Independent planning risk audit of application ABP-318943-24, An Coimisiún Pleanála.
6 of the 247 are free to read below. Enquire about the full report, a set of findings, or whole topics.
Disclaimer
This report is generated by PlanningDD's automated audit system from the public planning record. Each finding is evidenced directly from the application's own documents and cross-referenced against decided An Coimisiún Pleanála cases. Findings represent our assessment of planning risk and should be verified by the user against the source documents before being relied upon or acted upon, as is standard practice with any third-party planning analysis. This report is an automated risk assessment, not a professional planning or legal opinion. PlanningDD accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this report, to the extent permitted by law.
Matched against the authority’s own file
These findings were produced from the application documents alone, without reading the authority’s letter or decision.
The authority refused on 3 grounds. All 3 were in our audit.
Findings set out in full
Refusal riskGrade A
In-combination assessment omits the permitted solar farms 1.5–2 km east and other listed projects, then asserts no adverse in-combination effect
What we found
Section 4.10 of the Natura Impact Statement lists nearby projects, including permitted solar farms at Castlebank, Drummin, Glenlon North, Glenlon South and Ballykeelaun, Co Clare, about 2 km east (permitted 06/09/23) and 1.5 km east. It also lists quarry-related applications, and it says some land-uses 'could potentially interact synergistically'. The in-combination section (6.7) does not assess any of these. It deals only with general background pressures (agriculture, forestry, wastewater, industry), two operational turbines, wind farms 8 km or more away, and climate change. The word 'solar' does not appear in it, and no named project is assessed for its own water-quality or bird effects on the Lower River Shannon SAC or SPA. For each background pressure the NIS says the wind farm 'could exacerbate' impacts and 'undermine' the conservation objectives. Section 9 then concludes there will be no adverse effect in combination, and no reasoning links the two statements.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“Castlebank, Drummin, Glenlon North, Glenlon South and Ballykeelaun, Co Clare. Permitted 06/09/23 2 km east of proposal site”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“It is considered that agriculture, forestry, on-going and future potential quarrying operations and to a lesser extent”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“together with the previously discussed effects of agricultural practices, could exacerbate potential impacts associated with the project within the catchment and undermine”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“it is objectively concluded that significant adverse residual impacts on the Conservation Objectives of any of the”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“CCC: 2357 ABP: 316237 Castlebank, Glenlon North, Glenlon South, Drummin and Ballykeelaun, Clare. Permitted: 03/04/23 Appealed: 14/04/23 Application withdrawn: 10/07/23 - 1.5 km east of proposal site”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“The water quality effects of the proposed wind farm during the construction and early operational phases, together with the previously discussed effects of industry, mining and quarrying, could exacerbate potential impacts associated with the proposed development within the Lower Shannon and Mulkear Catchment (HA25D)”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“Relevant plans and projects have been identified in Section 4.10, above.”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
Why it matters
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires effects to be assessed 'in combination with other plans or projects'. That means assessing the specific projects identified and giving a reasoned conclusion on each. A conclusion of no adverse effect must remove all reasonable scientific doubt. An NIS that names neighbouring permitted projects, does not assess them, and records an exacerbation risk without explaining why mitigation removes it cannot safely support that conclusion. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála would have to ask for the assessment or carry it out itself.
How this has been decided before
In PL07-316309 (Galway County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not satisfied that the information allows for a complete examination and identification of any potential significant effects of the development, alone, or in combination with other plans and projects on the eight no. European sites"
In PL20-312748 (Roscommon County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "Throughout the NIS effectively no comment was made about four SCI species of European sites within the zone of influence (little grebe, common scoter, common tern, and Greenland white-fronted goose)."
Refusal riskGrade A
Lesser horseshoe bat SACs screened out on a c.6 km foraging range with inconsistent distances, while the species is recorded across the site
What we found
The Natura Impact Statement screens out Danes Hole, Poulnalecka SAC and Ratty River Cave SAC, both designated for lesser horseshoe bat, on the basis that the proposal site lies 'outside the maximum foraging range of lesser horseshoe bat (c.6 km)'. It gives Danes Hole as 6.1 km from the development and Ratty River Cave as 6.4 km, so the margin at Danes Hole is 0.1 km. Chapter 6 of the EIAR gives the same sites as 7.0 km and 7.6 km from the study area, so the two documents do not use the same distance basis. The applicant's bat survey recorded lesser horseshoe bat at seven of the 12 monitoring locations, with 83 registrations, and NPWS data place the species at Ardnacrusha, about 2.4 km from Turbine 12. Neither document tests whether the bats using the site belong to either SAC population; the exclusion rests on distance alone.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“Danes Hole, Poulnalecka SAC 000030 6.1km north of proposed development”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
“The SAC is located 7.0km to the north of the study area.”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“The Annex II listed Lesser Horseshoe Bat was recorded during the summer deployment, with a total of 83”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“NPWS data shows that Lesser Horseshoe Bat has been recorded at Ardnacrusha, Co. Clare, approximately 2.4km south-east of the closest proposed turbine (Turbine 12).”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“The SAC is located 7.6km to the northwest of the study area.”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“This species was recorded at seven of the 12 monitoring locations.”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 6 Biodiversity.pdf
“Proposal site located outside the maximum foraging range of lesser horseshoe bat (c.6 km) (BCI, 2012).”Planning / Natura Impact Statement / Natura Impact Statement.pdf
Why it matters
A screening-out that hinges on a 0.1 km margin, with distances that differ between the applicant's own documents, is open to challenge as not excluding significant effects on the bat SACs.
How this has been decided before
In PL07-316309 (Galway County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not satisfied that the information allows for a complete examination and identification of any potential significant effects of the development, alone, or in combination with other plans and projects on the eight no. European sites"
In PL20-312748 (Roscommon County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "Throughout the NIS effectively no comment was made about four SCI species of European sites within the zone of influence (little grebe, common scoter, common tern, and Greenland white-fronted goose)."
Refusal riskGrade A
Traffic assessment finds peak-hour development traffic above the TII 10% threshold and 'will affect the functionality of the junction', then concludes no adverse effect, and models only one junction 5km from the site
What we found
The applicant's traffic report tests only one junction, the priority junction of the L3056 and the R464 at Parteen, about 5km from the site. It accepts that development traffic exceeds the TII 10% threshold (13.9% in the AM peak and 11.8% in the PM peak) and states that the development 'will affect the functionality of the junction'. The executive summary and section 4.2 nonetheless conclude that the junction will not be negatively impacted. The PM development figure is 123 in the appendix but 213 in the Chapter 15 table, although the 11.8% figure matches 123. The R464 link is put at a 90.5% volume/capacity ratio in 2026. Neither site entrance, the L3056/L7062 junction nor any link of the L7062 is modelled. The L7062 is described as approximately 6m wide, narrowing to 4.5m in places.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“the proposed development will affect the functionality of the junction.”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 15 Material Assets.pdf
“in traffic at the junction exceeds the TII threshold of 10% where congestion does not exist.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“827 763 123 123 13.9% 11.8% Above Above”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“827 763 123 213 13.9% 11.8% Above Above”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 15 Material Assets.pdf
“R464 7,791 8,600 90.5%”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 15 Material Assets.pdf
“during the peak construction phase of the development will not negatively impact the junction.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“focus on the priority T-junction where the L3056 meets the R464 at Parteen, approximately”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“ORS received no reply thus far and used their own judgement and experience on other similar developments to determine”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“In reality, the traffic impact will likely be less significant, as materials are anticipated to be sourced primarily from the local quarry, minimising the need for construction traffic to use the assessed junction.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
“The L7062 is a local access road in the north-south orientation of approximately 6m width, narrowing to 4.5m in local spots.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15C -Traffic and Transport Report.pdf
Why it matters
The TII guidelines set the 10% threshold as the point at which a junction needs detailed assessment. An EIAR must also give a consistent and complete description of the likely significant traffic effects. A report that finds the junction's functionality is affected and also finds no negative impact, and whose two versions of the table differ, does not meet that standard. The assessed junction is not where heavy vehicles meet the local road or the site.
How this has been decided before
In abp-313021 (Westmeath County Council, 2023; refused) the inspector wrote: "the Board is not satisfied based on the lack of information provided with the application and appeal in relation to excavations and associated traffic movements that the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of properties in the vicinity by reason of traffic related noise and general disturbance and would not create serious traffic congestion along both the access road and at the junction of the R394 and L5753"
In ABP-313220-22 (Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not satisfied that the suitable capacity of the local road network has been appropriately demonstrated in this case."
Refusal riskGrade A
Radar interference with Woodcock Hill MSSR and Shannon PSR rests on a recommended, not completed, mitigation; AirNav support is only in principle
What we found
The EIAR accepts that, without mitigation, the effect on aviation would likely be negative, moderate to significant and long term. The Irish Aviation Authority said there were no credible and implementable mitigations on the Woodcock Hill radar itself, and that the Shannon primary radar would be exposed to false targets or clutter. The applicant's answer is a recommendation by its aviation consultant (Cyrrus) that Thales carry out an on-site condition survey of the Shannon and Woodcock Hill systems, followed by a flight trial and post-construction optimisation and flight check. The supporting Thales evidence is commercial in confidence and is not provided in full. AirNav's letter supports the project only in principle, subject to ongoing interaction. It says that the effect on the Woodcock Hill radar, about 2nm from the most westerly turbine and at the same elevation, is its main concern, and that any mitigation must be assessed by its surveillance team. Cyrrus's conclusion of no residual impact is asserted rather than demonstrated, and it sits uneasily with the EIAR's own unmitigated finding.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“In the absence of the mitigation, effects to aviation from the proposed development would likely be negative,”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 15 Material Assets.pdf
““… no credible and implementable mitigations on the Woodcock hill radar”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15A - Aviation Report.pdf
“Cyrrus would recommend that an onsite condition survey is carried out by Thales on both the Shannon Airport and Woodcock Hill systems to”Environmental / Volume I - Non Technical Summary / Volume I - Non Technical Summary.pdf
“commercial in confidence. Cyrrus have permission from Thales to reference relevant”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15A - Aviation Report.pdf
“proposed development, being at the same elevation as our Woodcock Hill Surveillance Radar, at c.2nm”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 1B - Stakeholder Consultation and Responses.pdf
“Cyrrus would recommend that an onsite condition survey is carried out by Thales on both the Shannon Airport and Woodcock Hill systems to confirm their current operational state and ascertain whether updates or upgrades would be required.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 15A - Aviation Report.pdf
“this must be assessed by our surveillance team (Charlie O’Loughlin and his team copied).”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 1B - Stakeholder Consultation and Responses.pdf
The planning authority refused permission on this ground
“measurable, evidence based, demonstratable and credible mitigation measures have been submitted by the applicant, that can remove all level of aviation related risk, likely to arise as a result of the proposed development or that such measures can then be agreed and implemented to the satisfaction of AirNav Ireland, the Shannon Airport Group and the Irish Aviation Authority”Order
Why it matters
An inspector cannot conclude that safe operation of controlled airspace radar is protected when the only mitigation is a recommended survey and optimisation not yet done, with the air navigation provider's support conditional. Leaving it to condition or later agreement defers a determinative safety matter.
How this has been decided before
In PL27-309955 (Wicklow County Council, 2022; refused) the inspector wrote: "The impact of the proposed development on the nearby military camp and any activities carried out in the area by the Department of Defence."
Appeal riskGrade A
The cumulative ornithology assessment says no other wind farm lies within 10 km while listing an 8-turbine scheme at 8.5 km, and does not consider hen harrier cumulatively across the South Clare zone
What we found
Chapter 7 (Ornithology) of the EIAR lists an 8-turbine wind farm at Fahy Beg, about 8.5 km north-east of the Ballycar site, and a permitted scheme at Carrownagowan about 12 km north-east. It then concludes that there is no plausible potential for significant cumulative effects from wind energy, because there is 'no other wind farm proposed developments within at least a 10 km radius' apart from two single turbines. Fahy Beg is 8.5 km away, which is inside 10 km, so the conclusion contradicts the applicant's own list. The site lies within the 'South Clare' non-designated regional zone for hen harrier, which covers over 14,000 hectares. The cumulative discussion of hen harrier addresses forestry and agriculture only and does not address these neighbouring wind farms.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“In addition, an 8-turbine wind farm at Fahy Beg, located approximately 8.5 km northeast of the proposed”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“With no other wind farm proposed developments within at least a 10 km radius of the Ballycar site (apart from”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“In addition, an 8-turbine wind farm at Fahy Beg, located approximately 8.5 km northeast of t”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“nated but regionally important breeding areas for hen harrier in Ireland, as established from the 2015 National Hen Harrier Survey. This area was identified as the ‘South Clare’ non-designated Regional Zone for hen harrier and encompasses an area of over 14,000 hectares.”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 7B - Desktop Survey Methodology.pdf
Why it matters
The cumulative conclusion rests on a statement that the applicant's own list contradicts. Where a decision on Fahy Beg was pending and the breeding complex extends north-east, an inspector would treat the cumulative hen harrier assessment as incomplete.
How this has been decided before
In abp-317265 (Waterford City and County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not satisfied, based on the details submitted with the application, that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on hen harrier."
In PL12-310789 (Leitrim County Council, 2023; refused) the inspector wrote: "the continued expansion of wind farm development in this area adversely effects the existence of these species of conservation value at this location."
Appeal riskGrade A
Hen harrier: turbines sit partly inside the South Clare regional breeding zone, construction disturbance is rated significant, and the protection relies on future surveys and a low-data collision model
What we found
About 20% of the study area overlaps the South Clare regional breeding zone for hen harrier, which the EIAR describes as a regionally important area that is not designated. The EIAR rates construction disturbance to breeding birds, possibly up to 1,000 m from the works, as an Adverse Significant Effect. The buffer-zone mitigation applies only if breeding is found by pre-construction surveys, so no nesting outcome is secured now. Operational displacement is rated Slight, although the chapter cites a predicted 52.5% reduction in flight activity within 500 m of a turbine array and accepts that part of the site is likely within a breeding territory's range. The collision model rests on two records at collision height totalling 34 flight seconds. The survey descriptions are also inconsistent: roost surveys are five in the methodology and four in the results, and the 2022 breeding survey is described differently from the 2023 survey. The chapter does record breeding about 3 km west and says suitable foraging habitat is mostly outside the application boundary.
The evidence, in the application’s own words
“designated but regionally important breeding area for hen harrier (South Clare). The overlap is the northern”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“On this basis, it is considered that the construction of the wind farm would likely have a potential disturbance”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“effect on breeding birds (if present) within a distance of possibly up to 1,000 m from the construction area – this”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“Should any of these species be recorded breeding within the given distances of the works area through”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“et al. (2009) cited a predicted reduction in flight activity of 52.5% within 500 m of the turbine array for breeding”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“some degree of habituation occurring over time. Significance of potential effect is rated as Slight and of short- to”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“and 2023, with two records observed at collision risk height within the WFA totaling 34”Environmental / Volume III - Appendices / Appendix 7K - Ornithology Collision Risk Modelling Report, October 2023.pdf
“Five surveys were carried out between 22nd November 2022 and 3rd March 2023 (survey”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“There were no observations of hen harrier during any of the four roost surveys carried out at Woodcock Hill during”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) cited a predicted reduction in flight activity of 52.5% within 500 m of the turbine array for breeding birds.”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
“As part of the site of the proposed development is likely to be within the range of a breeding hen harrier territory and accepting that the evidence for avoidance of turbines by foraging birds is somewhat contradictory”Environmental / Volume II - Main EIAR / Chapter 7 Ornithology.pdf
Why it matters
Hen harrier is an Annex I species, so Article 4 of the Birds Directive and the Article 6(3)/(4) Habitats Directive tests apply. An Coimisiún Pleanála must be satisfied that no reasonable scientific doubt remains about significant effects on birds. The EIA Directive (Art. 5 and Annex IV) also requires an adequate baseline and mitigation that is actually described in the EIAR. Protection that depends on future surveys, a Slight displacement rating set against the applicant's own 52.5% figure, and a collision model built on 34 seconds of data all leave room for doubt on that test.
How this has been decided before
In ABP-318446-23 (Waterford City and County Council, 2025; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not satisfied that the potential for significant adverse impacts on birds, including Annex I species, can be avoided, managed and/or mitigated by measures that form part of the proposed scheme"
In PL21-310788 (Sligo County Council, 2023; refused) the inspector wrote: "the continued ‘squeezing out’ of Annex I species from this area due to the ongoing expansion of wind farm development must be regarded as unsustainable"
241 more findings available
Each is a finding of the same audit, graded the same way and set out in the same detail as those above. Enquire about them all, or only the ones you need.
Appropriate assessment: european site listRefusal risk
Visual impact: photomontage weather and turbine optionsCondition risk
Wastewater: mitigation measuresCondition risk
Water quality: silt monitoring recordCondition risk
Wind energy development: planning application timingCondition risk
Hen harrier: baseline and collision-risk inputsNoted
Viewpoint numbering: cross-reference recordNoted
About this audit
Proposed 12 turbine windfarm, located on a 140-hectare site located within the townlands of Cappateemore East, Ballycannan West, Ballycannan East, Ballycar South, Ballycar North, and Glennagross (https://ballycargreenenergyplanning.ie/)
Every document lodged with the application was read in full and tested against how planning authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála inspectors have decided comparable cases, and against current national guidelines.
Enquire now
The full verified report sets out all 247 findings like those above. You can also ask for 1, 5 or 10 findings, or every finding on a topic. We reply personally with a written quote set on scope.