An Bord Pleanála
Ref.: PL25.237728
Development: Construction of 9 no. wind turbines, (revised from 12) switch room, anemometer mast and all associated site works at Gaybrook Demesne, Mahonstown, Gibbonstown, Ballintlevy, Bellfield or Brannockstown and Gallstown, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath.
Planning Application
Planning Authority: Westmeath County Council
Planning Authority Ref.: 10/5009
Applicant: Galetech energy Development (GED Ltd.)
Type of Application: Permission
Planning Authority Decision: Refuse permission
Planning Appeal
Type of Appeal: First party against conditions. Third party (2 no.)
Appellants: 1. GED Ltd. (1 st ) 2. Paul and Joan Kealy (3 rd ) 3. Midlands Industrial Wind Turbines Action Group (3 rd )
Observers: 1. County Westmeath Tourism Ltd. 2. Colm Arthur 3. Raymond Martin 4. Belvedere House Gardens and Park
Inspector: Suzanne Kehely
Dates of Site Inspection: 11 th and 24 th January and 10 th February 2011
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report relates to both first and third party appeals against the decision of the planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development. The planning application was accompanied by an EIS. The proposed development area and number of turbines was significantly reduced and layout was modified in revised plans submitted as part of further information. I inspected the site and surrounding area over three days. Weather was overcast during January inspections and relatively clear in February. These photographs are appended to this report.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site lies approximately 6.5km south of Mullingar and 3.5km east of Lough Ennell a designated SPA, SCA and High amenity Area. It is also 1.5km west of Milltownpass Bog a designated NHA. The area is best described as an inhabited rural area with working farms and extensive ribbon development. There are 251 dwelling within a 1km range of the original site and this was reduced to 91 in the revised development area.
2.2 The site is fragmented and in the original drawings submitted with the application related to five parcels of land with a total footprint of 16 sq.km. The terrain ranges from gently undulating (with contour level ranging from above 100m and peaking at 129 to lower lying flat peaty/ bogland at contour range of 89-90m. at the southern end near the old N6.. The main routes accessing the lands are the R400 which runs north south between Mullingar and Rochfortbridge west of the site and the county road L5004 which is similarly aligned east of the site. The old N6 which runs east to west is just south of the lands and there are a number of east west county roads crossing the subject townlands. The land is for the most part pasture land with extensive ribbon development along the surrounding road network.
2.3 East of Gaybrook: This part of the site is characterised by a mix of dense woodland in an undulating terrain and established residential estates. Woodville House restaurant is nearby. The east west route from Gaybrook Demesne is poorly aligned road. This part of the site was omitted from the development area in further information.
2.4 Gaybrook Demesne : This part of the subject site is located on the south western perimeter of the Demesne at the northern part of the landholding. It fronts onto the east west Simonstown to Bellville county road L5131. The western boundary north of the L5131 is marked by a mature hedgerow and cluster of trees in the corner. Gaybrook Demesne is a partly walled estate but the original residential structures are in derelict condition. There is a new residence off the main avenue and a working farm in some of the old farm buildings further south. The main entrance and original boundary wall has been breached extensively along the eastern and northern demesne boundary arising from extensive ribbon development. The gate lodge is in derelict condition. This part of the Demesne was also omitted from the site development area in further information.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 2
2.5 Gibbonstown/Mahonstown : The land is gently undulated and picturesque. The contour ranges from about 100m to 129m OD and peaks just east of the sites of the proposed T4 and T5 in the region of the existing monopole. This is the largest tract of land and spans a number of townlands and farm holdings. It stretches a couple of kilometres between the R400 to the west, the L5131 Simonstown/Bellville road to the north, the L5004 county road to the east and the Gibbonstown/Mahonstown road to the south. The R400 is the main route from Mullingar to Rochfortbridge and is reasonably aligned. The L5131 is a relatively new road in that it does not appear in the older ordnance survey maps prior to 1914. It cuts through original open fields as evident by the remaining surviving established boundaries on both sides of the road. It is reasonably straight but narrow although it has open grass margins but lacks the mature boundary ditches of the more established roads. There are a few house/farms along this road and traffic was very light during all inspections. The road to the east is of poor alignment both vertically and horizontally. There are a number of houses including many newer houses.
2.6 The road to the south is similarly if not of more substandard alignment with severely restricted visibility and width at a number of points. There are many older dwellings/farmsteads as well as some newer residences along this road and off tracks. Near its junction with the R400 there is a cul-de- sac lane which runs north towards the subject site. An old track and overgrown wall continue directly on a north south access form this lane up to the site and old ruins in the vicinity of the proposed T4 site. There is an old concrete shelter in this field just south of the proposed T4 and cottage ruin. Similarly along this lane there is rubble from what would appear to be the old structures in the older o.s. maps. A breached wall runs in approximate east west axis and appears to be the old demesne wall. The junction of this lane with the main road has restricted visibility. There is monopole to the south of this wall and this would appear to be the anemometer is which visible from the surrounding road network particularly to the north and east. The land is mainly occupied by grazing livestock and there is some evidence of tillage.
2.7 A gas pipe line traverses this land.
2.8 To the east of the site of T4 there is and there is cul-de-sac road off the 5004 which would appear to have provided access to now derelict Mahonstown house. There is only a farm yard/cattle sheds at the end of this track. Access to the subject site is via gated from this yard. This lane between the yard and public road has poor vertical alignment and is narrow. It is not within the subject site.
2.9 Windmill : This site borders a dense forest plantation which is accessed via a winding severely potholed track off a county road to the east. This track serves two dwellings and curves acutely before traversing the woodland. It terminates at a derelict ruin from where there are vistas across open fields bordered by dense tree lined boundaries. This track is not part of the subject site. The L5004 is the nearest road to the west. The subject site has a narrow frontage onto this road and extends along the south side of a belt of trees and stream (Milltown River tributary – a salmonid river). On the north side of this stream there is an open filed and open vista.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 3
2.10 Gallstown : This part of the site is located between the Gibbonstown/Mahonstown Road to the north and the old N6 to the south. It is low-lying poorly drained land with extensive established woodland plantations which from part of the original Gallstown Demesne. There are panoramic views of the site from the eastern end of the Gibbonstown/Mahonstown Road particular just north of its junction with 5004 which is slightly elevated. The site has a narrow frontage onto the L5004 where there is a field entrance just north of a crescent shaped cattle shed.
2.11 Gallstown House has been demolished but in the vicinity of the site there are two dwellings. There is also a substantial former residence which is now derelict as well as a derelict cottage and older shed/out buildings. Slightly south west of these building there is a spectacular view of a motte in the adjacent field. This site is adjoined to the south by former formal gardens as evidenced by the highly ordered allees. These gardens are largely overgrown and merge into the surrounding extensive woodland as viewed from the distance. The site of T6, 7 and 8 is just north of these gardens and surrounded by woodland to the east and west as well as dispersed copses to the north. Access from the road north of the site and towards Gallstown House/estate appears to be truncated by gated tracks and farm yards.
2.12 There is a cul-de-sac road from the R400 to the west of these woodlands terminating a couple of hundred metres west of the woodland. There are some dwellings in this vicinity. The lands between the dwellings and the woodland is poorly drained boggy land.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The proposed development comprises the construction of a wind farm incorporating • 9 no. turbines of approx. 2.5MW capacity each with a hub height of 85m and rotor diameter of 100m (overall height 135m), this was revised form 12 turbines in the initial application. • 1no. switch room to be constructed in the townland of Gaybrook Demesne (single storey with a gross floor area of 85.5 sq.m. with associated equipment and compound enclosed by 2.4m high palisade fence • 1 no. permanent anemometer mast (85m ) • Foundation, crane hard-standing, underground cabling (8.5km) • Provision /Upgrading of site accesses and road junctions. • 6km of unsealed access road. • Connection to the Mullingar 110Kv substation will be part of a separate planning application either by underground or over-ground cabling. • The turbines are grouped in one staggered linear L shape group of 5 turbines and a looser cluster of 4 all feeding via underground cables to the switch room at Gaybrook Demesne • Total 22.5MW - (reduced from 30MW) • The development is organised in three separately accessed sites.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 4
3.2 Site 1 – Gaybrook/Gibbonstown: This is largest site and turbine nos. 1-5 (in revised plans) form a staggered linear route along a north south axis, the anemometer and switch room/compound. A single vehicular access is proposed off the L5131 road and a network of tracks is proposed alongside field boundaries or along former boundary lines. Turbines have been reduced from 6 to 5 in number and the switch room/compound and anemometer have been relocated from the north side of the L5131 in further information. The turbine heights have also been reduced from 135m to 125m (blade tip height) and turbine locations modified. As part of this development it is proposed to upgrade the junction with the R400 by improving the sightlines to the north. This ground is largely under grass and used for pasture.
3.3 Site 2 – Windmill: This is a relatively small site and relates to one turbine - T6 (in revised plans). It is proposed to access this off the L5004 to the west via a track alongside the south side of a belt of trees before crossing the Milltown River. The track entrance is in the vicinity of a recessed field entrance/track and at point in the road where the road rises to the south.
3.4 Site 3- Gallstown: This is a relatively compact site set in the woodland of the former Gallstown Demesne. Turbine nos. 7, 8 and 9 (in revised plans) are proposed in a triangle with each turbine in a different field. The site entrance is via a proposed upgraded farm yard entrance where there is presently a crescent shaped cattle shed. It is proposed to run the track alongside this shed and through a small field before hugging the field boundaries of the larger adjoining fields. As part of this aspect of the development, it is proposed to upgrade the junction of the L- 5004 and the former N6 where visibility is restricted. A layby on the L5004 is also proposed between the site entrances and the junction.
3.5 The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. The principle points arising in the statement are identified below.
3.5.1 Introduction The proposal involves GE2.5xl turbines each with capacity of 2.5MW where wind resource is 7.8m/s. It is describes as a diversification of farming activities yet both uses can co-exist.
3.5.2 Alternatives The applicants have had regard to a number of wider issues in addition to environmental factors in the site selection process. This included development plan constraints, environmental designations; underlying soil types/ground conditions, wind speed/performance, accessibility to land, ownership, accessibility to grid, land uses. Alternative layouts were also considered having regard to the gas pipeline and visual and amenity impact. Alternative turbine design and mechanisms have also been considered.
3.5.3 Ecology Flora: No protected or rare species of plat were recorded during the survey of arable crops, earth banks, buildings/artificial surfaces, drainage ditches, improved grasslands, wet grassland, mixed broadleaved woodland, scrub, hedgerow, and treelines.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 5
Fauna: Hares, Foxes and bats were sighted and are protected species. Consequently the loss of broadleaved woodland and wet grassland is of most concern. It is expected that the implementation of mitigation measures will limit direct mortality on the species during construction and but is expected species will remain within the site and continue to use the area after construction.
3.5.4 Orthinological Impact Fifty-two species were recorded over a 12 month period of which 44 are thought to have bred. These included species in Annex 1 and red-listed species of conservation concern. Two species of birds of prey - sparrow hawk and Kestrel were observed as well as a migrant Golden Plover. In terms of impact the significance is considered to be of low to very low concern subject to normal design care.
Direct habitat loss is confined to hedgerows which are a common habitat type. No collision impact identified. Disturbance is low to very low. The practice of minimising habitat removal as well as timing ill minimise impact. Planting of new hedgerow along new roads will improve the ecological significance of the area.
3.5.5 Hydrology Poor drainage identifies near Gallstown. The eastern part of the site is within the catchment for Milltown River and Monagh River which are with the River Boyne hydrometric area. The river Boyne is an SAC and Salmonid water under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive.
The overall surface water quality is classed as moderately polluted. EPA data indicates overall deterioration in Rochfortbridge Stream, Castlejordan River and Milltown River. There is some perched groundwater water in the area.
The overall design seeks to minimise earthworks so as to minimise silt deposition. Potential impacts are considered minor, however mitigation measures are proposed including store cover, roads and s.w. drainage system as well as measures at construction phase such as settlement ponds and silt traps and off-site refuelling. Portaloos are proposed and no septic tanks/treatment system is proposed.
3.5.6 Geology There are no geological heritage sites in the area (source: GSI). While there is peat in the lower lying area – owing to its shallow depth and the local topography the risk of peat slides is low. There is risk of some soil erosion and consequent vulnerability of ground from leakage of oils etc. but it is proposed to store (appropriately) excavated material and infill and otherwise disposed of by way of re-use or suitable land fill.
3.5.7 Landscape and Visual Impact - check amenity zoning/views The study catchment extends to a 20km radius. Zone of Theoretical Influence maps are used and these do not allow for any existing/proposed screening- it is worst case scenario. These maps informed the View shed Reference points. Twenty one were selected and include a range of near and distant views. 15 were considered to have a slight impact whereas 6 views were considered to have moderate impact. Mitigation measures include non-reflective surfaces, avoidance of counter rotation of blades and underground cabling between turbines and substation, minimal track provision, preservation of existing features contributing to landscape character and good design.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 6
3.5.8 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural There are no recorded archaeological, architectural or cultural heritage features within the land take of the proposed development. There are 21 RMP sites sand 2 protected structures within the study area. There are 18 buildings or structures and nine historic gardens or designed landscapes recorded on the NIAH in townlands within 1km of the study area. No previous recorded field work has been carried in the development area.
There will be no adverse impact on recorded monuments. The absence of above ground structures and separation distances of 30-150m of the track from RMPs is considered to result in low visual impact. A series of lay beds in the vicinity of T11 will be truncated. There would some truncation of parish boundaries Mitigation measures include geophysical surveys, pre-development test trenching and monitoring at sensitive locations.
Woodville House and an ornamental bridge are the two nearest protected structures. (But T12 and 7 in original application were subsequently omitted from the development)
3.5.9 Noise RESOFT Release 4 WINDFARM software was used to carry out a noise impact assessment. The study includes 251 houses within 1km of the original site. The results of the analysis indicated that 2 residences were above the recommended noise levels of the 43dB(A) as stated in the Guidelines. House no.116 at a distance of 488m had a predicted noise level of 43.4 dB(A) and house no. 117 had a level of 44 dB(A) If the affected persons are involved in the wind farm then 45d(B) A as an upper fixed level is acceptable.
Mitigation is by way of site layout and design to ensure minimal destruction as turbine type which has no gearbox and is less noisy that it counterparts.
3.5.10 Infrastructure The most critical impact relates to the Bord Gas pipeline traversing the site and intersecting the proposed track route. Following consultation the locations of turbines and tracks were modified such that required distances were achieved. Prior consultation is also required. The Irish Aviation authority, Eircom, RTE, O2 and Vodafone also responded by stating that they had no objections. Meteor did not respond. Based on the consultation process the proposed development is not constrained in this regard. Further consultation with IAA will follow in respect of precise co-ordinates of turbines.
3.5.11 Shadow Flicker House no. 117 was identified as likely to suffer most with 43.55 hours per annum but this house belongs to a consenting landowner. The remaining houses are within the 30 hour duration acceptable range. As a mitigation measure, a sensor could be used.
3.5.12 Climate The construction of the wind farm has the potential to impact on air quality through dust emission from on-site activities and exhaust emissions from site plant, equipment
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 7
and vehicles. On balance the generation of electricity during the operational phase will lead to net saving of greenhouse gas emissions. As a mitigation measure to dust, a dust minimization plan is proposed.
3.5.13 Access The Engineering Department was consulted in Westmeath Council. A transport study sets out the routes for transporting the turbines to the site. Junction improvements are proposed from main access roads to facilitate construction trucks. Reinstatement works will be agreed. All site entrances are designed to have sightlines of 90m in both directions on local roads. A total of 233 trips of abnormal loads per day are estimated during construction phase. Traffic management measures will be agreed with the council. A total of 6640 HGV trips and 8343 van trips are estimated over the construction phase 6-9 months. Access tracks 6km of access tracks will be constructed. These will be 5m wide and gravel topped. Mitigation has been built into the proposal and other measures include signage, minimal restrictions, diversions to facilitate continued use and agreements with council.
3.5.14 Socio-economic 52 construction jobs and 12 operation jobs are estimated. 25% of the 60 million capital investment is identified as having the potential to feed into the local economy during construction phase. 11 landowners will benefit for land rental income. A community fun Is proposed at a rate of €2500 per turbine per annum for the lifetime of the project. There are a number of benefits arising from the reduce carbon emissions and contributing positively to climate change as set out under the Kyoto Protocol.
3.5.15 Interactions Human Beings / Noise There impacts will be short-term in nature a perceptible increase in noise sufficient to cause harm to residential amenity would not result given the separations. The nearest properties are landowners of the subject land.
Other interactions examined included: • Human Beings / Shadow Flicker • Human Beings / Landscape and Visual Impact • Human Beings/Electromagnetic Interference • Human Beings /Traffic Impact • Landscape and Visual/Tourism • Landscape and Visual /Archaeology • Flora and Fauna / Soils and Water • Archaeology / Soils and water
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Planning Authority reference: 09/5053 refers to a decision to grant permission of a temporary erect of 6 metre high anemometer mast and associated site works for the purpose of recoding wind speed on the subject site at Gibbonstown, Rochfortbridge
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 8
4.2 PL25C.205586 refers to a grant of permission on appeal for a wind farm (3 turbines, generators, control building, access roads and meteorological toner) at Delvin Co. Westmeath (file attached)
4.3. PL16.227098 refers to a refusal of permission on appeal (overturning grant) for 10 wind turbines at Mullafarry, CO. Mayo. (file attached)
4.4. PL12.205969 refers to a refusal of permission on appeal (overturning PA) for a wind farm consist of 12 no. turbines at hub height of 55m and rotor diameter of 52m. at Tullymoyle Rd. Leitrim. (file attached)
4.5 PL22.222142 refers to a grant of permission on appeal for wind farm (22 turbines, generators, access roads craneage pads and associated infrastructure) at Lisheen, Co. Tipperary.
5.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISION
Further information 5.1 In considering the application, the planning authority sought Further Information in relation to the following matters: • Addressing incompatibility of height of turbines with Hilly and Flat Farmland landscape character having regard to Guidelines. • Impact on cultural Demesnes. • Grid connection • Relocation of anemometer in Gaybrook Demesne • Alternative re site selection and turbines • Demonstration of 200m setback form boundaries • Adequate separation distances (multiples of the rotary blade diameter) • Conflicting Anemometer details • Hard standing • Decommissioning and restoration phase • Consent for junction improvement at R446(old N6) and L5004 • Tree felling, hedgerow removal and consequent impact on biodiversity. • Noise modelling • Accurate maps of existing and permitted residences • Distance to livestock farms • Shadow flicker assessment of impact on houses within 1km radius • Work compound • Landscaping of tracks • Additional photomontages • Type of turbine • Waste management • Treatment of wastewater for switch room • Surface water treatment /discharge • Legal entitlements
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 9
• Sightlines at proposed entrance on L5131-0 and L-5004-0 • Flood analysis of lands surrounding turbine no.8 • Construction traffic Management Plan • Culverting of Milltown River • Impact of watercourses and aquatic biodiversity • Mapping of existing structure to establish impact on architectural heritage.
5.2 Further information was received on 20th July 2010. The overall proposal was reduced and modified as described in section 2.1 of this report. Notably the turbine quantity and layout has been revised and renumbered such that T1-9 do not correspond to the T1-9 in revised plans. The EIS was consequently amended and specific items were addressed accordingly:
5.3 Height : Turbines nos.1-5 inclusive have been reduced to 75m hub height with overall height at 125m. Turbines nos. T6-9 to remain at 135m owing to low lying terrain. This is based on energy yield. The tall mature hedgerows are stated to be a defining feature and provide considerable screening in addition to the dense field pattern and terrain. WCC: Not satisfied
5.4 Impact on Integrity of Demesnes : A revised archaeological report was submitted taking account of revisions. A map outlining extent of demesnes based on 1837 O.S. Map and location of turbines submitted
WCC: Not satisfied. The planning authority notes the reference to rich demesne landscape but acknowledges that the planning authority has as yet an undeveloped Historic Landscape Character Assessment. At the same time historic landscapes must be protected. Need to understand landscape quality and condition, landscape value and landscape sensitivity and landscape capacity. It is considered that there would be a significant adverse effect on historical features.
5.5 Grid Connection: The wind farm will be connected via 38kv cables to Mullingar substation and will be subject of a separate planning application. Underground cabling is indicated where possible. WCC: Concern about overhead cables through Lough Ennell area.
5.6 Impact of Anemometer and switch room on RMP WM026:093 . These have been relocated and clustered with Turbines. WCC: Reservation about demesne landscape as already expressed.
5.7 Alternatives: Alternatives were assessed based on land use and context, wind resource, gird connection, transport, residential amenity, landscape and visual capacity and compliance with policies for alternative energy. The applicant refers to consideration of lowland river areas, Hill of Uisneach, Streamstown and south of Old N6. Alternative Turbines design was also considered. WCC: The omission of the High Capacity Area is considered unacceptable.
5.8 Set back: T6 is 127m set back from boundary with Mr. Cully. A letter of consent has been received. It is also 100 from its boundary with Mr. Brennan. The land is under forest and it is considered will not accordingly be comprised in terms of immediate
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 10
use. T9 is 107 m form Mr and Mrs Gerahty in adjoining lands and no consent has been received. WC: It is considered The applicant has not adequately addressed this issue
5.9 Separation distances : based on 3d in crosswind and 5d in prevailing downwind distances are described as optimal. WCC: Not appropriate having regard to the guidelines.
5.10 Community Fund : Mechanism proposed WCC: acceptable
5.11 Status of anemometer: one in Gibbonstown. Exempted development. WCC acceptable
5.12 Hard standing areas : The applicant provides details of construction, drainage, planting surface water run off at both construction d operational phases. WCC: response considered acceptable
5.13 Decommissioning: Detail provided in respect of turbines and specifically excludes details of cable decommissioning as this is a matter for the utility company.
5.14 Consent for junction works : this is provided WCC: acceptable
5.15 Tree felling and biodiversity: Wind turbines should be 200m woodland and watercourse and also set back from linear habitat features. Mitigation also proposed. WCC: Acceptable subject to conditions
5.16 Noise: Methodology based on ISO 9613:1996 Acoustics Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors part 1 and 2. No unoccupied houses were discovered. WCC Environment Section satisfied.
Senior Planner’s report 10/9/10 : 5.17 This report acknowledges the changes in the layout and revisions on Impact assessment in respect of archaeology and historic demesnes. noise, shadow flicker and gas pipeline, constraints in reduction in height. The report refers to a consultation meeting prior to the submission of further information and in this meeting WCC highlighted their concerns with regard to the open and exposed nature of the site and scale/height of the proposal. Reference is also made to the guidelines in terms of visual dominance and it is considered in this context that the further information fails to address visual impact/scale and height. Policy EH112 in respect of historic demesnes is also referred to and the report concludes that the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on such landscape features. It is also concluded that sufficient research has not been carried out in respect of alternative sites. The exclusion of the Bord na Mona lands on the basis of ownership is not valid.
WCC Sustainable Energy Management Report 19/3/10
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 11
5.18 This report refers to the status of Gate 3 list and Grid capacity. It is stated that the applicant is not on the list and that if all listed applicants connected to the gird the 40% target/capacity for renewable energy source would be exceed. However it is also noted that there may be unforeseen difficulties in securing finance and a further gate programme could commence. The lack of a connection offered by Eirgrid explains the vagueness of such details.
Internal / Technical Reports 5.19 Conservation Architect : Refusal of permission recommended due to negative visual and physical impact on special historic demesne landscape.
5.20 Road Design : No objection subject to conditions
5.21 Area Engineer : No objections subject to conditions
5.22 Environment Department : No objection subject to conditions
Prescribed Bodies 5.23 Bord Gais: ( 28/7/10) No objections subject to a condition that all such works shall comply with the Bord Gais Document ‘Code of Practice for Working the Vicinity of Transmission Pipelines’ (attached)
5.24 EPA ( 1/9/10 )– no comments
5.25 HSE ( 10/8/10) – No objection subject to conditions
5.26 OPW 20/8/10 – the report refer to maintenance strips and proposed works which will effect the Milltown River. Advises of Section 50 consent and compliance with Arterial drainage Act in relation to bridging of watercourse.
5.27 Failte Ireland : No comments
5.28 DoEHLG (Archaeology ): (24/8/10) National Monuments service broadly concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in EIS. T1 access road shall be relocated away from recorded monument WM026-095 (site of ring fort) to provide a buffer – further survey work including geo-physical should be undertaken.
5.29 DoEHLG (ecology ) (6/9/10) Mitigation measures proposed by Dr. Aughney should be a condition of permission.
5.30 DoEHLG (Natural Heritage) (20/8/10) No further comments.
5.31 NPWS (5/3/10) Development unlikely to have any significant impact on Natura 2000 sites.
5.32 DoEHLG (Architectural heritage) 20/8/10 Landscape and visual impact may be more significant than impact on architectural heritage.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 12
5.33 DoEHLG (Architectural Heritage) 7/9/10 Response to further information in the form of 50 page written report provides little clarity on impact on architectural heritage particularly having regard to lack of up to date survey and mapping.
5.34 An Taisce (22/2/10) WCC must establish compliance with relevant EIA Legislation.
5.35 IAA (30/8/10) No objections subject to conditions
5.36 Shannon Regional Fisheries Board : scoping report submitted
5.37 Eastern Regional Fisheries Board : (Inland Fisheries Ireland) – (3/8/10)With regard to the ecology report of the watercourse crossing (Pg. 22-24) concerned about playing down significance of the Salmonids. Milltown Stream is part of Salmonid system and has to be treated as such during construction. The IFI were not contacted by the applicant despite being advised to do so. Proposed culvert unacceptable with respect to potential in-stream works or works in wetted area. This means that the support pillars have to be relocated further back form the watercourse. The river bed should remain undisturbed ‘where possible’ is not acceptable.
5.38 NRA (18/3/10) no objections
Objections 5.39 A total of 441 separate objections were submitted to the planning authority. Issues are listed in the planning report and fall under the headings of • Residential amenity- noise health • Visual impact - near and distant and impact on wider tourist and amenity uses. • Health and safety • Ecology • Archaeology and Local heritage • Route of grid connection • EIS • Traffic • Livestock • Further turbines • Wastewater • More suitable locations • Conflict with other wind farms potential in adjacent lands
Decision 5.40 While acknowledging the favourable disposition of the Development Plan toward wind farm the planning report concludes that Having regard to the scale of the development in an inhabited area and the character of the landscape it is considered that the proposed development would adversely impact on this inhabited and historic landscape and would adversely impact on both short and long-ranging views. Accordingly a decision to refuse permission was made by order for the following stated reasons:
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 13
1. The proposed development by reason of it location scale a height siting and separation distance form buildings within an inhabited hilly and flat farmland landscape character type is not consistent with the criteria set out in the wind Energy Development Guidelines for Planning Authorities as published by the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government 2006. The proposal by virtue of the overall height and scale of the proposed turbines which range from 125m to 135m is not considered to relate in scale to the landscape elements within this particular landscape character type and would give rise to a visually dominant and obtrusive form in an open and attractive rural area and would be unduly prominent form public roads, residential properties in the vicinity. The proposed development would result in serious injury to the visual amenities of the area would adversely impact upon the character of the landscape and upon residential amenity of properties in the vicinity and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
2. Having regard to the proposal to locate 9 number 125-135m high turbines, … within the demesnes landscape of Gaybrook and Gallstown it is considered that the proposed development would adversely impact upon the setting and integrity of these cultural demesnes and would therefore materially contravene Westmeath County Council Policy PEH112 which prohibits development that would cause harm to the character and setting, parks, gardens, demesnes of special historic interest. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and unsustainable development of the area and would adversely impact upon the character of eh landscape which is necessary to preserve.
3. The EIS fails to adequately assess alternative sites within the county. It is considered that sufficient research has not been undertaken by the applicant with regard to the selection and assessment of alternative options which have not been fully evaluated or comprehensively addressed within the EIS. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning authority that the site offers the optimum location for the development of a wind energy development. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
6.0 FIRST PARTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL
6.1 The first party make the following points in their appeal which was submitted on 6/10/10.
• During pre-application meeting and during consideration of the application no indication of the unsuitable nature of the location • The applicant has spent considerable amounts of money addressing further information yet the reason for refusal appears to be on fundamental grounds. • The revision of the proposal form 12 to 9 turbines and modification to layout took account of the extension objections to the planning authority. • Visual Impact: The location is in an area with medium capacity and identifies it as potentially suitable for wind energy development. The site is spread out over an extensive area and the number of turbines has been reduced. • The overall height was reduced to 125m for Turbine nos. 1-5 inclusive
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 14
• The planning authority has failed to take account of the Guidelines in respect of the nature of tall turbines. • All main manufacturers are proposing turbines in excess of 150mEnergy yields have with reduced height GE2.5xl is the most optimum • Environmental benefits of development • Defining feature in this landscape is tall mature hedgerow- vast majority of houses which are at least 500m away are screened by this mature treeline. • There is scale transition which ensures that the turbine do not overly dominate the rural surroundings. • The overall impact is moderate and this defined as ‘an impact that changes the character of the environment that is consistent with existing and emerging trends. • According to GPS co-ordinate only 2 dwelling are within 500m (owners of subject lands involved in project) the other 89 are within 1km. 12 houses are located with 600m • Shadow flicker can be overcome I the case of the 2 houses within 500m • Noise is within acceptable levels. • Westmeath county council has permitted 125 high turbines in hilly and flat farmland landscape in the case of 08/2174 • Demesne landscape: there no strong objection at the initial stage or at further information stage. No concerns regarding contravention of Policy EH112. • An independent archaeologist carried out a detailed assessment of the predicted impact of the historical demesne landscapes and it considered being no more than moderate in terms of visual impact. • It is submitted that the proposal will not lead to the loss of or cause harm to the character the principal components of the setting such as parks, gardens, demesnes of special historic interest. The Demesnes are not designated in the development Plan (they are indirectly referred by way of acknowledgement of the NIAH) • It is submitted that photographic evidence included in the appendix to the AIA report indicates the present form of archaeological features and the oz.’s maps and photomontage demonstrate that no demesne features are located in these areas. • Turbine nos. 1- are located at the very southern end of Gaybrook demesne • Impacts are considered to be minor • Alternatives considered having regard to land use and context, wind resources, grid connection, transport infrastructure, residential amenity, landscape and visual capacity and compliance with policies for alternative energy. Alternative site considered were ‘thrown together’ as suggested • High capacity site are not accessible as they are mostly Bord na Mona and some are still working bogs • Sites considered were Hill of Uisneach, (international cultural landscape) streamstown, (high visual quality) south of old N6 (NHA) • If site not suitable then it should not be identified as having medium capacity however the planning authority relies on filtering of suitable sites by polices rather than areas based /site specific objective. • the assertion that alterative turbines , layouts generators etc. have not been adequately assessed is incorrect as this is required for feasibility assessment • The proposal has the potential to supply approx. 12,243 homes. • This development accords with the PIF16 to promote renewable forms of energy where it is consistent with the proper planning and development of the area.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 15
7.0 THIRD PARTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Midland Industrial Wind Turbine Action Group
7.1 BD TP planning consultants have submitted grounds of appeal on behalf of residents in the area which come under the umbrella group Midland Industrial Wind Turbine Group. The issue issues raised refer to the following matters.
• It is submitted that the Board is precluded by reason of section 37(2) of the Planning Act from overturning the second reason for refusal as it is based on material contravention of the council policy PEH112 o It is not of strategic or national importance given the scale at 322.5MW o It ii submitted that there is no wind farm strategy and that the proposal is premature in policy terms. • The regional guidelines emphasise the suitability of peat land areas for wind farms given the existing inks to the electricity infrastructure. • ‘Medium capacity’ permits consideration and is not a pro-active site specific designation. Not comparable to zoning . • In the absent of a more detailed wind farm strategy the development is premature in policy terms • The high density of one-off housing sterilises the area for such development • 227098 which refer to a refusal of permission for 10 turbines in Mayo is applicable- same landscape type, lack of European designations and inhabited. (I note that 16 house within 500m 10 of whom objected sand 45 within 1km and little tree cover) • It is not a unique wind resource – there are more appropriate sites. • The EIS lacks objectivity. Inappropriate reference to benefits. • Insufficient consideration of alternatives . Wind farms are not site specific. • Out of date maps - 9 more dwellings • While undulating landscape is good receiving environment the inhabitants create a more sensitive environment by virtue of the importance of localised views giving rise to visual dominance and overbearing impact. • Dominance highlighting by proximity to local road network and dwelling therein. • The photomontages are questioned. • Blade throw is a risk in a highly populated rural area. • No meaningful consultation. • Grid connection not addressed. Attachments
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 16
• Correspondence between Safety Regulation Division Irish Aviation Authority and Midlands Wind turbine Action Group concerning safety and access to gas pipeline. Flights are used to inspect gas pipelines and would not be generally permitted though the proposed development
Paul Kealy and Joan Kealy 7.2 The grounds of appeal are based on • Location and unsuitability of Gaybrook Vs suitability of cut-away bogs • Precedent of Bord decision in Mayo. This related to 10 turbines which were at a distance of less than 500m in 11 cases. • Noise and Long term Health Effects • Consideration of alternative sites in EIS • One-off housing criteria • Property Value • Principle of sustainable development • Farming • Wild life • Road Infrastructure • Construction Work • Water Quality – Impact on drinking water • Blade and Ice throw • Shadow Flicker • Visual Impact
Attachments • Copy of objection which includes extensive reference to internal literature on the topic of wind farms with particular reference to research papers on impact of noise. • Location it is strongly argued that the wind farm should be in the cut-away bog area rather than populated areas in lie with the development plan and that possibly permission for such may compromise development of these more suitable sites. • The planning authority considers that alternative has not been appropriately examined. However the guidelines state that
8.0 OBSERVATIONS
Co. Westmeath Tourism 8.1 Lough Ennell has a cluster of tourist attractions with Belvedere house and gardens being the principle attraction and accordingly the surrounding area is very important, it is considered that as such a wind farm would negatively impact on the area. The potential of Lough Ennell needs to be safeguarded.
Belvedere House and Gardens
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 17
8.2 The general manager refers to the importance of the Belvedere gardens and objects to the proposed development on the basis of the visual impact particularly on the estate skyline form Lough Ennell.
8.3 Colm Arthur MWCC This observer supports the decision of the council and the issues raised and restates objections to council such as impact on residential amenity and more suitable sites.
Raymond Martin 8.4 This observer restates grounds of objections to Planning authority and refers specifically to • Large amount of fencing and low hedges in the area - his address is Bellfield • Turbines will be visible from both the front and rear of hi dwelling the nearest T6 is over 1000m away. Reference to flawed justification and consideration of other sites as a reason for refusing development in the case of PL12.205969. • Safety in respect of aerodrome, gas pipelines and location of site within a MOA4.
9.0 PLANNING AUTHOITY RESPONSE
9.1 In a memo received 8 th November 2010 the Planning authority refers to: • The DOEHLG guidelines emphasise that within this landscape that features tend not be tall and wind energy development should be perceived to visually dominate. • Fails to satisfy compatibility issues with respect to scale, height, siting and separation distances from buildings including residences • PEH112 • Conservation architect report • The particular area is rich in demesnes and these contain original landscape features despite division into smaller holdings. • The enormous visual and physical impact on these special historic demesne landscapes • Other demesnes such as Belvedere, Tudenham, Lilliput, Ladestown, Enniscoffey. • Inadequate consideration of alternatives - vague desk top analysis of inappropriate sites. • The landscape zone highlights potential of cutover peatland
10.0 FIRST PARTY RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL
10.1 In a letter dated 18 th October 2010 the first party make the following points in response to the third party appeals:
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 18
• Material contravention: It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies requirements of section 37(2) (b (ii and iii) which relate to conflicting objectives and regional guidelines policy of government respectively.
• It is submitted that there are conflicting objectives such as providing for widnfarms and protecting demesnes . It has been demonstrated that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon the setting and integrity of the cultural demesnes.
• A submission by the IWEA on The draft Midland Guidelines 2010-2022 in respect of suitable areas outside cutover bogs got a response ‘It is proposed to amend the guidelines to include support for development of wind energy throughout the region subject to appropriate siting considerations and compliance with environmental and landscape designations.
• Current regional guidelines refer to energy production as part of sustaining rural communities and ‘Harnessing intrinsic environmental and cultural resources’. Electricity demand expected to grow by 40% by 2025
• Pattern of development – The planning authority has already permitted 125m high turbines in the county.
• National policy to deliver sustainable energy.
• The IAA has no objection subject to conditions.
• The Milltownpass Aerodrome made no objection.
11.0 THIRD PARTY COMMENTS ON FIRST PARTY APPEAL
11.1 BDTP on behalf of Midlands Industrial Wind Turbine Action Group
• Support objection raised by Paul and Joan Kealy • It is submitted that the observations represent a cross section of the concerns of the wider community associated with tourism and heritage. • It was correct to request further information • It is the height and scale and not number of turbines that is the issue in this particular receiving environment which is of particular scale and is inhabited– accordingly the principle is wrong. • The criticisms of the Conservation officer are ‘bald statements’ and not backed up by any evidence that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the heritage values of the Gallstown and Gaybrook demesnes . The features richness index indicate a score of 5 out of 6 for Gaybrook and 3 for Gallstown which it is submitted underlines the heritage value • Historic demesnes by their very nature depends on cohesion and visual integrity to preserve their value as heritage landscapes . The presence of one or
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 19
more turbines in the landscape can destroy the setting and character of an historic demesne without it being in the demesne itself. • Absence of any substantive argument demonstrating that it does not contravene EH112 justifies refusal . • The applicant has failed to carry out a robust and transparent alternative site selection process.
Attachment 11.2 The following documents have been drawn up by locals and include local knowledge. • Detailed response in respect of renewable energy targets. • Visual survey of receiving environment
12.0 STATUTORY GUIDELINES, PLANS AND STRATEGIES
General 12.1 The planning report of 24 th March 2010 sets out a comprehensive list of national policy documents relating to renewable energy projects. These include • The renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC: This provides the mandate for Ireland to set a target for renewables the latest rate for renewable source was set in 2008 and is 40% of all energy consumption by 2020. • The National Development Plan 2001-2013: This integrates protection of environment into a strategic framework development and empathises an increase in renewable energy in rural areas. • Green paper on sustainable energy 1999 • Sustainable development – A strategy for Ireland 1997 • The National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 • The National Spatial Strategy 2002- 2020 • Government White Paper; Delivering A Sustainable Energy Future For Ireland, Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020 The White Paper is set in the global and European context which has put energy security and climate change among the most urgent international challenges. Actions include achieving 15% of electricity consumption on a national basis from renewable energy sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020.This also provided for a future target for renewable energy sourced electricity to 40% by 2020. • SEI Best Practice Guidelines for Irish Wind Energy Industry 2008.
12.2 Westmeath County Development Plan 208-1014
Wind Energy Development The Development Plan seeks to achieve a reasonable balance between an overall positive Attitude to renewable energy and enabling the wind energy resources of County Westmeath to be harnessed in a manner that is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development, including considerations of landscape protection and visual amenity.
Wind Farms;
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 20
P-EH75 This area is considered as having medium capacity for wind farms. The area to the east of the LCA is considered to be potentially most suitable with extensive cutover peatland offering suitable sites as one area of potential.
Future of Cutaway Peatland; P-EH76 Within the next 20–30 years, large areas of peatland will be exhausted and provide tracts of land that have potential for agriculture, habitat and amenity. The Council in consultation with relevant agencies will explore future potential of cut away peatlands that may offer opportunities for habitat creation or amenity and recreation areas such as community woodlands or parklands.
Preservation of Historic Demesnes; P-EH77 The Council in consultation with the NIAH will seek to record historic gardens and landscape demesnes. Any development proposals for these sites will be assessed according to best practise guidelines for Historic Landscapes.
PEH112 the planning authority will not normally permit development that would lead to the loss of or cause harm to the character the principal components of or the setting of parks gardens and demesnes of special historic interest
12.3 Wind Energy Development Guidelines - Guidelines For Planning Authorities. Planning authorities should identify areas on development plan maps where wind energy development will be acceptable in principle. The designation of areas for protection or natural or built heritage or visibility in designated views or prospects does not automatically preclude wind energy development. (Sections 3.6 and 3.7) Section 4.3 suggests that while an integrated approach that combines grid interconnection information together with details of the wind energy development should be submitted, details of indicative and feasible options for grid interconnection lines and facilities should in general be adequate for a planning authority to consider a wind energy application.
Planning authorities should have full regard to biodiversity considerations in determining applications for wind energy developments. Swans are identified as species at risk Section 5.3 refers to the Environmental Implications including natural heritage , archaeology and built heritage, noise, safety, shadow flicker
Section 5.6 notes that the impact of wind energy development noise is likely to be greater at low wind speeds when the difference between noise of the wind energy development and the background noise is likely to be greater. Emission limit values are identified, however, in general, noise impacts are unlikely to be a significant problem where the distance from the nearest turbine to any noise sensitive property is more than 500 metres. Section 5.12 recommends that shadow flicker at neighbouring offices and dwellings within 500m should not exceed 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day. At distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for shadow flicker is very low.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 21
Chapter 6 refers to the siting and design of developments in the landscape, identifying six Landscape Character Types. The more varied and undulating the greater the ability to absorb and screen wind energy development
12.4 EPA Guidelines On The Information To Be Contained In Environmental Impact Statements
Section 2.4.3 relates to alternatives and states that: The consideration of alternative routes, sites, alignments, layouts, processes, designs or strategies, is the single most effective means of avoiding environmental impacts. The acceptability and credibility of EIA findings can be significantly affected by the extent to which this issue is addressed. For linear projects, such as roads and power lines, alternative routes may be the most important and effective mitigation strategy while for major infrastructure projects the intrinsic suitability of the site is the principal amelioration strategy. However, it is important, from the outset, to acknowledge the existence of difficulties and limitations when considering alternatives. These include:-
Non Environmental Factors EIA is confined to the environmental effects which influence the consideration of alternatives. It is important to acknowledge that other no environmental factors may have equal or overriding importance to the developer, e.g. project economics, land availability, engineering feasibility, planning considerations
Site Specific Issues The consideration of alternatives also needs to be set within the parameters of the availability of land (it may be the only suitable land available to the developer) or the need for the project to accommodate demands or opportunities which are site specific. Such considerations should be on the basis of alternatives within a site e.g. design, layout.
12.5 Midlands Regional Planning Guidelines The site falls substantially within the central area of the Midlands Region which is identified as having tourism potential Strong rural areas, as discussed in Chapter 3, have a role in supporting the settlement strategy by ensuring that development in these areas does not compromise the integrity of the defined urban and village roles by maintaining sustainable, rural level infrastructural demands.
Significant potential exists in the CDA for the development of landscape and heritage based resources as further developed in the Tourism Strategy in Chapter 7. CDA P10 Build on the amenity potential of the inland waterways, the River Shannon and the built heritage of the region.
12.6 County Offaly Wind Strategy 2015 Bogland to north of Rhode is considered ideal for wind farms.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 22
13.0 ASSESSMENT
Issues 13.1 This appeal relates to a modified wind farm proposal comprising 9 turbines ranging from 125 metres to 135 metres in height over an undulating to flat terrain and incorporating two historic demesnes included in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (Gardens). The planning authority decided to refuse permission for three reasons relating principally to, impact on visual and residential amenity, impact on historic landscapes and lack of consideration of alternatives. In addition to the first party appeal there are two separate third party appeals one of which constitutes an umbrella group and who raise a broad spectrum of issues in support of the reasons for refusal. There is also a number of observing parties who raise issues in relation to the wider heritage value of the region and its role in tourism.
13.2 It is proposed to consider the development under the following broad headings: • Land use and development principle. • Visual impacts. • Historic Demesnes • Residential Amenity. • Roads and Traffic • Residential amenity • Grid connection • Alternatives • Adequacy of the EIS • Material contravention
Land use and development principle. 13.3 It is local, regional and national policy to promote the development of renewable sources of energy, and in particular wind energy developments. The subject site is located in an area identified as having ‘moderate capacity’ in the Development Plan. In this regard the applicant has identified a wind speed of 7.8m/s and this is quite good in terms of a productive wind farm. There are no specific amenity zoning objectives or Natura 2000 sites within the development area and houses are, in the main, at least 500m from the turbines.
13.4 The site is one of two (7 and 10) such designated sub-county landscape character areas deemed to have ‘medium capacity’ for wind farm development whereas six other areas (4, 6, 8, 9, 11) have been specifically considered unsuitable for wind farm due to the amenity/ heritage characterises of the areas.(see attached Development Plan Map extract.) Areas 2 and 3 are considered to have high capacity and in these areas there are cutaway peatland areas which offer this potential in accordance with policies for cutover peatland (PEH76). In Landscape Character Area 10, policy PEH75 specifically refers to the eastern part of the area as being most suitable with cutover peatland. Policy PEH77 seeks to protect the demesne landscape and notably the site straddles two demesnes in addition to being located near other demesne, most notably Belvedere Gardens - a major tourist attraction for the county.
13.5 The applicant relies heavily on the pro-active aspect of policy EH75 and generally supportive policies as contained in national strategy documents as well as the absence
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 23
of specific conservation policies as compared to the other areas. On the other hand the objectors rely on the failure of the proposal to adhere to the criteria in respect of visual impact and proper planning and sustainable development and consequent failure to protect amenities of the residents and the wider community. The appellants go as far to state that the wind farm will effectively compromise further one-off housing.
13.6 In land use terms there is a strong bias in the development plan supporting the general principle of wind farms in the county. The applicant correctly refers to the broader community gain in respect of renewable energy and consequent improved air quality. The Guidelines also acknowledge the potential of co-existence of environmentally sensitive sites, agricultural uses and wind farms. However, acceptable development is predicated on meeting criteria such as not conflicting with the heritage objectives and according with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and in this regard the criteria of the Guidelines are quoted.
13.7 While there is clearly strong support for wind farms I am of the opinion that the specific reference to peatland areas and the importance of the demesne landscape heritage at county and regional level imposes specific restrictions which necessities a moderated approach to specific siting and layout. I am not however in agreement with the principle of a blanket ban on the area on the basis of conflict with future housing, as such a pattern of housing is in direct conflict with the settlement strategy of consolidating a designated hierarchy of services in towns and village as mandated in the Midland Regional Planning guidelines.
13.8 While it could be deduced that the principle of a wind farm is acceptable subject to complying with specific layout and design criteria there is an issue of lack of demand. The need for the farm is raised in the planning authority report (sustainable energy management report) and again in the 3rd party response to the 1 st party grounds of appeal. I note that at present there is a 40% target of renewable energy sources by 2020 and this is in theory is achievable based on the list of gate 3 accepted applicants for gird connection. The applicant is not however on this list. It is reasonable I consider to query the rationale of permitting a site with 'moderate capacity' and where there is potential for serious conflict with other amenity objectives when there are more suitable sites in the region, the feasibility of which may be comprised by the development of moderately suitable sites. Ideally a more fine-tuned Wind Energy Plan would guide site prioritisation and in the absence of such a plan there is a case to be made that the applicant must establish the demand for such a development. The applicant does not for example make a quantitative case that the demand for wind farm sites warrants the effective leapfrogging of development in advance of more prime sites. In view of the figures referred to by the sustainable energy management report it would seem that the subject proposal is doing just this. The council reports however do refer to the potential of non-starters in current financial climate and therefore on this basis the Board may consider it reasonable to conclude that principle of wind farm in an area of moderate capacity is acceptable.
Visual Impact 13.9 The objecting appellants support the senior planner’s assessment that the proposed development, by virtue of its overall height is not considered to satisfactory relate in
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 24
scale to the landscape elements (such as buildings and field pattern) within this particular landscape character area type and would therefore visually dominate, what is an inhabited landscape. Having regard to the decision to refuse permission in the case of PL227098 where the receiving environment was apparently similar in terms of general topography type, settlement and lack of conservation designations there is I agree some basis for this approach, although, I would caution that these are complex cases and not necessarily directly comparable as each has a unique set of circumstances.
13.10 I inspected the sites of the proposed structures mostly within a distance range in the order of 50-300m as well as from mid-distance viewing points from the immediate road network on all sides of the sites and from long distance views with particular emphasis on moderate impact views as identified by the applicant in further information. I inspected the site from all the local views in addition to others and would point out that my inspection was during winter/early spring when trees were substantially bare. The dense broad leaf woodland still afforded dense coverage.
13.11 The photos submitted in the appended report to the BDTP response to first party grounds of appeal provide many images of the surrounding road network in an attempt to illustrate the point that the hedges and trees do not in fact provide sufficient screening. However I would draw the Board’s attention to the fact that these photographs are from Google ‘street view’ and these I understand are taken from a camera mounted on a van at a level significantly above eye level and, as evidenced by the view of the roof of the car, do not accordingly represent a typical eye level view from either a pedestrian or car – a vantage point from where the roadside boundaries and tree lines are much higher. I find the photographs submitted by the applicant to represent a more accurate depiction of the likely predicted views.
13.12 The most prominent and dominant views are from the following vantage points as shown in the photomontages contained in the A3 folders: • V15 depicts views (from L5004 at junction to south west) of T7 8 and 9 – Views of these turbines are likely to be prominent and dominant from a quiet local road. • V9 depicts views (from Simonstown/R400/L5131 junction) of T1-5 – Views of these turbines will be prominent and dominant at this location but these have been significantly reduced in the revised layout. • V27 depicts views (from local road L5131 to the south) of T1-5 - Due to the relatively exposed nature of this road and open landscape Turbine 1-5 are prominent features. Compared to the scale of the local building and landscape they are also a dominant feature. • V26 depicts views from the local crossroad north east of the T1-5 site and from this location only 5 turbines are visible. Although prominent there are widely spaced and in scale with the hedgerow/trees in the foreground and do not unduly dominant or form an unduly discordant feature. • V28 depicts views from a field to the rear of houses identified as 211 and 212 in the Gallstown area and nearest T7, 8 and 9. The photo depicts T 9 as a prominent and dominant feature in this photo. However these houses (refer to appended photos) are nestled in an established copse relating to the original curtilage of Gallstown Houses and outbuildings. These dwellings are well set back from the public road and immediate views of the turbines would be significantly obscured
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 25
by this vegetation. While they are dominant in this photo this is a restricted viewing point and in that context they are not excessively dominant. • V14 depicts views from the R400. However the combination of undulating terrain, siting, spacing and hedgerow aids assimilation of the turbines into the landscape so as not to be unduly obtrusive. • V22 is taken from a junction featuring a gate lodge and water pump (protected structures) bounding the original Gaybrook Demesne. A cluster of turbines are depicted as visually prominent. However they are lower than the treeline in the foreground and demonstrate a scale that is not unduly discordant with the existing built and natural local landscape features. This could be similarly applied to the V23 and v25 views. • V24 depicts the views from an inhabited cul-de sac lane at Gortumly, west of the Gallstown woodland. I inspected this location and find the photo to be fairly accurate. Having regard to the separation distance and dense woodland buffer I do not consider these views to be overly dominant. • V25 is taken from the local road to the east of T6.This is softened by the dense woodland. • The distant views, while prominent in certain weather conditions and from elevated points, do not, I consider, demonstrate an undue dominance in the landscape.
13.13 In general terms it is fair to say that the applicant has taken considerable cognisance of the Planning Guidelines with respect to landscape character and layout. To the north, a linear staggered cluster across undulating terrain and amid different fields and set back a couple of hundred metres from the road is more easily absorbed than a denser cluster of lower turbines. To the south the triangular group amid established extensive woodland is screened from near views and softened in more distant views.
I agree with the EIS in general terms particularly in identifying that local views have the most significant impact. For example, Turbine nos. 1-5 (as number in the further information) due to the linear staggered siting and undulating context diminishes the visual impact particularly as viewed from the R400 to the west and the local road L5004 to the east. The greatest impact I consider arises from the dwellings marked as nos. 112-116 inclusive directly north of T2 (V27). The appellants understandably express concern about this visual impact.
13.14 With respect to Turbine nos. 7, 8 and 9, the combination of flat open foreground and low-lying terrain permits extensive views both vertically and horizontally. However, while the nearest dwellings, identified as 211 and 212 are close, they are set amongst an established buffer of trees associated with the original curtilage and outbuildings associated with the now demolished original Gallstown House as depicted in the earlier o.s. maps. I therefore consider the objection in this regard to not be entirely warranted.
13.15 On local road L5004, Dwelling no. 210 further north east and close to the public road is a new dwelling and will have some views but again these are somewhat diminished by the established extensive woodland. The trees and hedges on the road side fronting this dwelling in addition to the belt of trees/hedges along the Milltown River obscure the view of the isolated turbine no. 6. Further north House no 208 is immediately adjoined by an established copse of trees but T8 will be the most prominent but the
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 26
separation distance is well in excess of 500m. The houses clustered and slightly elevated at the junction of L5004 and the Gibbonstown Road will have more prominent views of T6, 7, 8 and to a lesser extent T9 due the open foregrounds. However, further west along the road, the views from dwelling no 240 and adjacent houses to the west are largely buffered by the extensive woodland.
13.16 In conclusion there will undoubtedly be a visual impact arising from the height, scale and prominence of the turbines from particular vantage points notably from dwellings north of Gallstown House and near the junction with the L5004 and from the 5131 from where views will most dominant. Essentially these dominant views are quite localised views from quiet local roads. In the Planning Guidelines, the flat/hill terrain is stated as having capacity for tall turbines (‘medium typically preferred tall may be acceptable’). In terms of views from the road the applicant asserts that the landscape features can aid assimilation of the turbines. Notwithstanding, there will still be dominant and locally obtrusive views. Whether this is acceptable is largely determined by the strength of the objectives supporting wind farm development. I accept that there is an apparent competing of interests particularly in the absence of a more finely grained policy on both the direction of wind farms and the protection of demesnes. I am of the opinion that in the wider context of the Development Plan the policy on the provision of wind farms in this area is not sufficiently strong to support the level of visual intrusion. I say this having particular regard to the demesne landscape.
13.17 Further reduction in height of turbines is clearly not an option as the applicants demonstrates how the a lowering of height by a further 10m to 65m would result in a 49% drop in wind yield.
Impact on Demesne Landscape Character 13.18 The demesne landscape is identified as a component in the Lough Ennell and the South Eastern Corridor landscape character area in the Development Plan. As part of the vision for its potential it is sated specifically that ‘An opportunity exists through negotiation to develop the concept of Lough Ennell as a Midlands Regional Park. The demesne landscape and surrounding agricultural lands have the potential to serve as linear park linkages serving and complementing the on-going development of Mullingar and its wider environs and facilitating existing and future residents. Development of the recreational and amenity image of the lake is important in this respect.’ The subject site alone straddles two key Demesnes; Gaybrook Demesne and Gallstown House. There are also a number of demesnes between the site and the lake shore that would appear to be directly relevant to the realisation of this potential.
13.19 While there is no site specific objective or policy relating to the particular development area e.g. attendant grounds of protected structure, Architectural Conservation Area, Designated Historic landscape and such like, the Development Plan does refer to its intentions in this regard. For example in section 2.5.9 of the plan it refers to building on information of the NIAH and to conduct a survey in pursuit of a strategy for conservation. Significantly, both demesnes are included in the Survey of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes of the NIAH (survey details attached to this report)
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 27
13.20 One of the key weaknesses in this application is the failure to graphically present the impact on such demesne by way of reference to the present structures and features and relationship with the proposed development. The 50 page archaeologist’s report submitted as further information (at back of A4 Folder) critically fails to address the Parkland Demesnes of Gallstown and Gaybrook which are specifically included in the historic gardens survey of the NIAH . The archaeology study while providing valuable material in respect of road side structures and archaeological sites and monuments fails to address the contextual parkland setting of the proposed turbines. Accordingly I concur with the reservations expressed in the DoEHLG reports ( 7/10/10) which refer to the reliance on mapping that is 100 years old.
13.21 Having regard to my visual inspection of the general area and the desk survey I would make the following observations.
13.22 Gayrook Demesne features extensive picturesque parkland with open fields and mature woodland. The Main entrance and extensive section of the demesne wall on the L5004 are intact. The Main House has been demolished although remaining features include a substantial walled garden and courtyard formed by stables buildings, a derelict gate lodge and a roadside water pump. There is a new house off the main avenue and the land is a working farm. The original avenues appear to be retained. The boundary of the demesne has been somewhat eroded by way of ribbon development which is typically in the form of large houses on relatively small engineering plots. The L5131 cuts through the original demesne although the stone wall briefly breached appears to define a former southern boundary on lands south of this road. Historic field boundaries are still evident and to certain extent still visually bridge the ‘new’ road. The boat house as depicted in the submitted plans appears to predate this road as there is little or no evidence of apart from the fishing grounds.
13.23 In the case of Gallstown House, similarly the original house as depicted on the older O.S. maps has been demolished although there is a substantial derelict residence north of the original house plot. This Demesne originally straddled the L5004 and consequently the lack of defining wall and the extensive engineered ribbon development has fragmented and encroached on the former estate boundaries. The most impressive feature would appear to be the extensive sweep of woodland and parkland which incorporates a series of allees/avenues although is largely overgrown. The nearby motte is a spectacular feature.
13.24 While it is clear that there are mitigating aspects of the hilly and flat terrain typology the applicant does not address the views within and outside the immediate environs. The very siting of the turbines amid the parkland settings will be an obvious intrusion particularly in the Gallstown demesne which is flatter. The back drop of the turbines to the formal allees is not something that has been considered. In the context of the parkland demesne setting, the 125-135m high turbines will be an unduly intrusive feature and as such would conflict the specific objective to protect historic landscape. I concur with the planning authority in this regard.
13.25 On the other hand, it could be argued in terms of Gaybrook Demesne that the original demesne has shrunk over the centuries and by relocating development to the south of the L5131 (newer road) the core element is retained. However I say this without a proper informed survey. Similarly it could be argued that the Gallstown Demesne is
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 28
particularly fragmented by farm and residential holdings and even the core area has been eroded by the replacement of modern bungalows and dereliction of former principal and ancillary structures. The key features of the parkland/pleasure gardens have also been allowed to overgrow and revert to a more naturalistic state. Again I say this in the absence of an informed survey.
13.26 It could also be argued that the imposition of turbines in the parkland setting is part of the natural morphology of the landscape in keeping with the needs of human habitation and that in the overall context of the demesne landscape such imposition is a temporary, definable and potentially a reversible addition and preferable in many ways to the suburbanisation of the countryside.
13.27 I do consider, however that potential impact and damage to a tourism resource is a valid concern having regard to policies in both the County and Regional plans for the area.
13.28 Ultimately to permit detraction of the visual amenity of these demesnes is undermined by being in a ‘medium capacity’ area where peatlands are expressly preferred. Moreover, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate by way of survey and appraisal of architectural landscape features of the demesne grounds that the integrity of a valued demesne is protected in accordance with the broader development plan objective in this regard or indeed the Aechitectural Heritage Guidelines. While I note the report on page 37 contained in the further information refers to inclusion of the demesnes landscape in the NIAH and that ‘It is considered there would be a moderate visual impact on these historic landscape features’, this appraisal appears to be based on the impact of the proposed track on an original driveway and the negligible impact on structures that do not survive above ground. Mitigation measures are largely confined to below ground survey and recording. There is however no informed appraisal of the features referred to in the NIAH. The report appears to be more concentrated on the archaeological layer that pre-dates the formal 19 th century landscape in its role as attendant grounds an parkland setting. I say this having regard to the lack of appraisal of some notable features such as the dwelling structure in Gallstown (see photo no.) and the allees.
13.29 On balance, in the absence of a completed Historic Landscape Character Assessment by WCC and having regard to the objective P-EH112 and the inclusion of both Demesnes in the NIAH and the absence of a proper survey as referred to by the Development Application Unit of the Department of Environmental Heritage and Local Government, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient information to warrant a permission for the nature and scale of development proposed.
Milltown River 13.30 The Fisheries Board considers that the salmonid breeding habitat of the Milltown River has been to a certain extent under played and while I note the EIS refers to this feature of the Milltown River as well its River Boyne relationship the ERFB highlights the potential vulnerability of the habitat. While reference is made to the potential for increased silt loading on watercourses, such water courses and the potential impacts arising from the development in respect of the Milltown River an
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 29
salmonid river habitat is to certain extent underplayed. Accordingly the culvert of the river tributary is critical aspect of the development.
13.31 While the protection of this water body is governed by other legislation I note that the report of ERFB – refers to a possible relocation of T9 and the failure of the applicant to consult with the relevant body in this regard. Accordingly I do not consider this issue have been adequately addressed in this regard and therefore consider that this turbine while acceptable in principle should be omitted from the development as currently proposed or addressed by way of section 132, having regard to the lack of detailed mitigation measures in respect of required works on a salmonid breeding bed.
Alternatives 13.32 The planning report refers to the inadequacy of consideration of alternatives and effectively dismisses the alternatives indicated by the applicant. The applicant indicates that other sites such the Hill Of Uisneach among others were considered but dismissed on grounds of environmental factors as well as, in some cases, land availability. My understanding of the EPA Guidance notes is that the environmental factors in addition to land availability and engineering feasibility were reasonably used to screen out alternative sites. Through the application process the applicant has altered the site by way of a substantial reduction in the development area and also revised the layout of 8 out of the remaining 9 turbines. Variations in design have also been provided. The site of the switch room and anemometer has also been relocated. Accordingly I am satisfied that the issue has been complied with for purposes of EIA.
Traffic 13.33 The site has two main access traffic routes – one from the L-5131 off R400 serving turbines 1-5 and the compound/anemometer and the other form the L5004 via the old N6 which serves Turbines 6-9. The overall site is therefore relatively accessible although the junction will require upgrading in order to accommodate trucks with abnormal loads. All sight entrances will be provided with 90 sightlines and The L- 5004 wills also a new lay-by. I note that the Area Engineers have no objections to the development following the submission of further information which provided details in this regard. Accordingly I am satisfied that the issue of access has been addressed and that subject to the appropriate conditions particularly for construction traffic that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of traffic safety.
Residential Amenity. 13.34 The area is best described as inhabited farmland with some 200 dwelling within a 1km range of the initial 12 turbines proposed. There are 91 dwelling within a. distance of 1km and there are 2 dwellings within 500m and the closest are occupants of who are landowners of part of the subject site. The separation distances are I consider of an acceptable order being sufficient to mitigate potential impacts of noise an shadow flicker, having regard to the provisions of the Wind Energy Development Guidelines. The analysis contained in the EIS and further information regarding shadow flicker, indicates that the impacts will not be significant. The most significant impacts are confined to interested parties in the application.
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 30
13.35 One of the appellant parties and most, if not all, of the objectors refer to the issue of noise and refer to guidance notes by EU Level ETSU97 and reports by the World Health Organisation on long term ill-effects and the apparent lack of up to date research. Other material is also referred to in support of the effectively more stringent assessment criteria such as C and G weighting to account for the tonal frequency of wind turbines.
13.36 The planning authority sought further information (item 15) in respect of noise modelling. The response was prepared by an acoustic consultant and concluded that in all cases both daytime and night time noise levels are within the 45dB(A) by day and 43dB(A) by night and that the wind farm complies with the DoEHLG guidelines in respect of noises. In respect of tonal and mechanical noises noise predictions are in accordance with IEC61400-11 Wind Turbine Generator systems – Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques whereby the predictions are based on a huge range of noise levels and take account of the totality of the noise. The report finds that the tonal components of the wind turbine noise are less than 4dB in all cases therefore no correction applies to the calculated noise levels. The Environment Department of the Planning Authority has raised no objection to the development.
13.37 Based on the information contained in the EIS and as clarified in further information, I am of the opinion that the impacts arising from noise and shadow flicker can be not regarded as being so significant or detrimental to the amenities of the area as to warrant a refusal of permission. I do however consider there is an issue of visual amenity and this has been addressed.
Grid Connection. 13.36 While turbines may themselves be seen as a point of visual interest and absorbed in pockets of the landscape for any overhead grid connection would introduce an extensive feature traversing at elevated point in the local landscape. In this initial proposal and throughout the documentation the applicant makes reference to underground cabling and that the connection has yet to be determined. This is splitting of the development is generally accepted practice. As this would be subject to a separate planning application, having regard to the provisions of the Wind Energy Planning Guidelines, it is not appropriate to determine the application on this aspect of the development.
Adequacy of the EIS 13.37 Having regard to the contents of my assessment in respect of the historic Demesne landscape, I consider the EIS is somewhat deficient in terms of fully identifying and appraising the impact of the proposed development. It is also likely that the interaction of visual impact and demesne character should be identified. In view of my recommendation to refuse permission which relates to other issues I do not consider it necessary to seek further EIS details. If the Board is of a mind to permit the development then I consider it appropriate to seek further information under section 132 in respect of impacts on the Demesne Heritage.
Material Contravention : 13.38 The 3 rd party response to the grounds of appeal asserts that the Board is precluded from a grant of permission. Having regard to nature and range of policies and
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 31
objectives governing this site in the Development Plan and the national strategy in respect of renewable energy I do not agree.
14.0 CONCLUSION
14.1 The proposed development will constitute a prominent and dominant obtrusive feature in the landscape. While the policy permits wind farms in the wider sub-county region, this is reliant on not impacting on the demesne landscape and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. While I accept that there is somewhat of a policy vacuum, ultimately the case for the wind farm is weakened by being in a medium capacity area where peatlands are expressly preferred. Moreover, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate by way of survey and appraisal of architectural landscape features of the demesne grounds that the integrity of a valued demesne is protected in accordance with the development plan policies in this regard. Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that this project is integral to the wind farm strategy to warrant the extent of impact of visual intrusion and loss of amenity albeit confined.
15.0 RECOMMENDATION
Having regard to the foregoing I recommend that the decision of the Planning Authority be generally upheld in this instance and that permission be refused for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations set out below:
Reasons and Considerations:
1 Having regard to the stated preference and capacity of the county to accommodate wind farms in the extensive peatland areas and having regard to the sensitivities of the development area and its environs in its role as a heritage and amenity resource and the policies to protect and enhance same, it is considered that the proposed development by reason of its nature and scale would constitute an unwarranted and unduly visual intrusion in the local landscape and would not accord with the overall development objectives of both the current County Development Plan and Regional Planning Guidelines for the Midland Region. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 2 The Board is not satisfied that the Environmental Impact Statement and the supplementary information submitted by the applicant provides adequate information on the potential impact on the heritage value of both Gaybrook and Gallstown Demesnes.
______Suzanne Kehely, Senior Planning Inspector 28th February 2011
PL25.237728 An Bord Pleanala Page 32