We found 24 problems in this application.

Ex-situ use of the site by Lough Ree SPA whooper swan, lapwing and golden plover is ruled out from desk records and a summer-only, non-systematic bird survey

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement screens in whooper swan, lapwing and golden plover, which are qualifying species of Lough Ree SPA, for loss of terrestrial foraging habitat and for disturbance. It accepts that whooper swan could be feeding on or near the site over winter. It then dismisses ex-situ use as 'not prime feeding ground', because there are no desk records for lapwing on the site and none were recorded 'during any of the surveys carried out in 2025'. The only bird work was a site visit on 7-10 July 2025, compiled from existing biological records and incidental observations. Its author states that, owing to the timing of the commission, it 'does not constitute a full' survey. There is therefore no winter survey of whooper swan, or of the winter lapwing and golden plover flocks.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“for lapwing on the site and none were recorded during any of the surveys carried out in 2025.”NIS (docid 379227)

“Owing to the timing of the project commission, the survey does not constitute a full”Other Assessments (docid 379149)

“existing biological records, supplemented by incidental observations recorded during”Other Assessments (docid 379149)

“Any absence of desk study records cannot be relied upon to infer absence of a species/habitat as the”Other Assessments (docid 379156)

Why it matters

A conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of Lough Ree SPA cannot be reached while a lacuna remains on whether the qualifying species use the lands in winter. An inspector would treat an assessment resting on absence of records and a summer snapshot as leaving reasonable scientific doubt, which bars permission under s.177AE/177V.

How this has been decided before

• In PL17-311536 (Meath County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "significant effects on European sites the River Nanny Estuary and Shore Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004158) and the Boyne Estuary Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004080), the River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) and the Boyne Coast and Estuary Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 001957) in view of the Conservation Objectives of these sites arising from the project individually or in combination with other plans or projects, cannot be excluded."
• In PL04-320298 (Cork County Council, 2024) the inspector's report records this as a further-information point: "It is noted that following a request from the Planning Authority for further information a Whooper Swan and Winter Bird Survey was completed by Veon Forestry, Ecology and Environment on behalf of the applicant."

In-combination assessment is a list of other projects' own AA conclusions; the NIS summary says none were identified, and nearby projects named by the hydrology report are not in Table 3

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement's Executive Summary states that no projects or plans were identified that may have an in-combination effect. Its own Table 3 then lists the Foigha solar farm (2460325, 130 ha) and the Kepak wastewater treatment plant discharging to the River Inny, and records only each project's own appropriate assessment conclusion. It does not analyse overlapping construction timing, the shared Inny and Lough Ree pathway, or shared foraging lands for whooper swan, lapwing and golden plover. The hydrology report puts the Foigha solar farm about 1 km west and says it has potential for cumulative effects. The sentence setting out the integrity conclusion in the NIS also ends unfinished, at 'either alone or in-combination the'.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“No projects or plans were identified that may have an in-combination effect”NIS (docid 379227)

“potential for cumulative effects with the proposed development. A Natura Impact Statement”Other Assessments (docid 379179)

“developments, as well as a 24 no. turbine wind farm (ABP Ref. 303592, approx. 5km to the”Other Assessments (docid 379179)

“Given that the above assessment has found that there is no adverse effect to the site integrity, either”NIS (docid 379227)

“Several nearby developments have been identified as having potential for cumulative effects with the proposed development by the Project Team and have therefore been assessed as part of this report.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

Two large solar farms about 1 km apart feed the same catchment draining to Lough Ree and use the same open farmland. An inspector would find the in-combination limb unassessed and internally contradictory, so the AA could not conclude no adverse effect in combination.

How this has been decided before

• In PL17-311536 (Meath County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "significant effects on European sites the River Nanny Estuary and Shore Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004158) and the Boyne Estuary Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004080), the River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) and the Boyne Coast and Estuary Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 001957) in view of the Conservation Objectives of these sites arising from the project individually or in combination with other plans or projects, cannot be excluded."
• In PL21-311963 (Sligo County Council, 2023; refused) the inspector wrote: "The issue of site remediation is not addressed within the NIS which impairs the completion of Appropriate Assessment, where this assessment must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions, and may not have lacunae or gaps."

Application documents contradict each other on whether the site is affected by protected views and scenic routes

What we found

The EIA Screening Report states that the site is not covered by protected views, scenic routes or viewpoints, and the population chapter of the ECR states that there are no designated scenic routes, views or prospects in proximity. The applicant's own LVIA says otherwise. It records that the view is part of Longford County Council Protected View Full View F.S.17, which starts at the northern block boundary of the site. It selects VP10 on the L5527 at Cartronbrack, about 10m northwest of the site, as a representative viewpoint on that protected view. It also lists the Longford Literary Trail, the Mid Shannon Trail, the A2 cycle route and the Royal Canal Greenway as adjoining or near the site. The screening and ECR baselines are therefore inconsistent with the LVIA.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“covered by protected views, scenic routes, or viewpoints.”Other Assessments (docid 379174)

“The site has no designated scenic routes, views or prospects located in”Other Assessments (docid 379149)

“The view is part of Longford County Council Protected View Full View F.S.17, which runs from the”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“VP10 L5527, Cartronbrack looking east Local residents/ LCC Protected View (F.S.17) 10m northwest”Other Assessments

““CPO 14.37 Preserve the views and prospects listed in Table 14.2 and 14.3 and detailed in Appendix 9: Landscape Character with accompanying maps and to protect these views from development which would interfere unduly with the character and visual amenity of the landscape.””Other Assessments

Why it matters

The landscape conclusion of 'No significant effects' in the screening rests on a baseline that the applicant's own LVIA contradicts. Assessment of landscape effects must start from an accurate and consistent baseline, as GLVIA3 requires. CPO 14.37, which the LVIA itself reproduces, requires the views and prospects listed in the development plan to be preserved and protected from development that would interfere unduly with the character and visual amenity of the landscape. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála is likely to ask for the documents to be reconciled and for the effect on F.S.17 to be addressed expressly.

How this has been decided before

• In PL17-311536 (Meath County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "I consider that the proposed development is inappropriately sited, is piecemeal and is not in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of this area."

Disturbance mitigation does not adopt the NIS's own buffer distances; the Whooper swan 600 m buffer is not secured

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement says Whooper swan need a 600 m buffer, and it treats disturbance to lapwing and golden plover as reaching 300 m beyond the site boundary. The mitigation it lists does not adopt those distances. The only fixed buffer is 300 m around lapwing nests found in a pre-construction walkover. For foraging Whooper swan, golden plover and lapwing, an Ecological Clerk of Works is to 'carry out checks' and 'advise' on areas to avoid. No exclusion distance, season restriction or stop-work authority is set for these species. The disturbance conclusion rests on a reference to 'section 5.3.1' and is written as a grammatically incomplete sentence, so it is unclear what the mitigation is said to achieve.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“considered to have a medium sensitivity to disturbance and a 600m buffer to be sufficient (Nature Scot,”NIS (docid 379227)

“During construction an Ecological Clerk of Works should carry out checks for whopper swan,”NIS (docid 379227)

“While there may be low levels of disturbance during construction if the mitigation set out in section 5.3.1”NIS (docid 379227)

Why it matters

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, mitigation relied on to rule out adverse effects on a Special Protection Area must be specific, enforceable and matched to the effect identified. The NIS identifies a 600 m disturbance distance for a qualifying species of Lough Ree SPA, yet no measure delivers it. The no-adverse-effect conclusion is therefore not supported by the mitigation relied upon, and reasonable scientific doubt remains. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála would be expected to ask for a defined buffer and winter-season restriction, or a justification for not applying the 600 m figure.

How this has been decided before

• In PL17-311536 (Meath County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "I conclude that the NIS presented is not adequate and cannot be replied on. It does not meet the tests set out in the Habitats Directive as the requirement for best available scientific information is not met."
• In PL04-315652 (Cork County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I concur that reliance on post consent monitoring to identify any adverse effect is not in line with the obligations of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive."

Arrays sit immediately beside Protected View F.S.17 (VP10) and a residence (VP9); effects rated High / High-Moderate Adverse and only 'neutral' once hedges screen the view out

What we found

The northern block fronts the L5527, which carries Longford Protected Full View F.S.17 and the A2 South Longford Cycle Route. The applicant's landscape and visual appraisal places viewpoints VP9 (a residence) and VP10 immediately beside the site on that road. It rates VP9 as High magnitude with a High effect, and VP10 as a High-Moderate effect, both Adverse in the medium term (7-15 years). It describes the arrays and new security fencing as 'highly prominent' at VP9 and 'prominent' at VP10. The effect only falls to Moderate and Neutral in the long term, once the roadside hedge and planting matures and screens the existing open farmland view. The appraisal says this planting will 'enclose only a short section' of the F.S.17 view, which accepts that part of the protected view will be enclosed and plays down how much.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

““CPO 14.37 Preserve the views and prospects listed in Table 14.2 and 14.3 and detailed in Appendix”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“a new security fencing are highly prominent from this point. This is due to close proximity of the”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“In accordance with Figure 1.2, the importance of visual effect will be High. The quality of the effect”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“will be Adverse in the medium term (i.e. 7-15 years). However, will reduce to Moderate and Neutral”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“associated planting against its roadside boundary will also enclose only a short section of the overall”Other Assessments (docid 379215)

“The site’s newly established dense hedgerow and associated planting against its roadside boundary will also enclose only a short section of the overall F.S. 17 protected view next to the site boundary.”Other Assessments

“In accordance with Figure 1.2, the importance of visual effect will be High. The quality of the effect will be Adverse in the medium term (i.e. 7-15 years). However, will reduce to Moderate and Neutral in the Long Term as the site boundary vegetation matures and assimilates the development.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

A planning authority or the Board can read a 10 m, High-magnitude, Adverse effect on a listed protected view as interfering unduly with it, and the only answer offered is future planting that blocks the view. Policy asks for the view to be preserved, not screened.

How this has been decided before

• In PL17-311536 (Meath County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "I consider that the proposed development is inappropriately sited, is piecemeal and is not in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of this area."
• In PL92-323453 (Tipperary County Council, 2025; granted with conditions) the inspector wrote: "it is considered that there would be a moderate/negative long term residual impact once the mitigatory planting has been established given the open views that exist and its sensitivity owing to the presence of Killough Hill"

The BESS compound area is stated as 0.7 ha, 0.9 ha and 5,953 m2 in different documents

What we found

The application describes the battery energy storage (BESS) compound at three different sizes. The cover letter, BESS report, EIA Screening Report and Planning Statement give approximately 0.7 ha, split between Parcel 2 (0.3 ha) and Parcel 3 (0.4 ha). The CEMP gives approximately 0.9 ha, written as '9015,51 m²', which is also garbled as a figure. The Fire Safety Statement gives approximately 5,953 m² (2,280 m² in Parcel 2 and 3,672.4 m² in Parcel 3), which is about 0.6 ha. Other documents also say circa 0.6 ha. These are all the applicant's own descriptions of the same compound, and none of them explains the difference.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“The BESS compound is proposed within the solar farm and will occupy a total area of approximately 0.7 ha, located partly in Parcel 2 (0.3 ha) and Parcel 3 (0.4 ha).”Other Assessments (docid 379142)

“The proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) forms part of the overall development and will be located within a secured compound covering a total area of approximately 0.9 hectares (9015,51 m²).”Other Assessments (docid 379170)

“The BESS compound is proposed within the solar farm and will occupy a total area of approximately 5,953 m2 located partly in Parcel 2 (2,280.m2) and Parcel 3 (3,672.4 m2).”Other Assessments

“The Battery Energy Storage System compound is proposed within the solar farm siting on circa. 0.6 ha.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

The BESS compound area drives the fire safety separation distances, the firewater containment sizing and the visual/landscape assessment; three different figures in the applicant's own documents leave the actual footprint unresolved.

How this has been decided before

• In ABP-317809-23 (Laois County Council, 2024) the inspector's report records this as a further-information point: "The Planning Authority notes the variation in the reported size of the proposed site across different application documents and requests a definitive confirmation of the site's size."
• In abp-311427 (Meath County Council, 2022) the inspector's report records this as a further-information point: "Some submitted documents have been prepared on the basis of a site boundary that is not consistent with the application site boundary."