We found 73 problems in this application.

NIS finds the future 110kV substation could cause significant in-combination effects on Lough Ree SAC/SPA, yet concludes there is none; the substation is left to a separate consent

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement says the 110kV substation and grid connection will be the subject of a future planning consent and are referenced for information only. Yet section 6.5 accepts that sediment and pollutants from building the substation could export to the unnamed stream, with 'significant cumulative and in-combination effects' on the qualifying features of Lough Ree SAC and SPA, which lies c.9.3km downstream. Table 6-2 and the NIS's closing conclusion then say there is no potential for significant adverse cumulative or in-combination impacts. The only safeguard offered for the substation is a 'phasing of works' entry in Table 7-1, which cannot bind whoever applies separately for the substation. The substation is therefore left outside the assessment, and the NIS gives two opposing answers on its in-combination effect.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“grid connection for the solar farm will be the subject of a future planning consenting process. This is referenced”Archaeology Report

“There is potential for export of sediment and small amounts of potentially damaging waterborne”NIS

“The conclusion of this NIS is that with the implementation of best practice there will be no potential”NIS

“There is no potential for significant adverse cumulative or in- combination impacts with the proposed development.”NIS

“In the absence of mitigation, and applying the precautionary principle, the potential for likely significant in-combination effects on aquatic and semi-aquatic QI species and habitats for Lough Ree SAC and the SCI species for Lough Ree SPA as a result of degradation in water quality during the construction phase cannot be excluded.”NIS

Why it matters

An inspector cannot ascertain absence of adverse effect where the application's own text identifies significant in-combination effects and then denies them. Excluding the substation required to connect the scheme also risks project-splitting.

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."

NIS contains copy-over errors and unreconciled facts that undermine reliance on it

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement (NIS) contains several copy-over errors and unreconciled facts. Section 1.3 gives the qualifying interests at risk (including Otter, Lutra lutra [1355]) as those of the 'Lower River Shannon SAC', which is a different European site, and the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report repeats the error. Section 6.3 refers the reader to 'Section 3.2' for the conservation objectives when they are in Section 4.2, and the mitigation chapter points to 'Section 5 of this document' for monitoring that is not there. The NIS states that four stream crossings are required and will use clear-span bridges, but the construction environmental management plan describes a single clear-span bridge over the Donacurry River.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“the semi-aquatic QI species Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355] for the Lower River Shannon SAC and SCI species”NIS

“monitoring set out in the CEMP and Section 5 of this document.”NIS

“Four stream crossings are required to facilitate access tracks and underground cabling. These”NIS

“It is proposed to install a clear span bridge above the Donacurry river to allow access between the”Other Assessments

Why it matters

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment must be complete, precise and definitive, and based on the best available scientific knowledge. A wrong site name and unreconciled descriptions of the works leave it unclear which site and which works were assessed. The number of crossings matters most, because it determines whether in-stream works are needed. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála will want a corrected and reconciled NIS before it can rely on the assessment.

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 PL07-320677 (Galway County Council, 2025; refused) the inspector wrote: "I am not able to ascertain with confidence that the project would not adversely affect the integrity of Lough Corrib SAC or Lough Corrib SPA in view of the Conservation Objectives of these sites."

Grid connection and 110kV substation excluded from the application and left to a later consent, while the development is described as one project

What we found

The application to Longford County Council excludes the 110kV substation and the loop-in/loop-out grid connection that the solar farm needs to connect to the national transmission network. Both appear on the drawings, but the documents state they will be the subject of a future Strategic Infrastructure Development application. The same documents describe the development as a single project, and say the grid connection is shown so that the entire development can be fully assessed. The hedgerow figures also conflict. One footnote says the total includes removal for the substation, while others say it excludes it, and a further 180 metres of hedgerow removal for the substation is footnoted separately.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“The grid connection for the solar farm will be the subject of a future planning consenting process.”Archaeology Report

“This application made to Longford County Council does not include the proposed substation and grid connection elements of this project which are required to connect the solar farm to the national transmission network.”Other Assessments

“5 The figure for hedgerow removal excludes that required for the future provision of the substation which will be the subject of a future SID application. 180 metres of additional hedgerow will be removed for the construction of the substation.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

The EIA Directive and Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive require the whole project, including its grid connection, to be assessed, and s.34 requires development to accord with proper planning and sustainable development. Splitting a necessary connection off from the 130-hectare solar scheme invites the objection that the development is being assessed piecemeal. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála will want the applicant to justify the dual-consent approach. They will also want to see that cumulative effects, including on appropriate assessment, cover the whole project. Treating the grid works as 'for information' does not by itself answer that.

How this has been decided before

• In PL01-322347 (Carlow County Council, 2025) the inspector's report records this as a further-information point: "the roads section has concerns regarding this proposals connection to the electricity grid for onward distribution, that detail in this regard is sparce and further detail is required."

Open-trench option for the Royal Canal cable crossing is not mitigated in the NIS (HDD measures only)

What we found

The application leaves open whether the Royal Canal is crossed by open trench or by horizontal directional drill (HDD), with the final method to be settled after consent; a Waterways Ireland letter of consent covers both. The construction management plan describes the open-trench option as damming the canal on the upstream side with sandbags and clay, installing flumes, and electro-fishing and translocating fish. The mitigation in the Natura Impact Statement (NIS) is written for the HDD crossing only: no discharge of suspended solids to the canal, treatment of pit water, and a frack-out procedure. We found no mitigation in the NIS for in-channel works, and the assessment treats stream crossings as clear-span with no instream works, so it does not assess an in-channel canal crossing. One of the two permitted methods therefore has no mitigation in the NIS.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“open trench or horizontal directional drill. A letter of consent has been provided by Waterways Ireland”Archaeology Report

“The second option available to traverse the Royal Canal is open trenching the watercourse.”Other Assessments

“There must be no discharge of suspended solids or any other deleterious matter to the Royal Canal during the HDD works.”NIS

“The second option available to traverse the Royal Canal is open trenching the watercourse. It is proposed to dam the canal on the upstream side with sandbags and suitable clay construction.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, a conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of a European site can rely only on mitigation that is identified, specific and shown to be effective for each project element. The Royal Canal is a proposed Natural Heritage Area and is hydrologically linked to Lough Ree SAC/SPA. A method left open until after consent, with its mitigation unassessed, cannot support that conclusion. The authority would have to either require HDD to be fixed as the method or leave an unmitigated in-water works option within the consent. An Coimisiún Pleanála would be expected to raise the same point.

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 eplanning_KilkennyCC_2360382 (Kilkenny County Council) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "It is noted in this regard however, that some of the proposed directional drilling relating to the grid connection have not been confirmed and are to be agreed with the Local Authority prior to these works being carried out. In the absence of detailed proposals, the potential for significant impacts on the Natura 2000 site/s cannot be ruled out at this stage."

Pre-decision geophysical survey deferred to post-grant

What we found

The Archaeology Report recommends that geophysical survey and test trenching be carried out "prior to commencement of development but post-grant of planning permission". No survey or testing has been done before the decision. The applicant's archaeologist rates the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological features within the site as moderate, and the Corlea Trackway (National Monument) lies within 2km. Part of the site is poorly drained and is recorded as unsuitable for survey. The reason given for deferral is that pre-decision work would "significantly delay the planning process", which is a programme reason and not an archaeological one.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“It is recommended that the geophysical survey and test trenching be carried out prior to commencement of development but post-grant of planning permission.”Archaeology Report

“there is a genuine concern that such archaeological work would significantly delay the planning process. The timeline for the completion of programme of geo-physical survey and/or testing can best be managed during the post consent tendering, contracts and compliance stage.”Other Assessments

“there is considered to be moderate potential for the presence of previously unrecorded archaeological features to be present within the site”Archaeology Report

“The timeline for the completion of programme of geo-physical survey and/or testing can best be managed during the post consent tendering, contracts and compliance stage.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

The standard expected is a geophysical survey, under licence by a licensed archaeological geophysicist, to establish the location and extent of sub-surface archaeological sites and features before the planning decision. Without results, the authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála cannot judge whether the layout affects unrecorded features, or design avoidance and mitigation on evidence. The applicant's own moderate-potential rating is a specific indicator of archaeological potential, and the delay rationale is a weak answer to it.

How this has been decided before

• In cork_county_24/474 (cork_county, 2025) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "A Geophysical survey shall be carried out under licence from the National Monuments Service by a suitably qualified Geophysical archaeologist on the un-surveyed areas as per the recommendations of the Archaeological Mitigation Strategy Document (16th July 2024)."
• In cork_county_23/6470 (cork_county, 2024) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "The applicant shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeological geophysicist (licensed under the National Monuments Acts 1930–2004) to carry out a geophysical survey of the proposed development site. The requirement for testing will depend on the results of the geophysics and this will be agreed with the Local Authority archaeologist on completion of the survey. The survey shall aim to establish the location and extent of any subsurface archaeological sites and features. The result of the geophysical survey shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration prior to making a decision regarding the requirement for testing or any other mitigation. Testing may still be required as further information to either verify or test the reliability of the geophysics. Where archaeological material is shown to be present in the geophysical survey, avoidance, preservation in situ will be the preferred option."

Residual glint and glare at elevated road receptors is not eliminated by screen planting

What we found

The glint and glare assessment relies on screen planting as the mitigation for road users, but concedes in the Other Assessments section that the planting "will have limited screening effect from these road points due to their locally elevated nature". At the R239 road section, reflectance could occur for a maximum of 46 minutes (15-degree tilt) over 149 days of the year (20-degree tilt). The conclusion of no significant hazard rests on qualitative points about the short road section, direction of travel and field of view, not on a shown reduction at R239.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“The proposed mitigation screen planting will have limited screening effect from these road points due to their locally elevated nature.”Other Assessments

“Reflectance has the potential to occur at this road section for a maximum of 46 minutes (15-degree tilt) over 149 days of the year (20-degree tilt).”Other Assessments

“Once the proposed mitigation screen planting has fully established, these periods of reflectance will reduce further and will be eliminated at the 10-degree and 15-degree tilt angles.”Other Assessments

“Once the proposed mitigation screen planting has fully established, these periods of reflectance will reduce further and will be eliminated at the 10- degree and 15-degree tilt angles.”Other Assessments

Why it matters

The test is whether the glint and glare scheme eliminates hazard to users of the public road. Authorities have required that hazard to be eliminated by additional screening or other means at application stage, and have sought adequate screening so that road users are not affected. Mitigation that depends on planting maturing, and on a restricted tilt angle, leaves the effect in place in the meantime. At an elevated point like R239 the applicant accepts that planting has limited value.

How this has been decided before

• In eplanning_MeathCC_2560454 (Meath County Council) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "The applicant shall comply with any future requirement of the Planning Authority in relation to additional mitigation works associated with glint and glare issues that may arise but may only become apparent when the installation is commissioned."
• In eplanning_KerryCC_23284 (Kerry County Council) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "The Glint/ Glare Study indicates issues at a number of road receptors along the Local road network. The developer shall put forward proposals to eliminate this potential hazard by way of additional screening of other means at this stage."