An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL27.221158
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Development: 6 wind turbines with service roadways, electrical control and transformer compound and anemometer
Site Address: Kyle, Ballycumber North, Mullans South and Ballycumber South, Tinahely, Co. Wicklow.
Planning Application
Planning Authority: Wicklow County Council.
Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 06/5520
Applicants: KBM Windfarm Ltd
Type of Application: Permission.
Planning Authority Decision: Refuse
Planning Appeal
Appellant: KBM Windfarm Ltd
Type of Appeal: 1st Party
Observers: Maurice and Jenny Collins, Peter and Kate Moody, Pam and Ted Horan and others, Dan and Catherine Kavanagh, Deirdre and Ian Bangham.
Date of Site Inspection: 12th April 2007
Inspector: G. Ryan
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 31 1.0 SITE
The site as described on the submitted application consists of a narrow strip of land along the ridge of an upland area in south county Wicklow. The submitted site location map shows a larger landholding extending to the north, east and southwest of the subject site in various adjoining parcels. The land within this larger area (blue line) is almost all under coniferous forestry plantations of varying stages of maturity, with some areas having the appearance of having been recently harvested. To the north of the subject site (and within the blue line) is an area of rough grazing. To the immediate west of the central portion of the subject site is an area of upland pasture, while to the south of the subject site is an area of upland heath, generally covered in heather.
On the lower slopes of this upland area, the above landuses give way to more intensive agricultural uses, with scattered rural housing on surrounding roads and on minor private roads. Tinahely, a large village, is approximately 2.5km-3km to the south of the subject site, while Knockananna, a small village is less than 4km to the northwest of the subject site. Other towns in the area include Aughrim, Shillelagh, Coolboy, and Hacketstown (Co. Carlow).
The high ground runs generally in a north-south direction, with a major secondary ridge running east from the southern end of the main ridge. The land rises from a varying base level of approximately 150m-200m to three identified peaks of 431m, 425m, and 397m. While unidentified on the available Ordinance Survey Maps, it is referred to within the appeal file as Ballycumber Hill and Mangans Hill, which given the layout of townlands in the areas could refer to the northern and southern sections of the upland area respectively. In the interests of clarity, I shall refer to this upland area as a hill in this report, although I realise that it is perhaps within the scope of what could be considered a small mountain.
Some 10km to the north of the subject site are the larger peaks of the Wicklow Mountains, which extend north through the county to the Dublin border. In the vicinity of the subject site, the mountains give way to lower, rolling hills, with higher ground continued in a series of hills/mountains in the order of 350m-450m in height, which run in a roughly northeast-southwest direction. The hill of the subject site forms part of this range. Approximately 8km to the southeast of this range is a second parallel range, which includes Croghan Mountain and Annagh Hill and form part of the border between counties Wicklow and Wexford.
Between the two aforementioned northeast-southwest ridges of high ground is a low- lying valley that runs from Woodenbridge through Aughrim, Tinahely and Shillelagh. Within this valley are two rivers. The Derry Water runs northeast through Aughrim to ultimately meet the Avoca River between Avoca and Arklow, while the Derry River runs southwest to meet the Slaney River north of Bunclody, Co. Wexford. This valley once contained a railway, which ran from Woodenbridge via Aughrim, Annacurragh, and Tinahely to Shillelagh. I understand that part of the alignment of this railway has in recent times been opened as a walking route, which incorporates the recreational woods at Coolattin/Tomnafinnoge.
Several Regional Roads pass within the vicinity of the subject site including the R747 Arklow-Aughrim-Tinahely-Hacketstown-Baltinglass road, which passes to the
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 31 immediate southwest of the upland area. The remainder of the entire mountain is essentially circled by county roads including the main Tinahely-Knockananna route and a secondary Tinahely-Ballinglen-Knockananna route. The Wicklow Way walking route passes to the east and south of the hill along minor roads and marked tracks, rising to a height of approximately 280m arround 500m to the south of the 397m peak mentioned previously.
2.0 PROPOSAL
Under the current application, it is proposed to construct 6 wind turbines along the ridge of this high ground. These turbines would be of the contemporary 3-blade design, with a hub height of 80m and a blade length of 45m. This gives an overall maximum height at the blade tips of approximately 125m.
Of the 6 turbines, 4 would be located along the main north-south ridge of the mountain (turbines T1 to T4), with the remaining 2 located along the east-west ridge to the south (turbines T5 and T6). The spacing between turbines varies from around 400m in the case of T1 and T2 to approximately 850m in the case of T3 and T4.
Further identified works associated with the proposal include the construction of the following: - • An anemometer mast 50m high, 2m wide at the base, and apparently of a lattice construction. This mast would be located on the main north-south ridge between turbines T3 and T4. • A 60m2 electrical compound/metering station building between turbines five and six. • An access road of some 5m to 6m in width would be constructed along the entire length of the ridges, directly linking T1 to T6. This road is partially in existence as a forestry tracks between T1 and the anemometer and as a more minor access track between T6 and the ‘dogleg’ in the road alignment between T4 and T5. • Site access would be via an existing forestry track, which meanders up the western side of the mountain from the main Tinahely-Knockananna county road, meeting the ridge in the vicinity of turbine T1. This road would be improved as per the afore- mentioned access road. • Further detailed description of the development is contained in the submitted Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as detailed in section 2.1 below
Following the drafting of the initial planning officer’s report, the applicant was advised by email (copy on file) that ‘following the receipt of representations on this file you are advised that the application is recommended for refusal’. The applicants subsequently requested an extension of time of 4 months, during which time they submitted further information, as detailed in section 2.2 of this report.
2.1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): -
The application is accompanied by an EIS as the proposal falls within the scope of Part 2, Schedule 5 –Development for the purposes of Part 10 (Environmental Impact Assessment) of the 2001, Planning and Development Regulations by virtue of it being
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 31 an installation “for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) with more than 5 turbines or having a total output greater than 5 megawatts.”
The following is a summary of the main items of factual information contained in the submitted EIS which are relevant to an assessment of the current proposal. Both the further information submission and the appeal submission contain additions to the EIS, as detailed in sections 2.2 and 7.7.2 of this report.
2.1.1 Description of proposed development: -
• The turbine layout is set out in a pattern dictated primarily by the shape of the site and the parameters of the local wind resource • ESB national grid have indicated to the developers that a suitable and available grid connection will be available in the Ballycadden region of Co. Wexford. This connection would be the subject of a separate planning application by the ESB. • Transformers for each turbine will be located within the base of the towers • The type of turbine would be the 1500-3000kw turbines made by manufacturers such as Enercon, Vestas, Siemens, GE, or Nordex. It is proposed that the final choice of turbine manufacturer and model would be made after a tendering process, and with the agreement of the planning authority.
2.1.2 Site selection: -
• The wind resource at this location (>9.5m/s annual mean) justifies the proposal. • The proposed site is not a Natural Heritage Area (NHA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA). • All dwellings in the vicinity are at least 850m from the nearest turbine and outside the 40dB(A) sound level contour.
2.1.3 Visual impact: -
• A graphical representation of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been produced (Fig. 5), based on an 80m nacelle (rotor hub) height and modelled using topographical information only (i.e. local screening not accounted for). This model ‘colour codes’ the surrounding areas based on the number of nacelles potentially visible from that location. • The accompanying analysis states that over an area of 709m2, approximately 60% of locations would have no view of the nacelles. • Travelling 6km to the northeast or 10km to the southeast, there are distinctive regions where the turbines will not be visible. • Most of the ‘Tinahely valley’ will have partial views of the turbines. • Fig 6. shows the cumulative ZTV for the approved and operating windfarms in the vicinity (only the 2 at Cronelea and the Kennystown windfarm are identified – see section 4.0 of this report), with the additional visual influence of the proposed development marked separately. • 10 photomontages of the proposed development are given from selected locations along with a written analysis of the visual impact of the proposed development. Each photomontage is accompanied by a ‘wireframe’ image. It is stated that the auxiliary elements, i.e. the roadways, transformer compound, electrical cabling
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 31 between turbines and the metrological mast would be of a small scale compared with the turbines and would therefore have minimal additional visual effects.
2.1.4 Measures to lessen adverse effects: -
• A reduction in height of the turbines is not a viable option in commercial terms. • It is stated that the principle of ‘clustering’ has been incorporated in this instance as a way of mitigating visual influence. • The laying of access tracks and roads on existing forestry trackways and adjacent and parallel to hedgerows will limit the increase in visual impact. • The substation would be located on low ground and would be screened with planting.
2.1.5 Sound effects: -
• The surrounding area is currently quiet, with few human sound-generating activities. • Modern design has largely eliminated mechanical sounds associated with turbines. The aerodynamic sound associated with the moving blades would be masked by other sounds associated with wind turbulence. • Quantitative information relating to sound power levels, and its attenuation over certain distances is given. This information is represented graphically on Fig. 17. It is stated that no dwellings would fall within the 40dB sound contour. • The report makes reference to section 6.7 of the 2004 DoEHLG Wind Farm Guidelines and makes favourable comparisons to its recommendations with regard to noise.
2.1.6 Use of access roads: -
• The stated access route is via the R747 (Arklow-Hacketstown Road) through Tinahely village, turning right approximately 2km northwest of Tinahely onto the county road linking Tinahely to Knockananna. The route would then turn right onto the existing forestry track on the western slopes of the mountain. The access route within the site would involve 1.5km of new access track. • The construction phase would involve the transportation of equipment and materials for approximately 3-4 months. A breakdown of the expected traffic is given.
2.1.7 Shadow flicker: -
• A brief explanation of the phenomenon is given, along with a generalised claim that the potential effects of this phenomenon are negligible. No site-specific information is given.
2.1.8 Ecological effects: -
• The report contains an analysis of flora and fauna present on site and concludes that the proposed development would have acceptable impacts in both these areas. There will be some disruption during the construction phase, but that the receiving environment would recover. The report deals with bird strike, habitat loss and disturbance with individual reference to a number of bird species.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 31 • Little is proposed in terms of mitigation measures other than the construction of the turbines as solid structures rather than lattice structures to avoid them being used as perching sites.
2.1.9 Archaeological effects: -
• The report sets out an extensive history of the area, and states that the predominant category of archaeological sites in the area are ringforts. There is an analysis of he Record of Monuments and Places as it relates to the proposed development. Details are given of 3 of these monuments; 2 raths and a possible souterrain. It is stated that none of these sites will be impacted upon by the proposed development. • Additional information gleaned from aerial photography and a field study did not raise any further archaeological concerns.
2.1.10 Architectural considerations: -
• The report makes reference to the fact that there are no protected structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, but that Tinahely Village has been designated as an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA), with 7 protected structures in the town. The report states that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the ACA as only one turbine and the nacelles of others will be visible from the village. • It is stated that cabling will be run underground.
2.1.11 Other effects: -
• The report makes reference to effects on TV and mobile phone signals, effects on electromagnetic fields, hazard from blade disintegration, hazard from falling ice, flashes from reflected light, the aesthetic effects of some turbines turning in the opposite direction to others, and issues surrounding decommissioning of the wind farm. Little of this analysis is site specific. • The report makes brief reference to geological considerations. It states that foundations for each turbine would require the excavation of 225m3 of material, consisting of bedrock and overburden, and that this material would be used in the construction of the access roads. • It is stated that there would be negligible effects on drainage patterns and watercourses aside from the construction phase, which is to be managed. • The report refers to the presence of an airfield at Hacketstown, 6.8km to the northwest, and the Falcons Parachute Centre. It is stated that the proposed development would not have any effects on these operations, but that aircraft warning lighting may be specified in the conditions of the planning permission.
2.2 Further information submission-
Further to the request for an extension of time, the applicants made a lengthy submission that appeared to attempt to address the issues raised in the planning officer’s initial report, including the draft reasons for refusal. Much of this submission re-iterates points made in the initial application submission. Additional points of relevance can be summarised as follows: -
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 31 2.2.1 Additional information describing the proposed development and outlining the rationale behind the development.
• The turbine layout/spacing is for reasons concerning the available wind resource and the interaction of local topography and prevailing wind directions. • The high turbine height is required due to the significant wind energy absorption properties of the conifer trees in the vicinity. • Information is given regarding the wind resource on site, including excerpts from Sustainable Energy Ireland’s 2003 Wind Atlas. • It is intended to connect to the national grid at Ballycadden Co. Wexford via a 38kV line supported by twin-pole structures. • The submission contains an analysis of the visual impacts of the trackways, electrical compound, and borrow pit.
2.2.2 Additional photomontages: -
The applicant submitted the following additional photomontages, from locations that are linked to the issues raised in the planning officer’s report. • Listed prospect 52 – Wicklow County Development Plan. • Listed prospect 53 – Wicklow County Development Plan. (3 separate photomontages) • Scenic view on R747 south of Hacketstown – Carlow County Development Plan. (4 separate photomontages)
2.2.3 Additional soils and geology assessment: -
• An attached report outlines the geological and geotechnical situation pertaining to the site, including the results of trial holes at the proposed turbine locations and assessments of the topography in the vicinity of the proposed turbines. • The underlying bedrock is of a high structural strength, and the soils on site are very thin, with a maximum depth of 25cm. • The soils are well drained, and there is no risk of bog burst or landslide as there is insufficient gradient and lack of unstable overburden. • All excavated soil will be used on site. • Drainage culverts and sediment traps will be used to intercept runoff during construction. • Runoff calculations (given) show that the proposed development would temporarily increase localised site run-off by 0.92% during a 5-year rainfall event.
2.2.4 General information relating to the EIS: -
• It is stated that no difficulties or obstacles were encountered in compiling the EIS. • The submission contains two supplementary reports by the parties who contributed to the EIS in the areas of flora and fauna and archaeology outlining the methodology of the initial assessment, contained in the original EIS.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 31 3.0 POLICY
3.1 Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government Planning Guidelines for Wind Energy (2006)
These guidelines supersede the previous Windfarm Guidelines (1996). The guidelines address the following issues: -
• The need to identify suitable areas in development plans; • Making and assessment of planning applications, including suggested conditions; • The siting and design of wind farms including advice for different types of landscapes. Visual impact is among the more important considerations and advice is given on spatial extent, spacing, cumulative effect, layout and height. There is an emphasis on the distinctiveness of landscapes and their sensitivity to absorbing different types of development; • Environmental considerations such as the impact on habitats and birds and the need for habitat management. It is noted that designation of an area of natural and cultural heritage does not in itself preclude development, unless it is judged to be such that it would impact on the integrity of such sites and their natural heritage interests; • The need for information on the underlying geology of the area including a geotechnical assessment of bedrock and slope stability and the risk of bog burst or landslide. Geological consultants should be employed to ensure that sufficient information is submitted. • Other impacts on human beings such as noise and shadow flicker.
3.2 Regional Planning Guidelines: -
Section 9.4 of the guidelines identifies the Dublin and Wicklow Mountains as a unique natural asset, which is (inter alia) a major recreational and tourist resort as well as potentially an economic resource for energy production.
3.3 Wicklow County Council Development Plan 2004-2010
3.3.1 Landscape polices
The county plan divides the entire county into 5 landscape categories of varying sensitivity. The subject site is within an area designated as an ‘Area of Special Amenity’. This is the second most sensitive landscape category. Several sets of policies apply to these landscape categories. Section 6.1.1 of the county plan explains this category as follows: - This landscape zone encompasses those areas which, whilst not as vulnerable nor as sensitive as those areas in the A.O.N.B. zone, are still subject to pressure for development which could result in a serious deterioration in the landscape quality. The sensitivity of these areas is made more pronounced by the fact that they act as an effective “gateway” to the more remote and wild upland areas and because the more ameliorative nature of the landform ensures that there is greater development pressure. The subject site is identified on Map 3E as being within one of the 3 distinct sections of the ‘southern hills’, i.e. the ‘mountainous leg from Moylisha running north-west of
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 31 Shillelagh, Tinahely and Aughrim’. The parallel area of high ground around Croghan Mountain described in section 1.0 of this report is similarly described.
3.3.2 Policies on views and prospects
Policy HL1 states that the council will ensure that the development of Wicklow takes full account of the designated landscape categories and the protection of their amenities and assets.
Policy HL6 refers to the council’s policy to preserve identified views and prospects as per schedule 10.6 and 10.7. Map 9B of the county plan identifies these views and prospects spatially, the relevant ones being the following: -
Prospect 52 R748 Holts way at Kilaveny Prospect towards Tinahely and south and Ronastraw Wicklow Mountains Prospect 53 R748Holts Way at Coolalug, Prospect across Derry water river and Mucklagh Tomnaskela and towards south Wicklow mountains Kilpipe
Section 6.4.3 of Chapter 9 requires that above ground electricity transmission lines should where possible, • not traverse the zone of outstanding natural beauty • nor seriously impact on views or prospects of special amenity value or interfere with Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas.
3.3.3 Energy and Wind energy policies
Policy EN3 states that the Council will encourage the development of wind energy in suitable locations in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Policy EN4 states that the Council will prepare Indicative Wind Energy Strategy within 12 months of the adoption of the County Development Plan 2004-2010.
Policy EN7 states that the Council will support the necessary generation of electrical power in County Wicklow.
Section 6.4.1 of the plan’s infrastructure chapter deals specifically with wind energy, and states that the Council will encourage the development of wind energy projects outside of the zone of outstanding natural beauty, where they do not interfere with heritage items nor interfere with residential amenities. Wind energy projects are open to consideration in all other areas, however regard should be given to views and prospects.
3.3.4 Tourism policies
Policy HL 23 (as per Variation 1 – Oct 2005) seeks the protection and promotion of The Wicklow Way and St. Kevin's Way as permissive Waymarked routes in the county, and states that the council will protect them from inappropriate development, which would negatively infringe upon them.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 31 3.4 Tinahely LAP
Map 5 of the Tinahely LAP identifies views and vistas to be protected, including views northwest and northeast from the town centre. It also identifies 2 alignments for relief roads along the regional routes that would divert traffic from Market/Dwyer Square.
4.0 HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history on file relating to the subject site. However, there are a number of existing and permitted windfarms in the vicinity that are either referred to in the appeal file, or that I became aware of during my assessment of the application. I am not aware of any refusals in respect of windfarm applications aside from the windfarm currently on appeal.
PA/ABP Location Location re: No. of Height Built Ref. Nos. Ballycumber Turbines (Hub+blade) ? 04/716 Raheenleagh 10km east- 13 112m no PL27.208007 and Ballinvally southeast 01/4273 Cronelea 7km southwest 3 75m yes Pl27.125044 06/5517 Cronelea 7km southwest 2 Not known no -(no appeal) 01/4805 Cronelea 7km southwest 4 Not known yes (3 -(no appeal) no.) 06/6219 Ballyshonog 3.5km 2 Not known no -(no appeal) southwest 03/9089 Kennystown 10km south 4 Not known no -(no appeal)
5.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION
The planning authority decided to refuse permission for 2 reasons.
The first refers to the location, design, and turbine height of the proposed development in relation the landscape classification of the area and finds that it would be a highly obtrusive feature over a wide area, with detrimental impacts on listed prospects
The second reason for refusal finds that there is inadequate information relating to the transport of wind turbine components along the proposed route sufficient to show that it is viable without causing hazard or obstruction.
6.0 SUMMARY OF REPORTS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY
6.1 Planning Officers report
There are two planning officer reports on file. One was written prior to the request for an extension of time by the applicant, the second after receipt of further information. See section 2.2 of this report in relation to this matter.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 31
The issues raised in the planning officer’s reports are largely reflected in the decision of the planning authority. Further issues raised in these reports can be summarised as follows: -
6.1.1 1st planning officer’s report: -
• EIS takes no account of alternatives, including alternative layouts for the windfarm. • EIS overly-dependant on desktop studies. • No indications of difficulties encountered in compiling information, assessment of wind potential, or connection to the national grid (which the DoEHLG guidelines advocate should be indicated in any application), the upgrade of which may or may not happen as described by the applicant. • Lack of details regarding access roads and geological impacts. • Lack of assessment of impacts on designated prospects 52 and 53. • Significant views from the Wicklow Way. • Inadequate assessment of listed views within the Carlow County Development Plan. • The two recommended reasons for refusal refer to 1) the lack of assessment of the visual impact, and 2) inadequacies in the submitted EIS.
6.1.2 2nd planning officer’s report: -
• That the main issues raised in the refusal reasons of the 1st planning officer’s report have not been addressed by the intervening submission from the applicant. • The area is considered to be suitable in principle for the exploitation of the wind resource, but only when properly designed to take full cognisance of the policies of the Wicklow and Carlow county plans. • The road layout of Tinahely village, narrow road width, layout of the square, and on-street parking is cause for concern in the context of the identified haulage route. There is insufficient information available on file to show that this route is viable.
6.2 Departmental Reports
Environment section: - Two reports on file. The first indicates “No objections. Windfarms are viewed positively by the environment section.”
The second report on file states that the EIS is deficient in terms of geological assessment, and recommends a series of investigations.
6.3 Representations
Objections were received from the 5 observers to this appeal. Subsequent objections were also received from each of these parties. These objections are available on file. Issues raised are largely dealt with in Section 9.0 of this report. Other issues raised include: - • That the make and model of the turbines should be specified in the application. • That the ZTV map is inaccurate.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 31 • That there exists a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ regarding access to the Coillte lands for the purposes of horse riding, as facilitated by an interconnecting gate. • One of the submissions includes a significant amount of articles and commentary regarding the negative impacts of windfarms.
There were 2 representations to the planning authority from local politicians advocating the proposed development on behalf of the applicants. These local representatives were: - • Billy Timmins – TD • David Grant – Cllr
7.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The main grounds of the 1st party appeal can be summarised as follows:
7.1 General issues
• The appeal contains a significant amount of information relating in a general sense to the environmental benefits of wind energy and positive public opinion. While of relevance, I do not propose to summarise these matters in this report. • There are 4 houses within 1km of the turbines, 2 of which are occupied by members of the applicant group. • 5 groups of objectors were invited to a meeting by the applicants, although those present retained a unanimous view of total opposition. Letters of support from other members of the community are submitted with the appeal.
7.2 Receiving visual environment
• The surrounding countryside is a highly modified working landscape with many artificial elements. • The landscape is not rare, unique or of high scenic quality, and does not contain any outstanding natural or cultural heritage elements. • The proposed turbines would be roughly half the height of the hill, which is equivalent to the proportions at the Cronelea windfarm.
7.3 Planning context - general
• Positive precedent set at Cronelea (9 turbines) and Kennystown (4 turbines). The proposed development is comparable in scale to these projects. • The planning authority refer to the designated landscape category for the site and listed views and prospects, yet there is positive precedent for permission within the Special Amenity Zone / Area of Special Amenity (Cronelea, Kennystown, Raheenleagh & Ballinvally) • Wicklow County Council have not produced any analysis of landscape sensitivity with respect to wind energy based on o wind energy potential o landscape sensitivity o zoning based on the above
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 31 o grid considerations. The planning authority’s failure to undertake this public duty has lead to the applicants proceeding with their application with incomplete knowledge of public policy. • The council have not complied with policy EN4 of the county plan which stated that the council would prepared an indicative wind energy strategy within 12 month of the adoption of the plan, thus prejudicing any wind energy development. • The proposed development is compliant with Section 6.4.1 of the county plan, which encourages the development of wind energy projects outside the zone of outstanding natural beauty. • The applicants sought a pre-planning meeting on the basis of the above, but none was forthcoming.
7.4 Planning context – designated views and prospects
• The existing/permitted 9 turbines at Cronelea would be visible within prospect 52. • ‘South Wicklow Mountains’ as a term used in relation to prospects 52 and 53 is not defined. It may refer only to the mountains north of Askanagap. • The sensitivity of these landscapes could be debated. • Section 3.8 of the DoEHLG guidelines does not automatically preclude an area from future wind energy development on the basis of its visibility within a designated view or prospect.
7.5 Wind Energy Guidelines 2006
• The Landscape Character Type (as defined by the Guidelines) that best fits the site and wider region is ‘Hilly and Flat Farmland’. • Policies in relation to this designation have a preference for locating windfarms on ridges and plateaus, for regular spacing, and linear layouts. The submission implies that the proposed development is compliant with these policies. • The guidelines allow for taller turbines where upper ground is relatively open and visually extensive. • The report makes reference to a number of further policies in the guidelines. Many of the arguments are repeated throughout the text of the submission.
7.6 Traffic issues
• Wicklow County Council did not issue a request for Further Information in relation to traffic concerns, at which time it could have been easily and satisfactorily addressed. • An alternate site access route is proposed. This route can be summarised as N81 (southbound only) – Baltinglass – Kiltegan – Crossnacole – Highpark – Knocknagilky – right towards Knockananna – Rathshanmore – Mullans – to site. No significant road engineering upgrade works would be required, and no hazard or obstruction to existing properties and road users would result. A report to this effect from ‘Exceptional Load Services Ltd. is attached to the appeal submission. • The transmission of oversized loads is a common feature of the countryside.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 31 7.7 Additional material submitted with appeal submission
7.7.1 Letter from Fergus Whelan of Scan Energy and Environmental Services Ltd.
• This letter argues for accommodating ‘as much as possible’ on the hill, i.e. larger turbines, and refers to two scenarios, the current proposal and the provision of a larger number of smaller turbines. Related differnces in operating profit and power output are outlined. • The V90s (larger turbines) would most likely result in a greater noise level at the site boundary. • Both scenarios would have similar implications with regard to numbers of traffic movements. Foundation sizes would be 400m3 and 110m3 respectively.
7.7.2 Addition to EIS submission relating to Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Architecture.
• This report expands on the above-mentioned topics, based on a desktop study, aerial photography, documentary research, and a field study. • The report gives a further assessment of monuments in the vicinity of the subject site, and concludes that these sites would not be impacted upon by the proposed development. • Section 2 of the report refers to the relocation of turbine T1 to the townland of Kyle and turbine T4 to the townland of Mullans south. A ‘fig 2’ is referenced in this regard, but cannot be found on file.
7.7.3 CD-ROM with animated photomontages.
• The submission includes a CD-ROM (on file), which contains versions of several of the photomontages on file in hard-copy format, but with the facility to view animations of the turbines, with blades rotating. I have viewed these images, and while they perhaps offer a more realistic interpretation of the likely visual effect, I do not consider them to contain significant additions information beyond what is contained in the hard-copy photomontages.
7.7.4 Report on proposed Haulage Route (via Knockananna): -
• The report is based on loads with maximum dimensions of 49m (length) x 4.5m (width) x 5m (height) • Parking restrictions at one junction is proposed, along with works to several other junctions, including junction widening, expanding areas of hardstanding, removal of hedgerows, construction of a new ‘slip road’, moving of electricity transmission poles, and the removal of part of the parapet of a bridge. Some annotated photos and sketches (not to scale) are submitted, displaying these works.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 31 8.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
8.1 Planning Authority
In a submission from a Senior Engineer of the planning authority’s Planning and Economic Development Department dated 9th January 2007, the planning reports on file are referred to as reflecting the planning authority’s position.
Further to the above, the submission refers to the appellants’ claim that ‘Further Information’ should have been sought in relation to the matters raised in the second refusal reason, i.e. the proposed haulage route. The planning authority states that planning legislation requires that further information should not be requested unless the planning authority is disposed towards granting an application, which was not the case in this instance, as traffic hazard was not the only concern of the planning authority.
9.0 OBSERVERS
A total of 5 observations have been submitted from the following parties: 1. Maurice and Jenny Collins, 2. Peter and Kate Moody, 3. Pam and Ted Horan and others, 4. Dan and Catherine Kavanagh, 5. Deirdre and Ian Bangham and others.
The location of the objectors’ properties in the case of the Horans and the Kavanaghs are identified on a reproduction of the site location map on file (as submitted in the objection of Dan Kavanagh). There is no information on file sufficient to identify the locations of the other objectors’ properties beyond the stated townland. The main issues raised in these observations can be summarised as follows:-
9.1 Visual impact: -
• The introduction of a stark man-made moving landscape in contrast to the current natural, static landscape. • The existing landscape is not ‘heavily modified’ as referred to by the applicant. • Inadequate photomontages, designed to disguise the visual impact of the proposed development. • Market Square in Tinahely, and many houses in Tinahely (which is designated an ACA) will have the skyline dominated by the Turbine on Mullins hill (sic), as will several ‘Big Houses’ in the area. • That the proposed development would have a significant visual impact, being (by the appellants’ own admission) visible from 4 counties. • That the area has been subjected to comparatively little change in the visual environment in recent times, as compared with elsewhere in the county. • That caution should be exercised in the absence of the spatial policies from the planning authority with regard to wind farms, which is referred to by the appellant.. • That the proposed development would require the construction of 20km of 38kV overhead electricity transmission lines, the impacts of which are not covered in the application.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 31
9.2 Tourism and employment: -
• That the proposed development would deter hill walking and equestrian groups from walking on the Wicklow Way by virtue of the loss of natural beauty and the introduction of an industrial site in the middle of a wild area. • Conflict between areas of high wind resource and scenic beauty. • That the proposed development would create only one job long-term, as only one person would be needed to check and survey the turbines. The proposed development would cause significant job losses in the equine industry in the area (see section 9.5 below)
9.3 Environment and archaeology: -
• Displacement of deer that inhabit Ballycumber. • Death of birds and bats. • Inadequate ecological assessment, based on one site inspection and a desktop study. • That the area exhibits remnants of previous settlements and field patterns, and that there could be significant archaeology in the area. Several examples given.
9.4 Traffic: -
• Disruption by virtue of heavy traffic volumes at the construction phase. • That the continuous concrete pours required to construct the proposed foundations would require 25 lorries per day on top of other traffic. • That the surrounding country roads are unsuitable, and not designed to take the traffic generated by the proposed development. • That the haulage route submitted to An Bord Pleanála (Baltinglass – Kiltegan – Rathshanmore – Mullans) represents a fundamental change from the route originally stated in the application (via Tinahely).
9.5 Impact on equestrian and agricultural activities: -
• Impact on surrounding equestrian area by virtue of construction traffic and startling of horses by shadow flicker. Similar impacts with regard to agricultural livestock. • Brood mares are delivered to the stud farms annually, and as such cannot become accustomed to the turbines. • Exclusion distances based on the extrapolation of recommendations from the British Horse Society would have serious impacts on equestrian activities in the vicinity. • The forestry tracks in the area are currently well suited for teaching beginners in horse riding.
9.6 Noise, health, and quality of life: -
• Impacts on health by virtue of the effects of overhead wiring • Impacts on residents by virtue of noise and shadow flicker. Effects such as lack of sleep and stress are cited. • Those proposing the development will not have views of the windfarm.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 31 9.7 Alternatives, precedent, and cumulative effects: -
• The remainder of the approved 200 turbines to be situated offshore on the Arklow Bank (7 constructed to date) should be constructed prior to the consideration of onshore applications. • The proposed development would set a precedent for further turbines on the hill above Tinahely by others with rights to the hill. • Unacceptable cumulative effects of the proposed development in the context of existing turbines in the area. • Inadequate EIS as alternative sites have not been considered. • That the precedent for other windfarms in the area should be viewed in conjunction with site-specific visual sensitivities and cumulative impacts. • That the windfarms at Cronelea and Kennystown are situated on lower (300m as opposed to 400m), less prominent hills, and with lower turbines. • That no wind data has been submitted to justify the proposed development.
9.8 Procedural: -
• The applicant did not consult with the local community, as recommended in the 2004 Draft Windfarm Guidelines • The CD-ROM submitted with the appeal has not been made available for comment. • That the proposed development was not advertised in any local papers, and there was little public awareness of the proposed development.
9.9 Geological issues: -
• That the proposed development could result in landslides, putting houses at risk. That there is historical precedent for landslides in the area. • That the geological report was taken during an unusually dry and hot period, and as such is misrepresentative of the existing situation. • That recent deforestation in the vicinity of the subject site will exacerbate erosion due to water.
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Having inspected the site and reviewed the file documents, I consider that the issues raised by this appeal can be assessed under the following broad headings:
• Visual impact • Adequacy of EIS • Haulage route • Policy context • Impact on the residential, agricultural and rural amenities of the area • Cumulative impact of windfarms in the area • Procedural issues • Geological and Ecological concerns • Tourism
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 31 10.1 Visual impact
10.1.1 Wind energy guidelines (DoEHLG 2006)
The visual effect of such developments is clearly one of the most significant impacts on its receiving environment. As any assessment of such effects is prone to subjective opinions on the aesthetics of such structures, I consider the detailed recommendations and policies of the Wind Energy Guidelines to be the most relevant objectvie basis for assessment of these issues.
Chapter 6 of the Guidelines makes recommendations in relation to visual impacts. It works with 6 broad landscape categories and makes recommendations in relation to location, spatial exten, cumulative effect, spacing, layout, and height. The applicants state in their appeal that they consider the area of the proposed development to be best characterised as ‘Hilly and Flat Farmland’, although in my opinion, it could be argued that ‘Mountain Moorland’ landscape character might be at least partially applicable. A summary of the recommendations for both these landscape types is given below (excerpt from Table 1 of the Guidelines): -
Location Spatial Extent Cumulative Spacing Layout Height Effect Mountain Ridge and Tend towards Acceptable, Any spacing Any layout may be Any height. Moorland saddles large, depending may be acceptable, but are depending on on acceptable, but random or generally scale of actual topography regular clustered may be acceptable context. as well as spacing may best on ridges and siting and be best on a hilltops, design of simple ridge or respectively, and wind energy on broad grid on broad development sweeping sweeping areas. s involved. areas.
Hills and Anywhere Generally Acceptable Regular. Linear and Medium Flat limited to depending staggered linear typically Farmland small wind on layout on ridges preferred but energy appropriate and clustered on tall may be developments siting and hilltops. acceptable. design.
I consider that the proposed development could be accurately classified as a windfarm of medium spatial extent located in a staggered liner layout on a ridge with an off- regular spacing arrangement of tall turbines, where there is a significant chance of there being a substantial cumulative effect. As such, I consider that the proposed windfarm performs relatively well against the recommendations of the Wind Energy Guidelines under either landscape classification, or indeed a combination of the two.
I have consulted the balance of the recommendations contained within Chapter 6 of the Guidelines, and consider that the proposed development performs relatively well in relation to these policies. One area of concern is the recommendation of section 6.3.4 which recommends that “Where the wind energy development is relatively close and above a small urban node, it should respect the scale of its setting and avoid spatial dominance”. I have concerns regarding the siting and size of Turbines T4, T5, and T6 insofar as they may have an overbearing impact on the village of Tinahely by virtue of
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 31 their size and siting. Also, the staggered-linear arrangmetn could result in ‘visual stacking’ of the turbines from certain viewpoints in line with either of the turbine alignments.
It is clear that at approximately 125m (at blade tip), these turbines would be at the taller end of the range of turbines constructed in recent years (the Wind Energy Guidelines classify any turbine over 100m as ‘tall’), and their location within the existing scenic backdrop of a small town is a matter of concern. This is dealt with further in section 10.1.4 below.
10.1.2 Assessment of visual impact analysis in the EIS.
I do not consider that the proposed EIS displays an accurate assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development. Appendix 3 of the Wind Energy Guidelines sets out clear recommendations in relation to Landscape Impact Assessments. Specifically, the proposed development is contrary to these recommendations for the following reasons: -
• For blade tips in excess of 100m, a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) radius of 20km is recommended. The submitted map consists of a rectangular area which extends from 9km to 13.5km from the subject site, approximately half that recommended. • It is recommended that the ZTV should be based on visibility of hub height plus half a blade length, yet the submitted ZTV is based on hub height only.
On the basis of the above, I consider that the potential visual impact of the proposed development is substantially underrepresented. Using topographical maps, and extrapolating from the information in the submitted ZTV, it appears that the proposed development may be visible from large areas of northeast Co. Carlow, and may be visible from areas east of Aughrim, towards Avoca and Arklow. These impacts would need to be accounted for in any assessment of the proposed development.
It should be noted that the EIS refers to the ZTV as covering 709km2, yet the area shown is approximately half that. Should the recommended 20km buffer be used, it would extend to approximately 1,250km2 , take in towns as far as Tullow, Baltinglass, Rathdrum, as well as the outskirts of Arklow and Gorey, and would extend north along the Wicklow Mountains almost as far north as Glendalough.
10.1.3 Visual impact of development from surrounding countryside: -
I concur with the observers’ contention that this area has not been subjected to the level of development seen in recent times elsewhere in the county. The area around the subject site generally consists of rolling hills and low mountains, with a distinct valley to the southeast. The proposed development would be highly visible from many locations in the area, as evidenced from the submitted EIS. As stated previously, the proposed turbines are of a height that is at the taller end of what has been constructed in recent times in this country, and there is little doubt that there would be a significant visual impact on the surrounding area.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 31 This is not to say however that the subject site is unsuitable for a windfarm. There is a good deal of assimilative capacity in the local landscape for such structures, particularly the landscape to the northwest, north, and northeast of the subject site, which is broad and expansive in character. There are few specific landscape features that would be impacted upon directly by the proposed turbines. The area to the southwest, south, and southeast of the subject site has a more fine-grained and intimate character, and this area is more susceptible to visual dominance by the proposed development, particularly the southern 3 turbines, T4, T5, and T6.
On a more localised level, having inspected the area I consider the available photomontages to portray an accurate representation of the visual effects of the proposed development. On the balance of the information available on file, I consider that the proposed windfarm would be highly visible, yet not visually injurious from most locations. I do not consider that the proposed development would have a particular undue effect on the listed prospects 52 and 53, as compared with impacts from other viewpoints.
10.1.4 Visual impact of development from Tinahely: -
I am concerned that the submitted photomontages and visual assessment does not deal sufficiently with views from Tinahely itself, which is an Architectural Conservation Area, with protected views from the town to the northwest and northeast listed in the Local Area Plan. The submitted ZTV map indicates that 3 and possibly 4 turbines would be visible from almost all areas of the town. Given the elevation and height of the turbines, and the fact that the topography of the town falls from south to north, there is potential for these turbines to have a significant visual impact on the town.
While there are no photomontages submitted showing these views, photos 43 and 44 taken on my site inspection give some indication of the likely impact. The backdrop of the rolling hills to the north of Tinahely is a significant contributing factor to its pleasant visual character, and such the proposed development’s visual impact on this feature should be suitably assessed. The view across Market/Dwyer Square towards the subject site is particularly sensitive in this regard. I note also the recommendation of Section 6.8 of the Wind Energy Guidelines, which recommend that “Where possible, the perception from more sensitive viewpoints, of turbine blade sets cutting the horizon should be avoided”. On the basis of the information available, it appears that such an effect could be created by the proposed development when viewed from Tinahely.
I note that the submitteed phtomontages on CD-ROM include an image from the northwestern outskirts of Tinahely. However, it does not appear that this informatin hs been circulated to the relevant parties.
10.1.5 Auxiliary structures: -
Following my inspection of the site, I concur with the appellant’s contention that the local topography would reduce the visual impact of the proposed electrical compound between turbines T5 and T6. While the site of this structure is located on a ridge, it is essentially within a broad dip in the ridge, and as such would have limited visibility from the short to middle distance. However, I consider that should permission be granted, a condition of the permission should require either planting around the
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 31 structure, the construction of earth ‘berms’ around the structure, the setting of the floor level of the structure below the surrounding ground level, or a combination of these measures, as recommended in section 6.11.1 of the Wind Energy Guidelines.
It is proposed to construct an anemometer mast, 50m high, of a lattice-type design between turbines T3 and T4. The visual impact of this relatively large structure (equivalent to almost two thirds the hub height of the proposed turbines) has not been assessed by the applicant, and the structure does not feature in any of the submitted photomontages or wireframe drawings. I consider that this is a significant visual element to the scheme that should have been afforded due consideration in the applicants’ EIS. Furthermore, on the basis of the information available, I consider that the anemometer could have a significant detrimental impact in visual terms. The proposed turbine layout has a simplicity and uniformity that would be confused and disrupted by the proposed mast, particularly as its distance to the two nearest turbines approximates the spacing found elsewhere within the scheme. This could result in the mast having the appearance of a malformed, damaged, or partially constructed turbine. Furthermore, there is no justification for this structure given on file. I note that there is no comparable structure apparent on the nearby Cronelea wind farm(s). Should permission be granted, I recommend that this element be omitted.
10.1.6 Electricity transmission cables: -
No drawings have been submitted in relation to the proposed electricity transmission structures, although the applicant has indicated that it is intended to use above-ground 38kV transmission cables on twin-pole support structures to access the national grid at Ballycadden Co. Wexford, to the south. While a more accurate representation of this aspect of the proposal, and an analysis of its visual impact would have been acceptable, I note that section 7.12 of the Wind Energy Guidelines envisages that separate planning applications for electricity connections would be acceptable in principle.
I note the policies of the County Development Plan, which require that such lines should where possible not seriously impact on prospects of special amenity value. However, I note that while the Wind Energy Guidelines recommend undergrounding of services between turbines and control buildings, it recommends that connections to the national grid can be above ground in all but the most sensitive landscapes. I consider that an appropriate compromise would be to perhaps require undergrounding of cables above an elevation of say 300m/350m. This approach has been taken in the conditions of permissions in some similar cases.
10.2 Adequacy of EIS
I have read the EIS (as supplemented post-application) and in my view, it complies with the requirements of Article 94 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. I consider the area that required closest scrutiny in this regard is the requirements to outline the main alternatives studied by the applicant.
10.2.1 Alternatives considered: -
Generally speaking an EIS would explore various alternatives for achieving the desired effect of the development, which in many cases would imply a site selection process, an
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 31 exploration of technologies available and alternatives considered in this regard. In the case of the current application, no such process is evident. However, the applicant has submitted a considerable amount of information regarding alternatives to wind energy in a broader strategic context, such as fossil fuels. Also, there is evidence on file of the applicant having examined alternative options in terms of turbine layout and turbine height. In the context of the nature of the development proposed, I consider this is an appropriate approach to the issue of the alternatives considered.
10.2.2 Inadequacies of the EIS: -
The fact that a significant portion of the EIS was submitted as further information raises some concerns, as it was not ‘readvertised’ under Article 35 of the 2001 Planning Regulations, and as such the public were not afforded the opportunity to comment on its contents. Additions and amendments to the EIS were also submitted at appeal stage.
Furthermore, I consider that there are definite shortcomings in the assessment contained in the EIS in the areas of visual assessment (as detailed in section 10.1.2 of this report) and the haulage route (as detailed in section 10.3 of this report). I consider that further assessment of these issues by the applicant would be necessary prior to the determination of such a proposal on this site. In arriving at this recommendation, I am mindful of the Circular Letter PD 2/07 from the DoEHLG which recommends that under no circumstances should planning authorities use compliance conditions to complete an inadequate EIS, or to request the development of mitigation measures in these cases.
10.3 Haulage route
There are two proposed haulage routes identified on file. The first (which I will refer to as ‘Route 1’) would be from the southeast via Tinahely village, as described in Section 2.1.6 of this report, while the second (which I will refer to as ‘Route 2’) would be from the northwest via Kiltegan and Knockananna, as described in sections 7.6 and 7.7.4 of this report. Route 1 was the option proposed to the planning authority, which was deemed to be unacceptable by virtue of traffic hazard, while Route 2 was proposed by the applicant at appeal stage only.
I do not consider that the board has the option of granting permission for a proposed development that incorporates the ‘Route 2’ haulage route. Aside from the 5 objectors who had an opportunity to make observations to the appeal, no member of the public has had an opportunity to comment on the merits of the second route. Notwithstanding this recommendation, I will comment on the merits of both routes, on the basis of the information available.
10.3.1 Route 1: -
This route is described on page 25 of the originally-submitted EIS. My assessment of this route can be summarised as follows: - • The submitted route does not specify the route from beyond Tinahely, but it could be reasonably assumed that the parts would come from an east coast port via the N11 and Arklow.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 31 • From inspection of available maps and my familiarity of the area, this route has large sections that are suitable for the transport of oversized loads. The Tinahely- Aughrim and Aughrim-Arklow roads contain sections of good width and good horizontal and vertical alignments. • There are several potential ‘pinch points’ along this route such as the turn at Tinahely Village which is at triangular square with a building at its centre (library) and buildings right up to the public footpath on all sides. The route would also most likely have to travel through the streets of Arklow itself, as there is no junction from the N11 Arklow Bypass onto the R747. • It is perhaps telling that the applicants chose to offer an alternative route at appeal stage rather than submit information in support of the original route. This would perhaps indicate that investigations along these lines revealed problems with this route. • Notwithstanding the lack of a technical report from the Engineering/Roads section of the planning authority, I concur with the planning officer’ assessment and recommendation regarding the lack of information showing the viability of this route. • I note from the Tinahely LAP that there are proposals to reserve lands for a possible relief road (Map 5) that might alleviate the pinch point at the village centre in the medium to long term.
10.3.2 Route 2: -
My assessment of this route can be summarised as follows: - • While this route is better described than Route 1, it could be criticised for the lack of a map showing an overview of the route and the lack of scaled drawings detailing the proposed works to facilitate the haulage route. • I drove the portion of the proposed route from the subject site to the R747 at Kiltegan. It is apparent that many sections of this roadway are quite narrow, and that there are several bends and junctions at or approaching 900 that would be unable at present to accommodate a 4.5m wide 49m long load. • The choice of route from Kiltegan to the subject site appears to be a strange choice, as the R747 continues towards the subject site via Hacketstown. No reason is given for the more circuitous route proposed. I note however, that the proposed route remains within the county boundary of Wicklow, while the Hacketstown Route would travel through Co. Carlow. It may have been perceived to have been beneficial not to involve a second planning authority in the proposed development, irrespective of the merits of the respective routes. • It is not clear from the submitted information whether the proposed works at junctions are to be undertaken on private or public lands, or a mixture of both. In the case of the former, I consider that the applicant should have secured the permission of the relevant landowners, and submitted copies of same. In the case of the latter (public land), the applicant should have secured the permission of the local authority for such works. I note that the submission from the planning authority does not refer to the revised route. As such, I do not consider there is sufficient information on file to show that the applicants would be in a position to implement the works necessary to improve the identified haulage route. • The works proposed would result in a considerable visual impact on a number of small and attractive rural back roads, with no proposals for reinstatement of trees
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 31 and hedgerows, and no evident justification in the medium term for localised widening and junction improvements. • It would appear to be more sensible to confine the haulage routes to National and Regional roads as much as possible. Where road widening and junction improvements are required, they could perhaps contribute to the improvement of the more strategic road network, with an element of planning gain. This approach would appear to suggest the Kiltegan-Hacketstown Route, although this would most likely require the input of Carlow County Council.
10.3.3 Conclusions regarding haulage route: -
• I consider that the demonstration of a safe and appropriate haulage route is a fundamental requirement of such applications, given the potential scale of impacts at construction stage of transporting oversized loads of the type proposed. • Neither of the two routes on file have been unequivocally shown to be viable. • In the absence of 3rd party inputs and at least the opportunity of input the from the planning authority’s technical departments, I would consider it inappropriate to grant permission for Route 2. • It is clear that a haulage route was possible in the case of the existing windfarm(s) at Cronelea to the south. However, route viability is subject to very localised road conditions. It may have been possible to access Cronelea via the N81 (as far as Tullow) and the R725 without encountering any of the problems outlined above. • I note that the access road from the public road to the subject site (existing forestry track) is outside the applicant’s control, and does not appear to be a public road. This raises further questions about the applicants’ ability to undertake the necessary improvements to the haulage route. • On the basis of the above, I consider the proposed development to be unacceptable in terms of its proposals relating to haulage.
10.4 Policy context
I note the appellant’s contention that the lack of a detailed policy context from the planning authority put them at a disadvantage in preparing the proposal. Many planning authorities have adopted plans in this regard, as either stand-alone documents or sections of the county plan, that identify the council’s policies on wind farms by way of a map or series of maps. These generally show which areas of the county are preferred locations for windfarms, which areas are open for consideration, and which are ‘no-go’ areas. These designations would be based on a number of considerations such as environmental considerations, wind resource, proximity to built-up areas, etc. Such a plan-led approach is one of the central recommendations of the Wind Energy Guidelines 2006 from the DoEHLG. Furthermore the current county plan has a policy to prepare such a strategy within 12 months of the adoption of the county plan. (see section 3.3.3 of this report).
I consider that the applicant has some grounds for feeling aggrieved on this matter. Furthermore, not only does the absence of such a plan put potential wind energy developers at a disadvantage in selecting sites, but the public are also excluded from having an input into a strategic policy towards windfarms and/or be aware of the provisions of such policies.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 31 The current plan has at least some spatial element (see section 3.3.3 of this report), in that it excludes wind energy projects from the Zone of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I do not consider this to be a comparable substitute for the wind policies found in other counties, as the 5 landscape categories are ‘differentiated having regard to vulnerability, assimilative capacity, and development pressures’. This is not analogous to the range of considerations that would be brought to bear on a wind energy policy.
The ‘no-go’ landscape category covers much of the upland and coastal areas of the county, where there would be high levels of wind resource, and the remainder of the county consists largely of lowland areas, with less potential for wind energy. The exception to this are the upland ‘green zones’ (i.e areas of special amenity), such as the two parallel ridges described in sections 1.0 and 3.3.1 of this report. This might help to explain the relatively high concentration of windfarm applications in the vicinity of the subject site, as described in section 4.0 of this report. It would appear that this landscape designation may have become the de-facto permissive policy designation for wind energy projects in this part of the county.
10.5 Impact on the residential, agricultural and rural amenities of the area
I consider it to be reasonable to describe the area in the vicinity of the subject site as being lightly populated, and consequently that there would be relatively few residences that would be impacted upon by the proposed development. Nevertheless, this is not to diminish the relevance of such impacts in the case of any affected residence, should such impacts arise. The residences closest to the proposed turbines are to be found at the bottom of the western and northern slopes of the hill in the townlands of Mullans North, Mullans South, Rathshanmore South, and Kyle. As such it is turbines T1, T2, and T3 that have the greatest potential impact in terms of residential amenity. I note that the separation distances from the turbines to any nearby residences to the north and northwest of turbine T1 are in the order of 900m – 1km. I consider the main potential threats to the residential amenities of nearby residences to be noise, shadow flicker, and visual impact. Visual impact is dealt with in a wider context in section 10.1 of this report.
10.5.1 Noise: -
Section 5.6 of the Wind Energy Guidelines make detailed recommendations with regard to acceptable noise levels. A lower fixed limit of 45dB(A) or a maximum increase of 5dB(A) above background noise at sensitive locations is considered acceptable, with the limit dropping to 43dB(A) for the nighttime. The guidelines go on to state that noise is unlikely to be a significant problem when distances from turbines to sensitive properties is greater than 500m. Distances under the current proposal are almost twice this value. Furthermore, the EIS shows a sound dispersion map which shows all residences as being outside of the 40dB(A). On the basis of the information available, I do not consider that noise would be a significant issue in this instance.
10.5.2 Shadow Flicker: -
I note the lack of site-specific analysis in the EIS relating to the potential effects of shadow flicker, which is the effect that the moving shadow of the turbine can have on the light entering the window of a house, and the consequent impact on amenity that can
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 31 result from the resultant rhythmical interruption of daylight. The guidelines state that ‘at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for shadow flicker is very low’. Such a distance in this instance would be 10 x ~90m = ~900m, which is just within the separation distances I have measured from the available drawings. As such, I do not consider that there would be any significant threat to neighbouring properties from shadow flicker, and that it would not be necessary to require the applicant to undertake computer modelling of this effect, for comparison against the quantitative recommendations of Section 5.12 of the Wind Energy Guidelines.
10.5.3 Effects on Equestrian activities: -
One of the observers bases a significant proportion of their objections on the impacts on the equestrian centre, which I understand is on the western slopes of the hill. Much of these objections centre on the claim that the sight and sound of the rotating turbines would startle the horses, and have a negative impact on the viability of this established business. There is no claim to the contrary in any of the material submitted by the applicant, and there is no reference to such effects in the EIS, aside from a claim on page 50 that ‘sheep and cattle graze normally at the base of wind turbines’. In the absence of any balance of evidence available on this matter, I do not consider that there is sufficient information available to make an objective assessment of this issue.
10.6 Cumulative impact of windfarms in the area
As shown in section 4.0 of this report, there are a number of windfarms permitted in the vicinity of the subject site. One of these windfarms has been constructed to date (Cronelea – several applications, and apprantly 2 separate operators.), with a further 3 having the benefit of planning permission. The proposed development would bring to 5 the number of potential windfarms in the wider Tinahely area. As stated in section 10.4 of this report, this cluster is possibly due to the interaction of high ground (better wind resource) and a relatively favourable policy context (outside the area of outstanding natural beauty).
While any given windfarm may be acceptable in isolation, its introduction into a landscape that contains existing windfarms raises a different set of issues. I do not consider that the applicant has submitted enough information with regard to these cumulative impacts.
Figure 6 of the EIS consists of an overlay of the ‘Discovery Series’ mapping for the area showing the visual influence of all approved and operating wind farms in the area coloured blue, with the ‘additional visual influence’ of the Ballycumber Wind farm. However, this does not take account of the windfarm at Raheenleagh and Ballinvally, nor does it take account of the windfarm at Ballyshonog (the applicant could perhaps be forgiven for omitting the second windfarm as permission was sought in September ’06 and granted in March ’07).
Further to the shortcomings above, the information as currently displayed does not aid the assessment of cumulative impacts in any meaningful way. A map showing the zones of theoretical visibility (ZTVs) of the various windfarms on a single map would show the viewer where the viewsheds overlap, and where the cumulative effects would be likely to be greatest. It would also help in assessing the proposed development under
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 31 section 6.5 of the Wind Energy Guidelines, which seeks to avoid situations where one windfarm can be seen behind another when viewed from a sensitive viewpoint such as a walking or scenic route.
On the basis of the information available on file, it would appear that such ‘visual stacking’ might occur at a point on the Wicklow Way approximately 5km north of the subject site. As the route passes south through a gap between Ballyteige and Shielstown, it may potentially be possible to view the existing windfarm at Cronelea, the permitted windfarm at Ballyshonog, and the currently proposed development at Ballycumber all in a staggered line at varying distances from the observer. Indeed, a similar effect might occur when approaching along the Wicklow Way from the southwest, where the route crosses an area of high ground approximately 4km west of Shillelagh.
I also have concerns regarding the general cumulative impact that these 5 potential windfarms could have on the Derry River / Derry Water valley stretching from Shillelagh through Tinahely to Aughrim. I consider that a composite ZTV map, as described above, would be an essential component in assessing the likely cumulative visual impact. I note that of the 6 turbines proposed, it is the southern 3 (T4, T5, and T6) that would have the greatest impact on the visual amenities of the valley to the south. There may be a greater capacity to assimilate the northern 3 turbines (T1, T2, and T3, as (to my knowledge) there are no existing or permitted windfarms to the west, northwest, north, or northeast of the subject site.
To conclude, I have concerns regarding the cumulative impact of windfarms on this area, and I do not consider that there is sufficient information available on file to show that the additional windfarm proposed would not make a detrimental contribution in this regard.
10.7 Procedural issues
Given the nature of the application, I consider that there could have been a valid argument for the referral of this application for comment by the planning authority to Fáilte Ireland under Article 28(1)(b) of the 2001 Planning Regulations, due to its potential impact on the major tourist amenity that is the Wicklow Way. Furthermore, due to the potential impacts on views from adjoining counties, namely Wexford, and more particularly Carlow, there may have been a valid argument for referring the application to these planning authorities for comment, under the provisions of Article 28(1)(d) of the Planning Regulations.
It should be noted that a significant amount of additional information was received from the applicants by the planning authority, as detailed in section 2.2 of this report, but that this information was not ‘readvertised’ under Article 35 of the 2001 Regulations, as required in case where such information is deemed to contain ‘significant additional data’. It is my opinion that this information was indeed significant, particularly as it contained additions to the originally submitted EIS, and that the public should have been afforded the opportunity to comment on such information.
The appellant makes the case that the planning authority should have requested further information in relation to traffic concerns. The planning authority in their response have stated that planning legislation required that further information should not be requested
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 31 unless the planning authority is disposed towards granting an application, which was not the case in this instance. While it is the case that requests for revised plans under Article 34 relies on the planning authority being positively disposed towards a proposal, there is no such legislative requirement in the case of request for further information under Article 33. However, I note section 5.7 of the draft Development Management Guidelines from the DoEHLG recommends that “further information under Article 33 on one aspect of a proposal should not be sought where there is a fundamental objection to the proposed development on other grounds”. As such, I consider that the planning authority acted in accordance with best practice in this regard.
In relation to the applicant’s observance of best practice, I note the recommendations of Section 4.4 of the Wind Energy Guidelines, which recommend that there be public consultation with the local community at an early stage. It would appear from the information on file that this was not undertaken. While there appears to have been a meeting with some locals between the date of the decision from the planning authority and the date of the appeal, this does not appear to have been conducted in the spirit of the consultations recommended by the guidelines.
10.8 Geological and Ecological concerns
I consider the proposed development to be generally acceptable in ecological terms, on the basis of the information available on file. In a wider county and regional context, the habitat exhibited in and around the subject site is not rare, nor in my view would it be particularly vulnerable to the development as proposed. The area could in my view be characterised as a robust upland area of mixed natural and farmed vegetation, typical of many similar locations in the region. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have any specific undue detrimental effect on the flora and fauna of the area. I note however that there is evidence to suggest that the use of lattice structures on wind farms can encourage perching birds, and that this can result in an increased incidence of bird strikes. That the proposed anemometer is proposed to be of a lattice design is of concern in this regard.
I consider that there is sufficient information available on file to show that the proposed development is unlikely to have any undue detrimental effects on the drainage in the area, and to show that the geological and geotechnical conditions are such that the proposed development could be accommodated without the detrimental effects that can sometimes be associated with such works. The topography in the vicinity of all the proposed turbine locations is generally level or approaching level ground, and the information on file shows that there is rock a relatively short distance beneath the surface sufficient to accommodate the proposed loads. On the basis of the information available, I consider the proposed development to be acceptable in this regard.
10.9 Tourism
I note the policy of the development plan to protect and promote the Wicklow Way as a waymarked route. This route passes along the eastern and southern slopes of the hill of the subject site. I also note that there is evidence of additional tourism infrastructure in the area, such as the walkway along the old railway line, and the recreational woods at Coolattin/Tomnafinnoge.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 31 In assessing the interaction between tourism activities and wind energy products, it is necessary to make some assumptions regarding tourists’ perceptions of turbines and associated works. To this end, the Wind Energy Guidelines (Section 3.9) are of assistance. It finds that Wind energy developments are not incompatible with tourism and leisure interests, but care needs to be taken to ensure that insensitively sited wind energy developments do not impact negatively on tourism potential. It goes on to state that the results of survey work indicate that tourism and wind energy can co-exist, and that there is potential to consider the educational potential of wind energy developments, and makes specific reference to long distance walking routes, such as the Wicklow Way.
I note that the Wicklow Way passes by the existing/permitted windfarms at Cronelea and Ballyshonog. In this context, I do not consider that the proposed development would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the tourism potential of the area. In the current policy context, most of the Wicklow Way is likely to remain free of windfarms, as the majority of the route passes through the ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ zone, where windfarms are prohibited. As such, an additional windfarm within an area of existing/permitted windfarms is, in my opinion, unlikely to be unduly injurious to the tourism potential of this route. However, I note that if permission were to be granted in this instance, it would extend northwards the extent of the Wicklow Way from where windfarms would be visible.
On the basis of the above analisis (and in conjunction with the points raised in Section 10.6 of this report, I would advocate that any revised visual analysis of this proposal would asses views from key locations on the Wicklow Way.
11.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is clear that the relevant policy context and indeed the balance of public opinion is such that there should be a positive presumption towards the principle of windfarm development. I consider that in conjunction with site-specific planning considerations, that this provides an appropriate starting point for any such assessment. However, I consider that the current proposal is deficient in that it does not clearly show that the proposed development could be accommodated without undue negative impacts. These deficiencies relate to two specific areas, the proposed haulage route, and the visual impact of the scheme: -
11.1.1 Haulage route: -
The planning authority have raised concerns about the first haulage route, via Tinahely, that have not been addressed by the applicant. It is not clear whether the proposed 49m- long loads via this route could be accommodated, particularly at the right turn in Tinahely village centre, and potentially through the streets of Arklow.
The second haulage route, via Knockananna, was only submitted at appeal stage and in my opinion has not been afforded the opportunity of sufficient scrutiny by the planning authority or by the public. It involves a relatively circuitous route and would involve significant works at problematic locations.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 31 Necessary works along either route would involve interventions to either public or private land. There is no information on file indicating any relevant consents or permissions in this regard.
It is conceivable that the issues relating to the haulage route might be capable of being successfully addressed in a subsequent application. However, if this is not the case, this could be an issue that impinges on the principle and viability of this proposal in the absence of specific improvements to the road network in the area.
11.1.2 Visual impact: -
In my opinion, the submitted proposal does not adequately assess the potential visual impact of the proposed development in accordance with the recommendations of the Wind Energy Guidelines. The ZTV map is not to the specifications of the guidelines in terms of spatial extent or design, and does not fully show the visual impact of the proposed development, particularly from the northwest and east. There is insufficient account taken of the cumulative impact of the 5 potential windfarms in the vicinity. Furthermore, the submitted photomontages do not take sufficient account of the proposed anemometer, which would be a significant element in the scheme.
11.1.3 Principle of development: -
The deficiencies in the proposal, as outlined above do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the proposed development is unacceptable in principle, although further investigation of the matters raised could conceivably raise issues about the principle of the scheme.
On the basis of the information available, I consider that the northern 3 turbines, T1, T2, and T3 would be less likely to be visually detrimental than the southern turbines, T4, T5, and T6 due to the following reasons:- • the better assimilative capacity of the landscape to the north of the site • the sensitive nature of Tinahely (which is an ACA) to which the hill forms a backdrop. • The potential of ‘visual stacking’ of the turbines from certain viewpoints that would result from the 6-turbine layout.
11.1.4 Recommendation: -
Having considered the contents of the application and appeal, the decision of the planning authority, national and regional policy, the provisions of the County Development Plan and the Tinahely Local Area Plan, the grounds of appeal and responses thereto, and having visited the site, I recommend that permission be refused for the reasons and considerations set out hereunder.
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 31 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
1. It is considered that the Environmental Impact Statement is deficient in its failure to provide sufficient information in relation to key impacts including the effects on landscape, human beings, and material assets. Specifically, the assessment of the potential visual impact of the proposed development and the proposals in relation to the intended construction access route for oversized loads have not been sufficiently addressed. The Board is not satisfied that the proposed development would not result in significant and adverse effects in these areas. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. It is considered that the development as currently proposed would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users by virtue of the deficiencies in the road access proposals, and the lack of evidence showing that the applicant has sufficient interest, permission, or consent to make the necessary improvements to the access route(s) for the stated oversize loads.
______G. Ryan Planning Inspector 9th May 2007
PL27.221158 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 31