effective sound insulation and the smooth performance of moving parts would ensure minimal noise. Like the turbines in the permitted Cappawhite Wind Farm, the turbines would be coloured light grey (RAL2035) in a matt finish.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 44 Preliminary geotechnical investigations have contributed to the determination of the locations of the proposed turbines. However, further more detailed investigation at the time of construction might lead to minor repositioning of individual turbines as allowed for in Section 5.3 of the Wind Farm Planning Guidelines. There might be a knock-on effect to adjacent turbines, leading to their minor relocation in order to maintain adequate separation distances. Any micro-siting would be subject to the constraint that it would not lead to greater visual prominence and that a minimum separation of 500 metres would be maintained from the nearest occupied residence.

Each turbine would have a separate transformer to step up the turbine voltage of 380 – 660 volts to a higher voltage for connection to the electrical transformer station via underground cables. In all likelihood, these transformers would be located within the nacelle or turbine tower, but depending on the turbine manufacturer, it might be located outside the tower, close to the base in a glass reinforced plastic or steel enclosure measuring 2.5 metres by 2.5 metres by 2.2 metres. It would not be technically feasible to locate this enclosure underground.

An existing network of about 7 kilometres of un-surfaced tracks would be upgraded to cater for the volume of construction traffic and a further 4.9 kilometres of new track would be provided. The tracks would be 5 metres wide with passing bays provided at intervals.

All power and control cabling within the site would be laid underground.

Three anemometer masts are proposed. These would be located towards the western extremity of the site, adjacent to permitted Turbines 2 and 3, towards the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to proposed Turbine 10 and in the northern sector of the site adjacent to proposed Turbine 21. Each anemometer mast would comprise a steel tubular or lattice tower approximately 150 millimetres in width and 85 metres in height. They would be either freestanding or held in position with guy wires and would have anemometers and wind veins attached.

The permitted electrical transformer station in the Cappawhite Wind Farm would be enlarged from 30 metres by 30 metres in plan to 54 metres by 30 metres in plan.

It is anticipated that the wind farm installation would require up to 18 months to complete, assuming favourable conditions. It would not be phased. The project would take place in stages. The civil engineering works would take approximately 8-9 months. Electrical works would take approximately 5-6 months and would be carried out in conjunction with the civil works as far as possible. Turbine erection would take 2-3 months and would commence when the bulk of the civil works are complete. Final reinstatement and landscaping would take 2-3 months and would be conducted in parallel with turbine commissioning.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 44 As specified by the applicant, construction would principally involve the following:-

• “Limited tree felling for access tracks and turbine installation. • Earthworks for the provision of turbine access, crane pads and turbine foundations. • Fixing of form work and steel reinforcement for the turbine foundations. • Construction of reinforced concrete bases with cast-in steel foundation sections for the tower and backfilling around foundations. • Erection by crane of the prefabricated turbine towers and the installation of turbines and rotor blades. • Installation of underground ducts and cabling from each turbine to the electrical transformer station. • Reinstatement of areas around turbine bases and track edges”.

Temporary suitably surfaced contractors’ compounds, approximately 50 metres by 40 metres in plan, would be provided for offices, equipment storage and construction staff welfare facilities. Portable cabin structures would be used to provide temporary site offices and self-contained chemical type toilets would be installed. Depending on the number of separate contractors involved, up to four separate compounds might be provided. Potable water would be provided by water tanker.

Some public roads close to the site would be upgraded in order to allow delivery of construction materials and turbine components, but this is already included in the permitted Cappawhite Wind Farm.

New tracks would be formed by excavating the existing overburden and placing a layer of course granular fill followed by a 100 millimetre layer of fine gravel. An overall thickness of approximately 600 millimetres is proposed. Where clay subsoil is encountered, a layer of geotextile would be laid as a filter membrane, whereas in areas of weathered rock/bedrock subgrade, the crushed stone would be placed directly onto the underlying firm material. In the unlikely event of areas of consistently deep peat being encountered, floating roads would be used.

Crane pads which comprise level hard-standings of approximately 20 metres by 40 metres would be required adjacent to each turbine base for the operation of the heavy lifting capacity crane which would be used for the assembly of turbine components. These areas would be to the same specification as the turbine access tracks which they would adjoin. Roadside drainage would be provided and would discharge into stilling ponds at regular intervals.

The turbine bases would generally measure 15 metres in diameter by 1 metre in depth. They would be founded between 1.5 metres and 2.5 metres below existing ground level and would incorporate an upstand/plinth into which a tower insert or fixing bolts would be embedded.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 44 Although new access tracks within the site would be at a very shallow depth and some stone would be likely to be recovered during the excavation of the turbine bases, additional stone would be required for track construction. It is felt that there would be many suitable locations for borrow pits, but this would be confirmed during the trial pit and borehole drilling accompanying the detailed geotechnical site investigations. There is an existing quarry at Cappawhite, but if additional borrow pits are required, these would be restricted to forestry areas in order to reduce both visual and habitat impacts. It is estimated that there would be a requirement for 60,000 cubic metres of fill material. This would be required for the construction compounds, the upgraded access tracks, the new access tracks and the turbine bases and crane pads. The use of borrow pits would be limited strictly to meeting project needs and they would not be used on a commercial basis thereafter. The existing quarry would be reopened and the existing face worked back using mechanical excavators. There might be some limited blasting. A stone crusher might be located in the quarry area. It is submitted that the existing face would simply be worked further into the hillside and no post-construction landscaping reinstatement is proposed. Once the use of the borrow pits is complete, they would be backfilled with surface material excavated from the turbine foundations and the subsoil/peat/soil and vegetation would be restored, including reseeding, if necessary.

The proposed wind farm would have an availability of 98%, but, on average, turbines turn and therefore produce electricity for about 80-85% of the time.

As part of the EIS, it is submitted that it might be appropriate to limit the project lifetime to be coterminous with that of the Cappawhite Wind Farm granted under PL23.225669, i.e. 2,033. Such a limitation could be imposed by taking the view that the lifespan specified in the case of the Cappawhite Wind Farm constitutes an example of the “exceptional circumstances” mentioned in the Wind Farm Planning Guidelines whereunder it may be appropriate to impose a lifetime limitation on a wind farm.

In relation to the possibility that a condition would be imposed requiring that a bond be lodged for satisfactory decommissioning of the wind farm, the applicants note that the Wind Farm Planning Guidelines recognise that the use of long-term bonds puts an unreasonable burden on developers and is difficult to enforce. As is also recognised in these guidelines, the residual value of the electrical equipment and the scrap value of wind turbine components would provide a fund that would more than meet the financial costs of decommissioning and site reinstatement.

3.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

Following receipt of further information, South Tipperary County Council decided to grant permission for this development, subject to 20 conditions. Many of these conditions are of standard type appropriate to a wind farm.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 44 Condition 1 of the planning authority’s decision requires, inter alia, that Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 should be omitted.

Condition 3 of the planning authority’s decision limits the period during which the development may be implemented to 10 years.

Condition 4 of the planning authority’s decision requires that it be notified of commencement of the development and that the permission should expire 25 years after the date of such notification.

Condition 5 of the planning authority’s decision requires that full details of the proposed turbines and associated structures, including design and colour be agreed in writing prior to commencement of development. The wind turbines are to be geared to ensure that the blades rotate in the same direction.

Condition 6 of the planning authority’s decision requires that prior to commencement of development, the developer should agree a protocol for a full survey of all roads to be used as haul routes and specifies the minimum information to be contained.

Condition 7 of the planning authority’s decision requires that prior to commencement of development, details should be agreed in relation to any required road/junction widening and pavement, bridge and culvert strengthening required in order to effect delivery of turbine components and ancillary equipment.

Condition 9 of the planning authority’s decision requires the lodgement of a bond of €50,000 as a security to ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site upon cessation of the development.

Condition 11 of the planning authority’s decision requires that the operation of the proposed wind farm should be carried out so that noise emanating from the development, when measured at the nearest noise sensitive locations, i.e. dwellinghouses, should not exceed 43dB(A)L A90, 10 min.

Condition 16 of the planning authority’s decision requires that monitoring of the use by breeding red grouse of the bog and heath areas within the site be carried out each year from the grant of planning permission until two year has elapsed from commencement of operation of the last of the surrounding turbines. If red grouse are likely to be affected by disturbance, then the source of the disturbance should be reduced or eliminated, if feasible. If not feasible, or the disturbance is significant for the local grouse population, then sufficient grouse habitat should be created in the area of the local population and the success of this creation monitored.

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Other than the 8-turbine development under PL23.225669 (07/3640), I am unaware of any previous extant planning permissions on this site.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 44

The planning authority’s planner’s report notes the following:-

“04/1034; Richard Hickey, 2 turbines, 65-70 metres 04/1178; John Bourke, 2 turbines, 65-70 metres 04/1259; Garracummer Wind Farm Ltd. 13 turbines, 67 metres, Bord Gais in ownership of the above (17) 04/1195; Ecopower Development Ltd. 11 turbines, 80 metres 08/136; Glenough Wind Farm Ltd for repositioning of 11 turbines 08/701; Glenough Wind Farm Ltd. 2 turbines up to 80 metres 10/595; ABO Wind Energy, 1 turbine, 80 metres – ABO Wind Energy in ownership of the above (14) 05/287; Eco Wind Power Ltd. 3 turbines, 80 metres 07/255; Ecopower Developments Ltd. 10 turbines, 125 metres 07/1069; Michael Ryan, 1 turbine, 67 metres”.

All of these refer to permitted developments, some of them relating to subsequent alterations to permitted developments. Reg. Refs. 04/1259 and 07/255 were ultimately granted on appeal under PL23.215597 and PL23.225618, respectively. In the case of the former there was no reduction in the number of turbines permitted. In the latter, one turbine was required to be omitted, i.e. that in the townland of Glenpaundeen.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS

The site lies within the functional area of South Tipperary County Council. It is thus affected by the provisions of the South Tipperary County Development Plan, 2009-2015.

Chapter 6 of the development plan covers amenity, environment and heritage. Section 6.3, on natural landscape amenity, includes subsection 6.3.1 on landscape amenity areas. This section is copied at the end of this report. In this subsection, the appeal site would be located in the area known as the Hollyford Hills. County Map 1 in Appendix 13 of Volume 3 of the development plan shows this area to be a Secondary Amenity Area.

Section 6.4.3 of Volume 1 of the development plan is on archaeology. It notes the obligations of the state under the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valetta, 1992). Known archaeological sites and monuments are identified in the Record of Monuments and Places. In the vicinity of the appeal site, the sites are identified on maps 1 and 2 of the development plan. Policy AEH13, on archaeology, is to safeguard sites, features and objects of archaeological interest generally and to protect (in situ where practicable or, as a minimum, preservation by record) all monuments included in the Record of Monuments and Places and sites, features and objects of archaeological and historical interest, generally. On maps 2 and 3, it appears that five monuments are identified within the boundaries of the appeal site. As identified in the Record and Monuments and Places, these are

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 44 TI045-012: an enclosure near the summit in the townland of Bahagha close to proposed Turbine 22.

TI045-018 : an enclosure in the townland of Foilaclug.

TA045-019 : a possible enclosure in the townland of Foilaclug.

TI045-017 : an enclosure in the townland of Kilmore near proposed Turbine 12.

TI051-044 : a possible enclosure in the townland of Kilmore.

Appendix 6 of Volume 1 of the development plan consists of a schedule of protected views. V036, which is shown on Map 1, refers to views in all directions from Ironmills to Milestone Road (R497). Views to the west of this road, which is also known as the Anglesea Road, would include the appeal site.

Chapter 7 of Volume 1 of the development plan is on infrastructure. Section 7.5, on wind energy, notes that the County Wind Energy Policy was adopted in December 2006. The areas suitable and unsuitable for wind energy are identified under three categories as set out in Appendix 3. These are

(i) Preferred Areas – those suitable for wind energy development that should be granted planning permission, unless specific local planning circumstances within the context of the development plan support a decision to refuse.

(ii) Areas Open for Consideration wherein applications will be treated on their merits, with the onus on the developer to demonstrate why the development should be granted permission.

(iii) No Go Areas regarded as particularly unsuitable for wind energy development. These areas, due to their scenic, ecological, historic or tourism values are unable to accommodate wind development.

The planning authority requires that prospective developers should scope for wind potential for a period of approximately 2 years, which could run concurrently with the preparation of an EIS, prior to any planning application being made for a wind energy development.

Policy INF10, on wind energy, is to facilitate the exploitation of the natural wind energy resource available, provided that it can be demonstrated that such development and associated infrastructure is in accordance with Appendix 3.

Appendix 3 of the development plan on wind energy development is copied at the end of this report.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 44 6.0 THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

This protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted on 11 th September 1997 and came into force on 16 th February 2005. Ireland is a signatory to the protocol and for the period 2008- 2012 is required to limit its greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 13% above 1990 levels.

7.0 EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC

This Directive promotes the use of renewable energy. Ireland’s target under the Directive is that renewable resources should make up 16% of total energy consumption by 2020.

8.0 THE NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY 2007-2012

This document acknowledges that the generation of electricity from renewable resources would provide the most effective way of reducing the contribution of power generation to greenhouse gas emissions. Target levels are set at 15% of electricity to be generated from renewable resources by 2010 and 33% by 2020.

9.0 THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007-2013

Under this Plan, the sustainable energy sub-programme sets a primary focus on the large-scale use of wind energy as well as the emerging use of biomass and biofuels, ocean, solar and geothermal energy.

10.0 THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTION PLAN

This action plan was submitted under Article 4 of Directive 2009/28/EC. It sets a target of 42.5% of electricity consumed to be derived from renewable sources by 2020.

11.0 THE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

These Guidelines were published by the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2006. They offer advice to planning authorities on planning for wind energy through the development plan process and in determining applications for planning permission. They are also intended to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the country in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy development and the treatment of planning applications for such development. The Guidelines are subdivided into 7 chapters, followed by 6 appendices. The chapter headings are as follows:-

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 44

1. Introduction and policy context 2. Technology and wind energy 3. Wind energy and the development plan 4. Planning applications and environmental impact assessment 5. Environmental implications 6. Aesthetic considerations in siting and design 7. Planning conditions

The appendices are as follows:-

1. Landscape sensitivity analysis methodology 2. Advice for developers on best practice in the pre-application consultation process 3. Landscape impact assessment of wind energy development proposals 4. Best practice for wind energy development in peat lands 5. Glossary 6. References

The relevant parts of the Guidelines are referred to in my assessment.

12.0 THE APPEALS

There are two appeals in relation to the planning authority’s decision to grant permission for this development. The first appeal received is a third party appeal, seeking a reversal of the planning authority’s decision. The second appeal is a first party appeal against condition 2(b) of the planning authority’s decision, only.

12.1 The Third Party Appeal

This appeal is from the Cappawhite Environs against Wind Turbine Placement Group.

The appeal commences by noting the Board’s reasons and considerations which were set out in relation to the original 8 wind turbine development in substitution for an 11 wind turbine development already granted under Reg. Ref. 01/931, wherein it was “considered that….. the proposed development would not seriously injure the visual amenities or landscape character of the area, would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would not otherwise be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”. The appeal then goes on to object to the proposed development under a series of subheadings.

Under the subheading “cumulative effect”, it is noted that within a 6 kilometre radius of Cappawhite, there are already 64 wind turbines with planning permission and in various stages of development. The proposed development, even if reduced to 10 turbines, would give rise to a cumulative effect with a

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 44 high concentration of turbines jumbled along the hillsides and ridges on three sides of the appeal site. It is submitted that the photomontages submitted with the original application and in response to the further information request have been carefully chosen to ensure that obstacles, such as hedges, immediately in front of the camera obscure the true extent of the cumulative effect.

Under the subheading “dominance”, it is submitted that the photomontages fail to give a true estimate of the expected extent and height of the turbines in relation to their setting and their dominance of Cappawhite and the local environment. The same would apply to the village of Hollyford.

Under the subheading “layout” it is submitted that the 18 wind turbines (10 + 8) have neither uniformity, nor randomness. Some sites follow the hill contours, while others appear to stack up behind each other at variance with the contours.

Under the subheading “visual assessment”, it is noted that no photomontage or visual assessment has been submitted for the village of Toem, a short distance to the west of Cappawhite. No photomontages have been submitted from the west of Cappawhite or from the R505, when travelling west. The proposed development would be highly visible from this road. The view to the north from Cappawhite National School has been carefully chosen to minimise the visual impact of the proposed development. If it had been shot from a position slightly to the left, a much greater visual impact would have been seen which would have included the much closer turbines of the permitted Cappawhite wind farm.

In relation to the control building, it is noted that this building and its construction compound would be completely visible on the hillside behind and above Cappawhite.

In relation to geology and soils, it is submitted that a physical site survey with soil analysis, geotechnical and electromagnetic investigations, stability testing and test pits has not been undertaken at each turbine location. Virtual surveys were conducted and a preliminary site walkover took place by geotechnical engineers. There was hand probing to measure the depth of peat. There is reference to trial pits in the additional information response, but the results have not been made available. Contrary to the statement that all turbine locations had been inspected, the Preliminary Peat Stability and Site Walkover Report refers to some of the turbine locations being inaccessible on foot. This suggests that in fact, trial pits were not undertaken at all locations. It is submitted that the potential for landslides from wind turbine construction and associated works should be fully explored to identify the risk to SACs within 15 kilometres of the site, i.e. the Lower River Suir and the Lower River Shannon.

No bat survey has been carried out, yet bats are present on the lower slopes of the site throughout the summer. There are caves and derelict mines in the Hollyford region, as well as derelict and in-use farm buildings within the area.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 44 Hen harriers are regularly spotted foraging above the site in the area above the summit of Red Hill and to the southeast of Leugh. Other Red List 1 and Red List 2 birds are present and a group of 10 or more red grouse were seen on the blanket bog area in March. This area of blanket bog would be totally surrounded by Turbines 13 to 17, as well as an existing anemometer. No bird survey has been conducted over the wet marshlands in the area of the planning extension in the townlands of Oldcastle and Kilmore. All birds and mammals would be disturbed/displaced due to the construction and should be monitored thereafter to ensure that numbers are not adversely affected. There would be cumulative disturbance with the existing and permitted turbines in the area.

On noise, it is submitted that theoretic levels have been carried out, using models which do not take into account the nature and character of the location. A hearing aid clinic in the townland of Leugh requires that noise levels should not exceed 35dB(A).

The appeal notes that there is a number of private wells in the area fed by local aquifers. While the EIS states that any additional significant pressure on these water bodies is not expected, it is submitted that the potential to damage or alter these important aquifers has not been fully explored. Wind Turbine 9 would be situated between two surface water bodies and could, if any leeway is required in its location, be within 50 metres of one of these.

On shadow flicker, the appeal notes that this has been evaluated using a model and assumptions, rather than physically checking the location of each house. The map used is outdated, with one house no longer in existence and other houses having been built since. Some of the wind turbines would be located in a line along a ridge above roadside residences. The sun would pass directly behind these turbines one at a time, while high in the sky during the summer, prolonging the potential shadow flicker. While shadow flicker has been assessed when the sun would be low in the sky, it is submitted that in the summer, with the sun at greater intensity and high in the sky, the impact would be far worse.

The appeal contends that the impact of ice throw and blade damage has been underestimated and that ice/damaged blades would travel further than predicted.

The appeal notes that health and safety issues require the closure of the site during construction. However, the extent of such closure is unclear and it is submitted that from a local amenity and tourist point of view, it would be inconceivable that the entire area would be closed off for a 2-year period.

The appeal submits that wind turbines can and do pose serious fire hazards. It is noted in this regard that several of the wind turbines are planned to be erected in forestry areas.

The appeal notes that the transport route for turbine components, i.e. that selected for the permitted Cappawhite wind farm, differs from that adopted for the Glenough wind farm. The Cappawhite route passes over two bridges, one

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 44 of which, Camus Bridge over the River Suir would require major alterations to increase the road width. There would be a requirement to infill on either side of the road, into a flood plain. This has a serious potential to pollute the River Suir, and SAC. The removal of the parapet on either side of the road would interfere with an integral part of the bridge, thereby damaging/destroying a protected structure. The need to restructure the second bridge at Ironmills would also have the potential to pollute the River Suir.

The appeal notes that the preferred route for the permitted development at Cappawhite was from the south through Donohill on the R497 and then turning, westwards onto the R505, clearing Cappawhite on a new bypass, “thereby minimising any potential traffic impacts on the village itself”. The preferred route is now from the west along the R505 through Cappamore and Doon and finally Cappawhite Village itself to reach the bypass. All three villages suffer from congestion. They have narrow streets with on-street parking and all have schools. Cappawhite has 16 protected structures, most of them located along the main street.

The appeal notes discrepancies between the permitted Cappawhite wind farm and the proposed extension. The permitted development had 80 metre towers and 90 metre rotor diameters, whereas the proposed development has towers of 80-85 metres and blades 41-46 metres in length. Following the submission of additional information there are now to be four borrow pits, rather than two. While the permitted development is required, by condition, to have its transformers located within the turbine structure or underground, there is a possibility that the transformers would be located above ground outside the towers in the present application.

The omission of Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 as required by the planning authority, if upheld, implies that anemometer 2 and borrow pit 2 should be eliminated by way of condition.

In the permitted development the exposed parts of the turbine foundation pads would be broken up at decommissioning and then covered with local soil. In the present application, the upper sections of the foundations would be covered and the ground would be left to re-vegetate naturally.

Neither the permitted development nor the present proposal show the anemometer which has been in position close to proposed Turbine 14 for over 2 years.

Throughout the appeal, the Wind Energy Guidelines are quoted to support the appellants’ case.

13.0 THE FIRST PARTY APPEAL

This appeal is against condition 2(b) of the planning authority’s decision, only, though the quoted condition is, in fact 1(b). It notes that the required omission of Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 arose from the planning authority’s concerns

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 44 regarding cumulative effects on views from the southeast and the impact on Hollyford Village. The appeal recognises that Turbine 22 is the most visually prominent turbine when seen from Hollyford and may be viewed as being visually dominant. The appellant accepts this position and appeals against the omission of Turbines 18, 20 and 21, only. The appellant does not agree that when viewed from the southeast, the four turbines would present a continuous line of turbines when seen together with those in the Glencarbry wind farm. In the viewpoint from Ironmills Bridge, Photomontage 12, four turbines appear as a discrete group, but in other viewpoints nearby, they would identify as being part of the Cappawhite wind farm. A photomontage approximately from 2.5 kilometres northeast of Ironmills Bridge, Photomontage 20, demonstrates this point. In this view, the four turbines are seen as “ a cohesive unit with the other turbines at Cappawhite” . The previously submitted Photomontages 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 are also cited in support of this contention. The same is claimed to be the case when the proposed development is viewed from the north, as shown in Photomontage 19.

The appellant does not accept that Turbines 18, 20 and 21 would be dominant and overbearing when seen from the village of Hollyford. Photomontage 15 is claimed to effectively show the potential visual impact of the proposed turbines when seen from the village, within a true landscape context. This is the most open view within the village. Turbines 18, 20 and 21 are claimed to be perceived as part of the main cluster of turbines, while Turbine 22 is seen as a distinct structure on a closer hill.

Photomontage 18 shows the proposed development as it would be seen from the centre of the village. Turbines 18, 20 and 21 are perceived within a cluster of turbines, while Turbine 22 is again visible as a separate structure on a closer hill. The appeal recognises the advice contained in the Wind Energy Development Guidelines in relation to respecting the scale of small urban nodes and avoiding visual dominance. It is submitted that Turbines 18, 20 and 21 do not dominate in the manner advised.

A series of photographs showing the view to a person walking from north to south through the village of Hollyford is submitted with the appeal. This shows how the view opens out from north to south. It is claimed there is a thematic association between the established timber industry in the village and wind energy insofar as both activities involve the generation of sustainable products from the hills. It is implied that this is an example of the “positive association, where, for example wind energy development relates thematically to modern structures in terms of form, function and/or operation, perhaps even affirming an identity in a given landscape” , cited in Section 6.2 of the Guidelines.

14.0 RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANTS

The applicants have responded to the third party grounds of appeal.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 44 On cumulative effect, it is denied that the photomontage locations were chosen so that intervening obstacles would obscure the true extent of this effect. Where full views are partly obscured, such as by vegetation, the wire frame models indicate the number of turbines in the field of view.

In terms of dominance, it is held that the photomontages do, indeed, give a true representation of the extent and height of the wind turbines. It is not agreed that there would be complete dominance of the landscape overlooking Cappawhite and Hollyford.

The layout accords with the advice in the DoEHLG Guidelines that all spacing options are usually acceptable in an open moorland setting as is relevant to the present case.

On visual assessment, it is submitted that the 16 photomontages in the EIS and the additional information provide representative views from a variety of distances and directions. Photomontage 13 near Cappawhite National School deliberately shows the most visible of the proposed additional turbines. It is recognised in the text that further permitted turbines and one proposed turbine would be partly visible to the west of this view.

The control building would be a single-storey structure and its visibility in the general landscape would be no greater than existing buildings, none of which dominate the views where they are present in the photomontages. The construction compound would not be especially visible and would be required only for the duration of the construction phase.

The extent of geological and soil investigation is appropriate to the conditions encountered and accords with recognised best practice for an area such as Cappawhite which can be characterised as low risk in geotechnical terms. The risk rating for peat stability is acceptably low and would be further reduced by implementing basic construction impact mitigation measures.

Owing to the high altitude and windy conditions on site, it was felt likely to be of no importance to bats.

All bird species listed in the appeal were referenced in the EIS and potential impacts assessed. In the Kilmore and Oldcastle areas, bird surveys were undertaken in the context of the now permitted Cappawhite wind farm.

No rare or endangered mammals were confirmed on site. Of the species listed in the appeal, all with the exception of pine marten are referenced in the EIS and potential impacts assessed. About 17 hectares of forestry would be lost as a result of the development and, if pine marten are present, this would not be significant, as 1400 hectares of forestry would remain, even though this would be felled in the future as part of the normal forestry management cycle.

In terms of noise modelling, the nature and character of the Cappawhite area has been taken fully into account. The limitation imposed at condition 11 of

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 44 the planning authority’s decision would safeguard residential amenity and would be fully complied with.

The groundwater (aquifers) would be unaffected by the proposed wind farm. By civil engineering construction standards, turbine foundations are not exceptionally deep. The separation between the development and surface drains would be greatly in excess of the buffer zones that would commonly apply in such circumstances.

The shadow flicker estimates are conservative. They assume that all receptors have a suitably orientated window with no shielding. Shadow flicker occurs when the sun angle is low, rather than high. The threshold for photosensitive epilepsy is 3 Hz. For a three bladed wind turbine this would be equivalent to a rotational speed of 50RPM whereas the turbines at Cappawhite would not exceed 19RPM.

No turbine within the Cappawhite wind farm (permitted and proposed) would be within 500 metres of the nearest residence so that there would be no danger from ice throw or damaged turbine blades.

There would be no permanent loss of local amenity, as much of the site is owned by Coillte which operates an open forest policy, allowing public access. This would continue, except during the construction phase, after which there would be additional tracks available for walking.

Wind turbines do not constitute a fire hazard and in any case they would be located in clear felled areas.

The extent of road works in the vicinity of Camus Bridge is documented and no works would be undertaken on the bridge, itself. Temporary works would be removed on completion and street furniture/roadside barriers reinstated.

Construction traffic would average less than 15 HGVs daily and consequently would not add significantly to traffic congestion. Peak traffic volumes would be 80 vehicle movements daily, but only on the occasions of turbine foundation construction.

There would be no damage to protected structures/buildings in Cappawhite Village.

Any inconsistencies between the EIS and the additional information are regarded as insignificant and do not undermine the conclusions drawn.

15.0 RESPONSE OF THE THIRD PARTY APPELLANTS

The third party appellants note the applicant’s scenario that there would be a “continuous line of turbines” when viewed from the southeast of the appeal site. However, the applicant agrees that the cumulative visual impact could be experienced from this direction, as shown in Photomontage 12. It is submitted

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 44 that from this viewpoint and from that further east at Photomontage 20, the complete panoramic vista would appear as one continuous extensive development without structure, haphazardly stretching in either direction as far as the eye can see. This is due to the cumulative effect of the additional planned and constructed turbine developments of Knockstanna, Glenough/Glenough Upper, Garracummer and Glencarbry. The small break in the line of wind turbines seen towards the centre right of Photomontage 20 is due to the situation of Hollyford Village. It is submitted that to have such a vast area of landscape saturated to such a degree would form a completely dominant feature and change the overall landscape character of the scene. It would appear as if a huge barrier was traversing the countryside. This would be detrimental to tourism.

The response notes the recommendation in the Wind Energy Development Guidelines that wind energy developments should take advantage of the possibility of a relationship between such a development and, say, an urban development and avoiding the creation of visual confusion and spatial dominance. The “walk-through” of Hollyford, featured in Figure B of the first party appeal, concentrates wholly on a small area of the main street to the northern end of the village and omits the remainder. However, when turning 180º, two partial wind turbines and the blades of a third turbine from the Glenough development can be seen from the village. When the Garracummer/Moanvaun and Glencarbry developments are completed, Hollyford would suffer serious spatial dominance in all directions.

Photomontage 18 shows 11 turbines, but in checking in more detail, the wind turbines closest to the village are shown smaller on the digitally enhanced image than those at a far greater distance. This gives the impression of a much lesser potential impact and spatial dominance on the landscape and village.

In relation to the concept of wind energy development relating thematically to modern structures, it is submitted that the saw mill is located in a low profile position at the northern end of the village and allows no juxtaposition to or absorption of the visual impact of the wind turbines.

It is submitted that Photomontage 12 is misleading as all the wind turbines appear to be the same size and thus the same distance away which is not the case.

It is recognised at Photomontage 15 that the visual impact is substantial adverse due to the close proximity. The appellants do not accept the fact that the landscape has been “intensively altered by human activity” lessens this impact. The semi-pastoral area with gently rising hillsides would suffer a serious loss of formative elements as the wind turbine development would completely spatially dominate.

It is noted that no photomontages have been offered from the vicinity of Hollyford National School towards the south of the village. This school and the surrounding houses are 0.75 kilometres closer to the site of the wind

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 44 turbine development than Jimmy Ryan Rue’s Pub towards the north end of the village.

The appellants quote the Guidelines which call for “respect for scale and human activities” and “due to the spatial enclosure provided by hills, wind energy developments should respond sensitively to this intimacy” . Hollyford Village is an example of such a situation and Photomontage 18 demonstrates that the proposed development would create visual confusion and conflict, with the various wind turbine developments being visible from every direction and at various levels of visibility.

The appellants submit that the first party appeal is full of misrepresentations, omissions and understatements and that full disclosure of the total visual impact of the addition of this wind turbine development on Hollyford Village and the surrounding area when taken together with the permitted wind turbine developments should be required.

16.0 THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS

A letter has been received from Mr. Frank Carey with an address in the townland of Foilaclug. He objects to proposed Turbine 20, as this turbine would be 100 metres from his boundary fence. If constructed, it would result in his lands becoming unsuitable for the erection of a wind turbine at a future date as it would interfere with wind flow. He indicates his boundary on a map and points to the fact that there is a small error in the folio boundary submitted by the applicants. There is a right-of-way allowing access to his lands from the public road located to the south of his property. He is concerned that the use of this right-of-way would be interfered with as a result of the proposed turbine. He encloses a modified version of the map submitted with the planning application showing his landholding (uncorrected) in relation to turbine 20.

17.0 LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

Apart from original letters from the appellants and the third party observer a further letter was received from a family in the townland of Leugh. The letters from the appellant and from the third party observer raised the same range of concerns as in their subsequent appeal and observation. The letter from the family in the townland of Leugh expressed concern about the sheer number of turbines which would be sited in the locality, if the present proposal is granted. There would be 69 turbines in all. It was submitted that while there might not be property devaluation, there would be a reduced customer interest in local residential property. Other concerns raised related to the inadequacy of the surveying of birds and mammals, including bats, the inadequacy of soil analysis and geotechnical investigation, the poor level of public consultation, the possibility of electromagnetic interference, excessive noise by comparison with the present levels, shadow flicker, inaccuracies in the survey of houses in the vicinity, impact on protected structures along the haulage route,

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 44 overestimation of the local employment potential during the construction phase and the failure to adequately acknowledge the scenic value of the area.

18.0 ASSESSMENT

A number of issues arise in considering this application and appeal. These issues are considered under the subheadings which follow:

18.1 Environmental Impact Assessment

As a wind farm with more than 5 turbines and having a total output greater than 5 megawatts, the planning application for this development is required, under the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, to include an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, an environmental impact statement was submitted.

The EIS contains the information which it is required to contain under Article 94 of the Regulations. It includes a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including, in many cases, as chapter headings, the items specified at Paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. Chapter 5 covers human beings, Chapter 8, flora and mammals, Chapter 9 avifauna (birds), Chapter 11, geology and soils, Chapter 12, waters, Chapter 14, air and climate, Chapter 10, landscape, Chapter 16 material assets, Chapter 17 cultural heritage including archaeology and architecture and Chapter 18 interaction of impacts. In the non-technical summary of the EIS, significant impacts of the development are identified under the headings “human beings”, “noise”, “shadow flicker”, “flora and mammals”, “avifauna”, “landscape”, “geology and soils”, “waters”, “roads and traffic”, “air and climate”, “forestry”, “material assets” and “cultural heritage”.

Under the heading human beings, it is noted that the development would lead to employment during the construction stage and that there would be a spinoff effect in the local economy during this stage. Long-term, there would be the payment of local authority rates. Surveys have shown that there is strong popular support for renewable energy in general and for wind power in particular.

Under the heading noise, it is noted that noise levels resulting from the construction of the wind farm were calculated for various distances from the site and it was concluded that noise levels would be well within the limits commonly imposed for construction sites. Noise arising from the operation of the wind farm would be acceptably low and would be masked by ambient noise at higher wind speeds.

Shadow flicker would be just one third of the generally accepted threshold for this phenomenon.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 44 On flora and mammals, it is noted that the relatively undisturbed, unplanted upland blanket bog forming the central most elevated part of the proposed site would be totally avoided. Conifer plantation, improved agricultural grassland, wet grassland and a remnant of wet heath would be the only habitats that would be directly impacted by the proposed development.

On avifauna, it is noted that hen harrier, merlin, peregrine, red grouse, curlew and golden plover were designated as target species for identification and study on the site with snipe and skylark being designated as secondary species. It is noted that the site does not provide suitable breeding habitat/conditions for hen harrier or merlin. No red grouse were recorded during the site surveys, but there was a number of casual sightings on the site in a recent national survey for red grouse. The EIS indicates a belief that a minimum of one pair of red grouse breed annually within the site. Snipe are recognised to be present and breeding. It is stated that there would be some disturbance to birds within the site during the construction phase, but with species occurring commonly in the area, the effect of any displacement is held to be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall populations of any species. During the operational phase, the turbines would be unlikely to have any significant impact. It is stated that evidence from comparable modern wind farm sites elsewhere in Europe suggests that the risk of collision by birds striking wind turbines is low.

On landscape, it is noted that the undulating farmed and forested Hollyford Hills define the character of the application site and the immediately surrounding area. The Hills largely consist of farmed land and scrub with large areas of commercial forestry plantation. The principal views occur from a broad visual zone mainly to the south and west of the site as the more mountainous landscape to the north (the Silvermines) prevents views or limits visibility. The main short distance views would occur from an area mostly within a 5 kilometre radius around the site. The visual impact is held to be generally slight to moderate, rather than significant, other than where the turbines would totally dominate their immediate surroundings. Cumulative visual impact with other approved wind farms would occur mainly from within an area to the west, southeast, south and immediate east of the site. Such cumulative impact is held to be generally low to medium, with higher cumulative impact occurring only from more inaccessible positions such as the uplands or the summits of the Hollyford Hills and Slieve Felim Mountains.

On geology and soils, the general geological succession of the site is noted to comprise “soft” ground (topsoil/peat to a maximum depth of 0.5 metres), cohesive soil (cohesive till or residual soil of 0.5 metres to 2 metres) and bedrock (primarily siltstone). Except for a few borrow pits as a source of rock fill material, the wind farm development would not impact on the geology of the site. A six category risk rating system was used to assess the risk of peat slide ranging from “not applicable” through “negligible”, “low”, “possible”, “very possible” to “likely”. Four of the turbines yielded a low rating, while all the others were rated not applicable.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 44 On waters, it is noted that the site lies across the hydrological boundary of the catchments of the River Shannon and the River Suir. The main drains within the site are culverted underneath the existing forestry tracks. The proposed development would cause an increase in runoff following rainfall. However, as the proposed development would take up just 3% of the area of the site it is considered that this would not be significant. Potential alteration to the hydrology of the site could arise from tree felling, construction of turbine foundations, access tracks and crane pads and drainage infrastructure. However, the drainage regime at the site is already a modified one resulting from the large-scale planting of coniferous forestry. Disturbance of vegetation during construction could give rise to short-term generation of high suspended sediment loads in streams.

On roads and traffic, it is noted that short-term effects would arise during the construction period. There would be 5,150 material deliveries over an 18 month construction period, but this implies a daily traffic average of 30 heavy commercial vehicle movements. It is pointed out that any road improvements that are undertaken would ultimately benefit the local population.

On air and climate, it is noted that the operation of the wind farm would have no emissions to atmosphere. The primary air quality issue would be construction dust. However, all residences are noted to be at a significant distance and would be unlikely to be effected by dust from site construction.

On forestry, it is noted that the clear felling of limited areas for turbines and access tracks would be insignificant in the context of the 1,750 hectares of Coillte forestry at Cappawhite.

On material assets, it is noted that the site is not a significant tourism area and it is claimed that research shows that the presence of wind farms makes no difference to holidaymakers’ enjoyment of their holiday. There would continue to be free access to the Coillte lands for walkers and other visitors once the wind farm is operational. In terms of energy supply the combined permitted Cappawhite wind farm and the extension would supply sufficient energy for 35,000 homes. It would save the importation of 45,000 tonnes of fossil fuels, annually. There would be no implications for air navigation and no impact on the safety of air traffic. In terms of electromagnetic interference, no impacts are predicted.

On cultural heritage, it is noted that 13 Recorded Monuments have been identified in the general area. None of these would be located within 100 metres of the proposed construction areas and there would be no impact. An unlisted house, rated as being of local interest by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage in the townland of Foilaclug would be unaffected.

Interactions are considered between human beings and noise, shadow flicker, landscape, roads and traffic and material assets and between flora and mammals and landscape and geology and soils, between avifauna and forestry, between landscape and material assets and cultural heritage, between air and

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 44 climate and roads and traffic and between geology and soils and water and cultural heritage.

On human beings and noise it is held that in terms of construction noise, any impacts would be short-term and unlikely to cause harm to residential amenity. The turbines would be sufficiently far from the nearest residences to ensure that there would no impact from operational noise. On human beings and shadow flicker, any such flicker would be very limited and well within accepted standards. On human beings and landscape, it is noted that such impacts are commonly considered to be the most significant impacts. Despite the relative proximity of some of the chosen views and the scale of the individual turbines, it is held that the overall image presented by the wind farm extension would not be a negative one. On human beings and roads and traffic the traffic levels are again noted and it is accepted that there would be temporary and short lived effects on the immediately local road network. Any local road improvements that might be necessary for the delivery of wind turbine components would improve overall road safety in the long-term. On human beings and material assets it is noted that no impacts are predicted in relation to electromagnetic interference.

Mitigation measures are proposed with respect to each of the significant impacts identified.

In relation to human beings, the structural integrity of the turbines would be ensured by designing them as three-bladed machines with Class 01 Certification for Structure Integrity issued by Germanischer Lloyd. They would be designed to withstand wind gusts up to 70 metres per second (252 kph) – well above the wind speed applicable to the design of conventional structures in this part of Ireland. Owing to the distance to the nearest dwellings, it is extremely unlikely that even under these conditions, the turbines would cause additional damage or risk to persons. Ice formation on the blades would be extremely rare in Ireland and would only occur when the turbine is stopped. On re-starting, any ice formation on the blades would cause a dynamic imbalance which would result in an automatic shutdown. The turbines would be equipped with lightning protection to effectively and safely discharge a lightning strike to earth. Electrical systems would comply with the relevant national and international standards. Access to electrical equipment would be restricted to authorised persons.

On noise, it is pointed out that the layout of the turbines has been arranged so that they are at the maximum feasible distance from nearby dwellings. State of the art wind turbines would be used with the latest dramatic improvements in noise attenuation. It is possible to reduce or eliminate localised impacts on a residence by selecting the appropriate turbine power curve. While no noise control measures are envisaged at Cappawhite, these are available and could be incorporated during commissioning noise tests to ensure noise levels are within limits.

On shadow flicker it is pointed out that while this is expected to be well within acceptable limits, if flicker nuisance is identified after service entry, the

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 44 impact could be mitigated by restricting running of the problem turbine(s) during the few hours when shadow flicker is a problem.

In relation to flora and mammals, three categories of mitigation are proposed, namely avoidance, reduction and remedy. For avoidance, settlement ponds and silt traps would be used to prevent siltation of watercourses in and surrounding the study area. All excavated material would be used on site for landscaping or for remediation measures; borrow pit locations would be restricted to areas of low ecological value. Wastes would be removed for disposal at appropriate licensed waste disposal facility. Reduction would consist of limiting the extent of the works to the development footprint. The limits would be marked by bunting. Underground cable would follow the access tracks to limit land-take. Spill kits and other appropriate equipment would be available on site in the event of inadvertent spillages. The routing of access track minimises fragmentation effects. In terms of mitigation by remedy, where construction is taking place in or adjacent to heath/bog habitat, tracked machinery and geotextile matts would be used for crossing these areas. Excavation of vegetated areas would be undertaken by extracting “turves” that could be used for reinstatement of areas around turbine bases and along access roads. Geotextile mats would be laid directly onto to the vegetation to support the backfill that would be stockpiled in these areas. Following decommissioning, the turbines would be dismantled and removed from site and the bases broken up to below ground level and covered with topsoil/peat so as to allow natural colonisation of the surface. In all likelihood, the new access tracks would be retained. A detailed site restoration plan would be implemented that would involve monitoring of habitat development for a period of five years post decommissioning.

On avifauna, Chapter 9 of the EIS includes a table summarising the potential effects and mitigation measures in terms of habitat loss. It is intended to maximise the use of existing tracks, minimise the disturbance to streams, hedgerows and treelines, minimise the removal of vegetation, have new access tracks follow the contours of the slopes, avoid disturbance to wet grassland areas, minimise the footprint of the wind farm and associated infrastructure and implement approved management schemes to benefit birds that use the site. In terms of disturbance, it is intended to conduct the construction outside the main breeding season (April to July). During the operational phase disturbance would be avoided through the minimisation of site maintenance visits. Collision risk would be reduced through appropriate wind turbine design, turbine height, number of turbines and positioning. Guide wires on wind anemometers would be marked with flags or marker balls and underground cables would be adopted. During the decommissioning phase, disturbance would be minimised through conducting this phase outside the main breeding season.

On landscape, it is recognised that wind turbines are by their nature highly visible elements and cannot be easily screened. Mitigation is through siting, design and layout. The layout aimed at meeting the planning constraints in relation to preservation and visual amenities and at improving the nature of visibility. The principal objectives were to produce a clear and simple layout

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 44 that was visually unified, to minimise visual confusion, to provide visual balance and harmony and to provide visual unity. The length of additional tracks is minimised and significant cut has been avoided. Electrical transformer station would be located on the lower grounds so as to be less visible. The anemometer masts would comprise a steel tubular or lattice tower approximately 150 millimetres across so that in distant views they would be imperceptible. The wind turbines would be coloured light grey, as they would mostly be seen against the sky. The foundations might be left in place, crane pads and access tracks would be removed as appropriate, on decommissioning.

On soils and geology, mitigation includes the normal site management measures. Excess material would be cleared to an approved disposal site, should any arise. Temporary storage areas would be reinstated on completion of works to allow regeneration of native flora. Pollution control measures would be adopted during construction to prevent entry into watercourses of drainage runoff with high suspended particulate loads. Site stability would be ensured through full geotechnical supervision during excavation works, the drawing away of spoil to designated repository areas, constructing all roads/hardstanding through excavation and replacement down to subsoil level, below peat, minimising the extent of unsupported peat in excavation areas through backfilling with rock fill on the up-slope side to one metre of original peat surface and constructing open drains on the down-slope side of road/hardstanding to prevent lateral movement of peat. An extensive Quantitative Risk Assessment Risk Register would be produced following the site investigation phase.

On water, mitigation would include the channelling of up-slope surface water runoff via piped culverts under access tracks at a frequency to reflect natural runoff conditions and the collection of surface water from access tracks, crane pads and turbine bases in downslope drainage ditches, with water quality managed through the use of check dams, flow limiters, semi-natural vegetated swales and settlement ponds prior to discharge. Flow velocity would be held below erosion thresholds to minimise scour and the potential for transfer of silt into the downstream watercourses. Silt fences would be erected around temporary stockpile areas. Dedicated stilling ponds would be provided adjacent to the proposed borrow pit locations. There would be confirmatory monitoring of water quality. Standard construction practices to prevent water pollution would be observed throughout the construction period. This would include the containment and immediate removal and disposal of spillages of fuels, lubricants or oils, in the unlikely event of such spillages occurring. Fuels and oils would be stored in low permeability bunded areas with provision for adequate spill retention capacity.

On roads and traffic, mitigation would include the use of a temporary bypass around the village of Cappawhite to take traffic away from residences. This would also minimise impact on the village itself during construction. The use of existing on-site tracks would be maximised, thereby minimising the material requirements. The use of on-site resources would be maximised, particularly stone material for road construction, again minimising the material

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 44 requirements. A joint condition survey of public roads would be carried out with the planning authority prior to the commencement of the project. Following from this, local road improvements would be agreed in the vicinity of the site and any remedial works that might be necessary following the completion of the construction. A Traffic Management Plan would be agreed with the planning authority. Normal traffic management procedures would be put in place for the delivery of wind turbine components.

On air and climate, mitigation would be focused on limiting dust generation. There would be wheel wash facilities at the entrance from the public road, dust suppression by water spray on access tracks, use of appropriately covered trucks during delivery of materials, control of vehicle speeds, the use of ready- mix concrete rather than on-site batching and the regular inspection of public roads, with cleaning where necessary.

On forestry, the use of existing forest tracks, as far as possible would limit the amount of felling necessary. Such felling and extraction of timber would, as far as possible take place with the currently licensed extraction activities in order to minimise traffic and noise disturbance. As far as possible this would take place outside the bird breeding season. Brush would be removed and transported off-site to avoid release of nutrients arising from decay.

In terms of material assets, possible mitigation is proposed in respect of air navigation and electromagnetic interference. Similar measures to those required for the original Cappawhite Wind Farm would be put in place for the proposed development in terms of identifying the turbine locations and marking any turbines required by appropriate lighting in consultation with the Irish Aviation Authority. While electromagnetic interference is not anticipated, in the event that there is interference with television reception, all necessary measures would be undertaken to fully eliminate this impact. A protocol agreement would be entered into with RTE in this regard.

In relation to cultural heritage, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.

Overall, I consider that the lasting residual effects identified in the EIS are likely to be at an acceptable level. In terms of technical difficulty, the site is unexceptional. The mitigation proposed is tried and tested for a site that cannot be considered to be environmentally high risk. Where I have issues with the proposed development, particularly in regard to visual impact, this is discussed further in the relevant sections of my assessment.

18.2 Appropriate Assessment

The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 6 (3) requires that “any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the (European) Site, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 44 competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public”.

The appeal site lies on the watershed between two different river systems. This watershed consists of the “ridgeline” which runs approximately northeast – southwest through the centre of the site. On the east side of this “ridgeline”, a series of streams run off in an easterly direction towards the Multeen River, a tributary of the River Suir. On the other side of the “ridgeline” a series of streams run off in a north-westerly direction to the Cahernahallia River, ultimately a tributary of the River Shannon. Appendix C 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement is entitled “Appropriate Assessment”. It identifies just two Natura Sites within a three kilometre radius of the appeal site that could potentially be affected by the development, namely the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Site Code 2137) and the Lower River Shannon SAC (Site Code 2165). Appendix C 2 notes that there are two stages involved in the Appropriate Assessment process, namely, the screening stage and the Appropriate Assessment stage. Screening is carried out to determine the necessity for a more detailed Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment where potential impacts are deemed to be of significance. Appendix C 2 notes that Appropriate Assessment is carried out by describing the project, identifying and describing the Natura Sites that could potentially be affected, identifying and describing the potential impacts, assessing the significance of impacts identified on the integrity of the Natura Sites and excluding Natura Sites where it can be shown that there would be no significant effects. Figure 8.1 of the Environmental Impact Statement shows the location of the two SACs. The interest features and conservation objectives of the Lower River Suir SAC, at minimum distance of 0.5 kilometres to the east of the appeal site and the Lower River Shannon SAC at a minimum distance of one kilometre to the west of the appeal site are given in Appendix C 2. The draft conservation objectives for both sites are noted to include maintenance and, where possible, enhancement of the extent and quality of the qualifying (Annex I) habitats and the maintenance and, where possible, increasing of the populations of the qualifying (Annex II) species.

The EIS states that based on the location of the proposed development in relation to both SACs, no potential direct or indirect impacts on the qualifying terrestrial habitats are foreseen. Based on the configuration of the proposed site layout, the construction activities, the distance from the SACs and the species in question, no direct impacts to fauna species are foreseen. However, taking into consideration the ecological characteristics of the Natura Sites, together with the nature of the proposed development, a potential indirect impact on water quality is identified. This would arise from accidental spillages associated with refuelling machinery during the construction phase and also from the mobilisation and transport of sediment due to excavation of soil. Referring to suspended solids, Appendix C 2 notes that appropriate environmental engineering controls and measures are incorporated into the design of the project as described in the hydrology and water section of the EIS to mitigate against this potential impact. Provided these mitigation

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 44 measures and controls are followed throughout the construction phase, the potential impact on the ecology of the SACs is deemed to be insignificant. There is the potential for deterioration in water quality due to the felling of the 16.5 hectares of forestry which would require to be cleared. However, this felling would be carried out by Coillte in accordance with Forest Service Guidelines which aim to protect water quality. In relation to the pollution threat from hydrocarbon spillages, it is noted that appropriate measures are incorporated into the design of the project as described in the water and hydrology section to mitigate against the risk posed by such spillages. Provided these measures and controls are followed, the potential impact on the ecology of the SACs is deemed to be insignificant. The risk from temporary sanitation during the construction phase would be minimised through the location of the site compound away from any natural watercourse or drainage features. The facility, in any case, comprises self-contained port-a-loo units which would be managed and serviced regularly and removed off-site on completion of construction. Again, provided regular maintenance, monitoring and auditing of the mitigation measures during the life of the project is carried out, the potential impacts on the water quality throughout the operation and decommissioning phase of the development is deemed to be insignificant.

The EIS also takes into account the in-combination effects of the proposed development, when taken together with the other existing and permitted wind farms. Together with the permitted wind farm at Cappawhite, it also looks at the in-combination effects with the wind farms at Garracummer, Glencarbry, Tooreen, Glenough, Glenough Upper, Knockastanna and Falleenafinoga. Table C 2.3 gives an assessment of the in-combination effect with each of these existing or permitted wind farms and finds in some cases that there is potential for adverse cumulative impacts on the water quality of the two SACs, however, taking into consideration the location of the other wind farm sites in relation to the proposed development and the designated Natura sites, the fact that no adverse significant effects are foreseen from the proposed development, alone, and the measures incorporated into the design of each project to protect water quality downstream, the EIS concludes that no significant adverse cumulative or in-combination impacts are foreseen.

The screening assessment concludes that the conservation interest of the two SACs would not be significantly impacted upon. Consequently there is no necessity for a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment to be carried out.

The planning authority, following initial lodgement of the planning application and the EIS received a letter from the Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government expressing particular conservation concern in relation to the effects of the proposed development on the salmon habitat within the Rivers Shannon and Suir, due to siltation from silt release or landslides, pollution from construction hydrocarbons and untreated cement, erosion due to increased hydrographic peaks in stormwater runoff or lower drought water levels due to excessive drainage leading to reduced upland groundwater storage. It noted in addition, that there is a population of the protected species, freshwater pearl mussel, within the Multeen River, a species with a high water quality requirement

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 44 which is adversely affected by silt and sediment. It stated due to the likelihood of the above potential effects without rigorous mitigation, the scale of the development taken in combination with the permitted wind farm and the distance upstream of salmon habitat within the cSAC rivers, an Appropriate Assessment was considered necessary. The screening for Appropriate Assessment carried out by the applicant implicitly acknowledges this by including an in-combination assessment, although this is a requirement of a full assessment. The planning authority acted on the advice of the DoEHLG and sought an Appropriate Assessment as part of its request for further information.

In response to the Planning Authority’s request for further information, the applicant submitted a Natura Impact Statement. This examines the likely impact of the proposed development in terms of the critical habitat/species identified in the two SACs and the distribution of these habitats in those parts of the SAC proximate to the appeal site. In the case of the habitat “watercourses of plain to montane levels” and the species Atlantic Salmon, Brook Lamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Otter, River Lamprey, Sea Lamprey and White Clawed Crayfish, mostly found to be immediately downstream of the appeal site, with freshwater pearl mussels extending to within 12 kilometres downstream of the appeal site in the Multeen River, the effects are identified as deterioration or possible deterioration due to sedimentation or pollution. In addition to the four impacts on water quality identified in the screening assessment namely suspended solids from excavations, suspended solids from forestry clearing, risk of pollution from hydrocarbons and risk from temporary sanitation, a further potential impact is identified, namely risk of altered downstream hydrology. A separate Downstream Hydrological Impact Report was prepared in this regard. This shows that the additional drainage from hard surface areas required for the proposed development would only have a minor effect on the flow regime from the site and based on these predicted changes in hydrographic flow, no significant adverse impacts on the Natura 2000 sites are foreseen.

Again, as in the case of the screening assessment, potential in-combination effects are noted. Table 5.2 of the Natura Impact Statement notes the conservation features of the two SACs, the likely cumulative impacts and the impact significance without mitigation. The likely cumulative impact of habitat alteration due to sedimentation and pollution of watercourses during construction is given a “probably significant” impact rating both in relation to the “watercourses of plain to montane levels” and the critical species found in the SACs proximate to the appeal site. Due to the minimal changes in flow regime, deterioration of habitat due to altered hydrology during construction and operation is deemed to be “unlikely to be significant”.

Following the adoption of the mitigation measures already identified in the screening assessment, the impact significance, following mitigation is deemed variously to be either “extremely unlikely to be significant” or “unlikely to be significant”.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 44 The Natura Impact Statement concludes that it was established that following mitigation, the cumulative impact of the proposed development, together with the other wind farm projects was unlikely to be significant. The conservation interest of the Lower River Suir SAC and the Lower River Shannon SAC would not be significantly impacted upon as a result of the proposed development. Following the implementation of mitigation, the residual impacts of the proposed wind farm would be unlikely to significantly affect either of the Natura 2000 sites.

Overall, I consider that the Natura Impact Statement which was prepared by Inis Environmental Consultants Limited is successful in its identification and characterisation of any possible implications for the two SACs in view of their conservation objectives and in taking into account combination effects. I note that neither the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht nor the planning authority’s Environment Office had further issues in relation to water quality, which is the prime concern in this instance. I consider that there should be no adverse effects on the two SACs and, accordingly, that it is in order for the proposed development to proceed to determination from this point of view

18.3 The Principle of the Development

As noted earlier, the development of wind energy accords with and is in line with international, European and national policy in relation to reducing levels of greenhouse gas emissions and the generation of electricity from renewable resources. The South Tipperary County Development Plan, 2009-2015 also conforms to these policies insofar as it has had regard to the policies and objectives set out in the relevant national and regional documents (Section 1.3).

The county development plan designates this area, the Slieve Felim Mountains or Hollyford Hills, as a Secondary Amenity Area. The development plan (Section 6.3.1) states that in Primary Amenity Areas (specially sensitive) it is considered that landscape values are too high to absorb more than limited change, while in Secondary Amenity Areas (highly sensitive) the landscape is capable of absorbing change that reflects and enhances the current landscape condition. In assessing applications for development within the areas, the Council will have regard to the capacity of the landscape to absorb the development. In so doing, the Council will balance the need to protect the landscape character against the requirement for the appropriate and sustainable socioeconomic development of the area, while also having regard to the relevant policies on wind energy (my emphasis).

Three areas in South Tipperary are designated Primary Amenity Areas. These are the Knockmealdown Mountains in the south, the Galtee Mountains in the west and Slievenamon towards the southeast. Apart from the Hollyford Hills, the Slieveardagh Hills (a substantial area to the east and northeast of Cashel) and an area to the east of Slievenamon up to the county boundary are also designated Secondary Amenity Areas.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 44 The wind energy policy maps show the Areas Unsuitable for Wind Energy Development to coincide with the areas of primary amenity and areas to the east of Cashel and north of Carrick-on-Suir. Two areas are identified as Areas Preferred for Wind Energy Development. These are the area centred on, but excluding, Hollyford and the greater part of the Slieveardagh Hills. The greater part of the county and the area to the south and west of Hollyford Village are identified as Areas Open for Consideration. Based on these designations, it follows that many of the wind farms in the vicinity of the appeal site are located in Preferred Areas for Wind Energy Development. These include the greater part of the Glencarbry Wind Farm, the Glenough Wind Farm, the Moanvaun Wind Farm and the Garracummer Wind Farm. The permitted Cappawhite Wind Farm, as well as proposed Turbine 9 also appear to be within the Preferred Area for Wind Energy Development.

The Area Open for Consideration is largely defined by the ridgeline joining the highest points surrounding it. It includes the two river valleys, i.e. that of the Multeen River, which flows through Hollyford in the eastern part of the area and the Cahernahallia River in the western part of the area. The eastern and western valley sides of these rivers effectively terminate at these enclosing ridgelines. The hill, rising to 440 metres, on which Turbines 10-22 would be erected, effectively forms the western and eastern valley sides of the Multeen River and the Cahernahallia River, respectively. It forms the watershed between the two rivers.

In Areas Open for Consideration, the county development plan places the onus on the developer to demonstrate why the development should be granted permission. No part of the planning application or the environmental impact statement specifically answers this requirement. However, Section 2.4 of the EIS notes that the turbines in the proposed extension are remote in relation to proximity to adjacent properties in comparison with some of the wind farm applications in the Hollyford Hills. There are no properties within 500 metres of any of the proposed turbine locations. The same section acknowledges the “Open for Consideration” designation of the appeal site and notes that “any impact on the environment must be low and subject to proper planning and sustainable development and the Guidelines set out in this policy document” . At Section 3.2 of the environmental impact statement, on alternative sites, a number of siting criteria are quoted. These are

• An estimated wind speed of at least 7.5 – 8 metres per second (27– 29kph). • Proximity to a connection point with the national electricity grid. • Reasonable road access. • Terrain and ground conditions suitable for construction. • No special designations which would significantly affect planning permission potential. • Low potential for electromagnetic interference. • Sufficient distance from residencies to minimise amenity impacts.

It is pointed out that extensions to existing developments have three obvious advantages in comparison to new site developments namely

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 44

• An electrical connection to the national electricity network is already available and a substation has already been constructed. Therefore, no further grid connection lines are required.

• Public road realignments have already been dealt with and a significant proportion of the civil infrastructure (tracks, etc.), to facilitate access is already in place within the wind farm.

• The proportional visual impact over and above the existing wind farm due to the additional turbines is small compared with similar number of turbines located on a completely new site.

On the size and topography of the site, it is noted the site should be of sufficient size to accommodate a wind energy development that is commercially viable. A large open site is required and the turbines, themselves require sufficient distance between each other so that there would be no wind-take. Proximity of residences is a significant factor in site selection. Again, it is noted that there are no residences within the commonly accepted minimum 500 metre buffer zone between residences and the nearest turbine. It is noted that the Cappawhite site is suitable on the grounds of its size and local topography.

In my view, while not specifically demonstrating why the development should be granted, the applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate the suitability of the site in relation to the normal selection criteria for wind farm locations. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of the turbines would be located at higher elevations on the highest part of the area deemed only “Open for Consideration” means that particular care needs to be taken in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the upland area, itself, and the adjoining lowlands and valleys. Nevertheless, I consider that the proposed development should be regarded as acceptable in principle.

18.4 Visual Impact

The third party appeal implies that if the present proposal is granted permission, there would be a total of 78 turbines within a 6 kilometre radius of Cappawhite. The appeal claims that “due to the topography and high concentration of the wind turbine developments jumbled along the hillsides and ridges on three sides of the proposed site, the cumulative effect will lead to total saturation and dominance of the landscape”. The EIS includes photographs and photomontages taken from distances of about 4 kilometres from the centre of the appeal site up to about 16 kilometres from the centre of the appeal site. The close-in viewpoints include Hollyford Village, Cappawhite Village and a minor county road approximately 3 kilometres to the northeast of the village of Doon. As part of its request for further information, the planning authority sought the submission of additional more localised photomontages including views to the southwest (towards Cappawhite) from Hollyford Village, views to the north from the R497 regional road at Lackenacoombe, views to the north from the bridge at

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 44 Ironmills on the R505, views to the north from Cappawhite National School and views to the south from Anglesea Bridge.

Despite the misgivings of the appellants and the allegation that the positions of some of the photomontages have been carefully chosen so that some of the turbines would be hidden behind bushes and trees and other obstructions, I consider that in the vicinity of some of the locations chosen, it would be difficult to get a clear view of the proposed, permitted and constructed turbines. As noted in the applicant’s response to the appeal the wire frame model indicates the number and disposition of the turbines which would be in the field of view in the event that intervening vegetation was cleared.

In relation to the alleged saturation and dominance of the landscape and in particular, the landscape relative to the villages of Cappawhite and Hollyford, EIS Photomontages 7 and 6, respectively, and further information Photomontages 13 and 15, respectively, are of relevance. Although there is a large number of turbines when seen from both Cappawhite and Hollyford, lending credence to the claim of saturation, those seen from Cappawhite, while at the same approximate distance of 2 kilometres, appear much less dominant than those seen from Hollyford, owing to the much more gentle slope and lower elevation of the wind turbines near Cappawhite. In terms of visual impact, I consider that the turbines seen from Cappawhite should be regarded as acceptable, but I have reservations about those seen from Hollyford, as noted later in this report under the subheading “The First Party Appeal”.

(Note there appear to be inaccuracies and omissions in the photomontages. Photomontage 6 from Hollyford notes correctly that the nearest turbine is Turbine 22, but this turbine is in fact out of frame in the photomontage. Photomontage 15 is taken from very close by to Photomontage 6, yet the height of the turbines is shown to be less than 50% that of those shown in Photomontage 6. In my view Photomontage 6 gives a more accurate portrayal of the proximity of the appeal site to Hollyford village. In Photomontage 13 from Cappawhite, Turbine 9 is claimed to be the nearest turbine, although Turbine 8 seems closer on the map, but in any case, Turbine 9, as recognised in the text, would be partially visible to the left of the view, though the tip of one of its blades can just be seen. In Photomontage 7, Turbine 9 is claimed to be closest to the viewer, but again, Turbine 8 seems closer on the map and again Turbine 9 is out of frame).

The third party appeal is critical of the lack of photomontages from the R505 to the west of Cappawhite and also from the village of Toem, approximately 2 kilometres to the southwest of Cappawhite. A view from the R505 to the west of Cappawhite might well give a better impression of the cumulative impact of the permitted and proposed development, but this is a less populated area than the village itself. Again, the cumulative impact of the proposed development might be seen better from the village of Toem, but this village is a further kilometre from the permitted and proposed development, the closest turbine being proposed Turbine 9 at a distance of almost 3 kilometres and then the permitted turbines in the Cappawhite Wind Farm .

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 44 The third party appeal claims that the control building and construction compound would be completely visible from a wide area on the hillside behind and above Cappawhite. The Wind Energy Development Guidelines are cited in this regard, as this aspect of the development appears to be contrary to their advice that control buildings, where practicable, should be located in a dip or hollow. However, I note that the control building has already been permitted with the 8 turbine Cappawhite Wind Farm and that it is now proposed to extend this permitted development. The electrical transformer station would now be 54 metres by 30 metres in plan rather than 30 metres by 30 metres. However, this would largely be open and the main building would consist of the control building measuring 23.5 metres by 7.9 metres by 6.3 metres – about the same size as a large domestic bungalow, albeit at a considerably higher altitude than the highest houses in the vicinity.

18.5 Geology and Soils

The issue of the stability of the soils and underlying geology in the area of the appeal site was of concern to the planning authority in its request for further information. The Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had noted, in respect of geotechnical stability, that peat depths are comparatively low in the area of the proposed development. Nevertheless, it held that a clear detailed geotechnical risk assessment was required, given recent landslides that had affected cSAC rivers in County Kerry and County Clare. It recommended that the planning authority had to be satisfied that the proposed development should not result in soil movement from the site into the Multeen River or the Cahernahallia River. As part of its request for further information, the planning authority required the preparation and submission of a full and detailed report supporting the conclusion of low geotechnical risk in Section 11 of the EIS, establishing how risk rating values were obtained from the site data. The applicant was advised that this assessment should include roads and transport routes in addition to the proposed locations for the turbines.

The response to the planning authority’s request for further information noted that peat is not present throughout all of the site and investigations had shown that where it does occur, only moderate depths are present. While a peat depth of greater than 0.5 metres and a slope of more than 5 degrees can indicate a potential risk of peat instability, there are no such incidences at Cappawhite. The applicant had regard to the Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments – Best Practice Guide for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments; Scottish Executive, January 2007. These guidelines recommend that below the figures mentioned above, peat stability assessments are not necessary. Despite this, an assessment was carried out. This resulted in the Proposed Wind Farm at Cappawhite, County Tipperary, Preliminary Peat Stability and Site Walkover Assessment Report produced by ESBI in November of 2010. A copy of this report was submitted with the further information. It was submitted that the investigation that had been completed at Cappawhite greatly exceeded the level necessary for such a site. The method of assessment is recognised as constituting industry best practice and the assessment

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 44 undertaken fully meets the advice in the Wind Energy Development Guidelines.

Chapter 3 of the Preliminary Peat Stability and Site Walkover Report is entitled Observations at Turbine Locations and consists of “ pertinent observations… made at or as close as possible to each location ”. These are shown in Table 3. These show that while in many instances, the slope is greater than 5 degrees, in all cases, there is either no peat cover or shallow peat cover up to 0.4 metres. The further information submission was circulated and a second report was received from the Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This continued to raise concerns about other matters, but said nothing further in relation to peat and soil stability.

In general, I consider that the proposed development should be regarded as satisfactory from the point of view of peat stability. I have confirmed that the ground cover characteristics are much as described in the vicinity of some of the turbines. This is notably the case in the vicinity of Turbines 11 and 12 where an existing track reveals approximately half a metre of sand and peat cover in those places where its side banks have been eroded. Similarly, a track in the vicinity of Turbines 14 and 16 shows a very shallow level of ground cover, the track, itself, consisting of bare rock in many locations. Nevertheless, as alluded to in the appeal, I note that the Preliminary Peat Stability and Site Walkover Report, submitted as part of the further information shows that the positions of Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 were inaccessible on foot. The peat depth and slopes at these positions may thus be regarded as informed estimates. Of particular concern is Turbine 21 where the peat thickness is estimated at 0.4 metres and the slope as approximately 4 degrees, both approaching the threshold levels of 0.5 metres and 5 degrees.

18.6 Flora and Fauna

The initial report from the Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the planning authority noted the finding in the EIS that a minimum of one pair of red grouse breeds annually within the site. It stated that the species can be disturbed by traffic and human activity near its breeding areas and mitigation measures were necessary to avoid this. It recommended the seeking of a description of such mitigation measures during the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the Wind Farm. In the event that appropriate assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the two downstream European sites, it recommended the attachment of conditions including monitoring of the use by breeding red grouse of the bog and heath areas within the site for each year from the grant of planning permission until two years after commencement of operation of the last of the surrounding turbines. It required that if red grouse were likely to have been affected by disturbance, then the source of this disturbance should be reduced or eliminated. The planning authority adopted the advice from the DoEHLG in its request for further information (Item 4).

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 44 In response to the planning authority’s request for further information, the applicants reiterated the mitigation measure included in the EIS, namely that construction work for the turbines and access tracks would be conducted outside the main breeding season (April – July) where possible. Where construction work became necessary in the breeding season, this would be undertaken following prior consultation with the NPWS. In such an event, the breeding bird survey would be conducted for ground nesting species on any area proposed for works and all nests identified and protected.

Following circulation of the further information, the planning authority received a further letter from the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. It noted the proposed mitigation of consultation with the NPWS and a survey for grouse with all nests protected, but pointed out that consultation and survey do not constitute mitigation. Protection of nests does not equate with mitigating the abandonment of these nests by birds which have been disturbed. Accordingly, they altered their recommendation to include a more onerous requirement in relation to breeding red grouse, including the requirement to create and monitor sufficient grouse habitat within the area of the local population. This was adopted by the planning authority as Condition 16 of its decision. While the practicality of providing such alternative habitat might seem questionable, I note that the applicants have not appealed this condition.

Notwithstanding the non-recording of long-eared owls and barn owls and peregrine falcon, the last named being mentioned as a likely visitor, and pine marten I consider that the applicants’ presentation in relation to flora and fauna is generally satisfactory. Only occasional foraging hen harriers have been recorded at the appeal site. The nearest isolated pair breed at a distance of about 1 kilometre to the northwest (EIS Page 9.7). The nearest breeding stronghold for this species is the Slievefelim and Silvermines Mountains SPA (Site Code 004165), some 3 kilometres to the north. I note and concur with the applicants’ response in relation to birds, bats and other mammals.

18.7 Noise

The EIS (Chapter 6) explains that wind turbine technology has been greatly refined and that modern turbines, such as those proposed, produce little noise. The sound spectrum of modern turbines has the same characteristics as broadband noise, i.e. there are no outstanding tones or pulsating variations to the sound level. Tonal noise, which overwhelmingly has mechanical origins, has generally been eradicated through mechanical design and sound insulation. The sound power from a single turbine at a wind speed of 8 metres per second (29 kph) creates a sound pressure level of 55 to 60 dB(A) outdoors at a distance of 50 metres from the turbine, i.e. about the same level as conservational speech. At a house 500 metres away, the equivalent sound pressure would be 30 – 35 dB(A) when the wind is blowing from the turbine towards the house. It would be likely to be the case that any receiver would only be influenced by a few of the turbines in the Wind Farm. As the wind speed increases so does the rotor speed and hence the turbine noise, but the ambient background noise from the wind in nearby trees and hedgerows and

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 44 around buildings, also increases, but at a faster rate. The implication appears to be that the increased turbine noise would be drowned out by the increased wind noise.

Table 6.5 in the EIS shows the recorded ambient noise levels in the locality at wind speeds varying from 4 metres per second (14 kph) to 10 metres per second (36 kph). This shows that the night-time ambient noise levels at lower wind speeds. There is a low noise environment in the area, i.e. the background noise is less than 30 db(A). In these circumstances it is recommended that wind turbine noise should be limited to 35 to 40 dB(A) and, accordingly, the applicants have chosen a limit of 37.5 dB(A). The worst case exposure to potential noise impact is predicted to be house 38 on the southeast side of the Cahernahallia River valley. Table 6.4 shows that the noise levels would be within acceptable bounds. Other than a cumulative noise impact with the permitted Cappawhite wind turbines, the EIS indicates that the other wind farms are sufficiently separated from the proposed development to ensure that there would be no cumulative impact.

All of the foregoing is reflected in the applicants’ response to the third party appeal wherein it is stated that the nature and character of the Cappawhite area had been taken into account by way of measurement of ambient conditions and the noise modelling used site specific topographic data. The applicants note that they are obliged to comply with the planning authority’s condition 11 which would safeguard residential amenity.

I do not consider that noise from the operation of the turbines should be an issue.

18.8 Shadow Flicker

Despite the misgivings of the appellants that the base map upon which the shadow flicker map at Figure 7.1 of the EIS is based, is outdated, I consider that it has been reasonably clearly established and on a conservative basis, that an unacceptable level of shadow flicker will not occur at any residence in the surrounding area. The map can be checked to confirm that all recorded houses which could potentially be shadowed, owing to the orientation of the proposed wind turbine relative to the house, and its location within 920 metres of the relevant house (10 rotor diameters), are reflected in Table 7.1. The assessment is conservative insofar as it assumes that all the listed residences have a window orientated in such a manner that it could potentially be affected and that there is no intervening vegetation between the turbine and the receptor. The potentially worst affected house in Table 7.1 is house H28 in the townland of Bahagha with an expected level of 10 hours 24 minutes annually, just over one third of the 30 hours annually recommended as a maximum in the Wind Energy Development Guidelines (Section 5.12). Having regard to this level of undershoot, it is not credible that any recently constructed house which has inadvertently been omitted would exceed the 30 hour annual threshold.

I note also the applicants’ response which refers to the issue of photosensitive epilepsy and the fact that the rotational speed would be markedly below that

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 44 which could give rise to this condition. This is not to say that a much lower level of shadow flicker would not be perceived as a nuisance by some.

18.9 Architectural Heritage

The third party appeal alludes to the effect of the proposed transport routes on protected structures. The route for exceptional vehicle loads refers to works which would require to be undertaken in the vicinity Camus Bridge (on the R505, approximately 4 kilometres northwest of Cashel). The appeal refers to the restructuring of the bridge over the River Suir at Ironmills, another protected structure. It expresses concern in relation to the impact on the integrity of the 16 protected structures/buildings in the village of Cappawhite, most of them on the Main Street, which would arise from HGV traffic. The applicants’ response in relation to Camus Bridge is as noted previously. It is clarified that no works would be undertaken to the bridge structure, itself. It should be noted that Camus Bridge, which crosses the River Suir is approximately 100 metres to the south of the sharp bend which will require improvement in order to allow specialist vehicles carrying turbine parts to continue along the R505.

Appendix 5 of the county development plan consists of a record of protected structures. In the village of Cappawhite 10 protected structures are shown to face directly onto the Main Street – the R505. In addition, the bridge at Ironmills is also a protected structure. The response to the planning authority’s request for further information shows that two of the likely haul routes for crushed stone would approach the appeal site from the west through the village of Cappawhite. The remaining likely haul route for crushed stone would approach from the east. It would have to cross the bridge at Ironmills. The likely haul route for concrete would approach from the south and would not need to go through the village of Cappawhite or across the bridge at Ironmills.

Notwithstanding the number of protected structures and the additional traffic generated, I do not consider that these protected structures would be likely to be damaged as a result of the proposed development.

18.10 Other Matters

The appeal expresses concern in relation to ice throw/blade damage. The applicant responds that ice formation would be highly unlikely in Irish climatic conditions. Even if there was a failure in the automatic shutdown which should occur as a result of blade imbalance which would follow a build- up of ice, I consider that the nearest houses, at over 500 metres, are sufficiently far away from the nearest turbines to ensure that they would not be hit by ice or part of a disintegrating blade. The appellant’s claim that wind turbines can and do pose serious fire hazards is denied by the applicant. I accept the applicant’s claim that wind turbines do not constitute a fire hazard. This is not to hold that fires in wind turbines are unknown. An internet search will show many examples of such occurrences, the most recent probably being

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 44 that at Ardrossan, North Ayrshire in Scotland on 8 th December 2011, possibly due to the failure of an automatic shutdown during exceptionally high winds. The applicant’s confirmation that the turbines would be located in clear felled areas would seem to offer assurance in the unlikely event of a fire.

18.11 The First Party Appeal

The first party appeal accepts that Turbine 22 is the most prominent when seen from Hollyford and that it might be viewed as being visually dominant. It accepts that this turbine should be omitted. The appellant disagrees with the planning authority’s planner’s opinion that the proposed development taken together with the permitted Cappawhite Wind Farm and those of other operators at Garracummer and Glencarbry, when seen from the southeast from the bridge at Ironmills, would give rise to a continuous line of turbines along the ridge where the turbines join up and become one large development. The submitted Photomontage 12 is claimed to refute this concept and to show that the turbines appear in groups along the horizon and that the turbine layout within these groups has a regular aspect. Each Wind Farm would be seen as a separate visual unit. Moreover, as noted in the EIS, it is pointed out that turbines at this distance are perceived as one element of many within the landscape in good visibility. Photomontage 20, approximately 2.5 kilometres further northeast, shows Turbines 18 to 22 forming a cohesive visual unit with the other turbines at Cappawhite. The same claim is made in respect of Photomontage 19 which views the proposed development from the north. Overall, I concur with this aspect of the appeal and I consider that the photomontages demonstrate that there would be a reasonable separation between the permitted and proposed turbines at Cappawhite and the other wind farms in the overall area.

Photomontage 15 from the centre of Hollyford village notes that four turbines namely Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 would be almost fully visible. Six turbines would be partially visible, while one would only be seen by its blade tips. Due to their close proximity, it is claimed that the turbines would form a significant and apparent part of the scene. The evaluation is that the visual impact would be substantial adverse, although the point is made that there would be no cumulative visual impact from this viewpoint.

I consider that Photomontage 15 and, even more so, Photomontage 18 demonstrate the visual dominance which would arise from the proximity of Turbines 18, 20 and 21. This would be even greater for the isolated Turbine 22. The text of Photomontage 15 recognises that these four turbines would be almost fully visible. Their visual impact is classified as substantial adverse. These turbines would be on the slope facing towards the village and at a distance between 500 metres and 1,000 metres closer to the village of Hollyford and to its school than the next “row” formed by Turbines 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. I consider that these turbines would be unduly dominant and that the planning authority was correct in seeking their omission. Excluding these turbines would, coincidently, also eliminate shadow flicker from the houses which would potentially suffer the most in this regard, albeit well

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 44 within acceptable limits, and obviate the concerns of the third party observer in relation to excessively close proximity to his property.

19.0 CONCLUSION

By comparison with the turbines which have already been permitted at Cappawhite the proposed turbines, with the exception of Turbine 9, are generally at higher elevations and closer to the 440 metre summit at Inchinsquillib. At these higher elevations they will be able to avail of stronger winds. Although they would further concentrate wind turbines in the general area and locate them in an area only Open for Consideration under the planning authority’s Landscape Policy for Wind Energy Development, I consider that the majority of the turbines are sufficiently far removed from the nearest villages of Cappawhite and Hollyford as to be acceptable. However, Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 are too close and too prominent when seen from the village of Hollyford. Overall, I consider that the planning authority has dealt appropriately and comprehensively with this application and that its decision should be upheld in this instance.

20.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that the planning authority’s decision be upheld in this instance and that permission be granted for this development for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) the national policy with regard to the development of sustainable energy resources,

(b) the general suitability of the site for a wind power electricity generating facility due to the wind resource available,

(c) the separation distance of the proposed turbines from any inhabited dwellings, and

(d) the permitted 8 turbine Wind Farm predominantly to the southwest to which the proposed Wind Farm would form an extension, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the visual amenities or landscape character of the area, would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would not otherwise be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 44 CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans and particulars including the Environmental Impact Statement lodged with the application as amended by the further plans and particulars including the Natura Impact Assessment submitted on the 14 th day of July, 2011, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require points of detail to be agreed with the planning authority, these matters shall be the subject of written agreement and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed particulars.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. Turbines 18, 20, 21 and 22 and Anemometer Tower 2 and associated new and upgraded access tracks and borrow pit shall be omitted.

Reason: To prevent the visual dominance of the village of Hollyford.

3. The permission for the development hereby permitted shall expire on the 6 th day of February, 2033. The wind turbines and related ancillary structures and temporary roadways shall then be removed and the site appropriately reinstated within 6 months of this date, unless planning permission shall have been granted for their retention for a further specified period. Details of the reinstatement plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: To enable the impact of the development to be reassessed, having regard to the changes in technology and design during this period and to ensure that the duration of this Wind Farm extension is co-terminus with the Cappawhite Wind Farm permitted under An Bord Pleanála Ref. PL23.225669.

4. Prior to commencement of development, details of the proposed turbines, including design, height and colour shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority. The hub height of the proposed turbines shall not exceed 85 metres and the diameter of the rotor blades shall not exceed 92 metres. The turbines shall be geared to ensure that the blades rotate in the same direction as those in the permitted Cappawhite Wind Farm. Details in this regard shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

5. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall agree in writing with the planning authority, a protocol for a full survey of all roads to be used as haul routes for the delivery of crushed stone, sand, concrete products, turbine and tower components to the site. Following agreement on the protocol, the developer shall submit a full haul route survey for the written agreement of the planning authority prior to commencement of development. This survey shall include details of remedial and strengthening measures necessary along the route in order to withstand the weight and volume and

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 44 limited manoeuverability of traffic involved in the construction phase. Where additional wayleaves are required over private land, the necessary signed third party consents shall be submitted to the planning authority. Any upgrading works necessary shall be provided at the developer’s expense to the written satisfaction of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and to protect the integrity of the public road.

6. Detailed construction methods for the turbines, together with construction methods for the access roads shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

7. The area surrounding each turbine shall be backfilled with topsoil immediately above the turbine base up to the bottom of the tower. This backfilling shall take place up to the level of the surrounding land.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

8. Drainage arrangements for the foundations of the turbines and for the access road, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health.

9. Details of all fencing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

10. All oils and fuels shall be stored in bunded areas. Details in this regard shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to avoid pollution of ground and surface waters.

11. The developer shall facilitate the archaeological appraisal of the site and shall provide for the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features which may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall:

(a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development, and

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 44 (b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of development. The archaeologist shall assess the site and monitor all site development works.

The assessment shall address the following issues:

(i) the nature and location of archaeological material on the site, and

(ii) the impact of the proposed development on such archaeological material.

Prior to commencement of development a report, containing the results of the assessment, shall be submitted to the planning authority. Arising from this assessment, the developer shall agree in writing with the planning authority details regarding any further archaeological requirements (including, if necessary, archaeological excavation) prior to commencement of construction works.

In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the area and to secure the preservation (in-situ or by record) and protection of any archaeological remains that may exist within the site.

12. (a) Noise levels from the proposed development when measured at the nearest noise sensitive location shall not exceed 43 dB(A) L90 (10 minutes). Measurements shall be made in accordance with ISO recommendation R 1996/1 (Acoustics - Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise - Part 1: Basic Qualities and Procedures).

(b) The developer shall arrange for the monitoring of noise levels within six months of the commissioning of the development. Details of the nature and extent of the monitoring programme, including any mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

13. Construction operations involving heavy goods vehicles supplying the site shall be restricted to between 0800 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1800 hours on Saturdays. During the construction phase of the proposed development, the developer shall erect appropriate warning signs. Details in relation to vehicle types, all plant equipment and the use of public roads in the area during the construction phase shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and residential amenity.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 44 14. Prior to the commissioning of the Wind Farm, the Irish Aviation Authority shall be informed of the co-ordinates of the constructed turbines and “as constructed” elevation of the highest point of each turbine and each rotor blade. Any lights or other warning devices required by the Irish Aviation Authority shall be placed on the turbines in accordance with details to be agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

15. Facilities shall be installed at the developers’ expense to minimise interference with communications, radio or television in the area. Details in this regard shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

16. Upon the termination of the use of the Wind Farm, the turbines shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site shall be restored to its existing condition in consultation with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and visual amenity and to ensure that the structures do not remain on site in the event of the development not supplying electricity to the national grid.

17. Within one month of the completion of the construction of the proposed development, the developer shall provide certification of ground stability post construction. Details in this regard shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority.

Reason: To monitor the effects of the development on land stability in the area.

18. Monitoring of the use by breeding red grouse of the bog and heath areas within the site shall be carried out by a competent experienced ornithologist each year from the grant of planning permission until 2 years after commencement of operation of the last of the surrounding turbines. If red grouse are likely to have been affected by the disturbance, then the source of this disturbance shall be reduced or eliminated, if feasible. If not feasible, or, if, in the opinion of the ornithologist, the disturbance has been significant for the local grouse population, then sufficient grouse habitat shall be created in the area of the local population and the success of this creation shall be monitored. The results of this monitoring shall be submitted to the planning authority.

Reason: To avoid disturbance of red grouse, a Red Listed bird species.

19. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 44 Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.

______Andrew C. Boyle, Senior Planning Inspector.

5th January, 2012.

.

PL23.239594 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 44