Review of planning application 26/60261

Scope

This review examines the documents lodged by the applicant. Every quotation is referenced to its document and PDF page so it can be checked against the planning file.

Grounds 1 to 4 concern the appropriate assessment of Lough Ree SAC and SPA under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, where gaps in the assessment cannot be left to planning conditions.

An Coimisiún Pleanála is the national planning appeals body (formerly An Bord Pleanála). In quotations from its earlier decisions, "the Board" refers to it.

1. The Natura Impact Statement's bird baseline is too thin for the conclusion it draws

The site contains a turlough that the applicant's own surveyor found to hold more than 1% of the Lough Ree SPA populations of eight protected species. The conclusion of no adverse effect rests on a single winter of scaled-down walked transects, with no vantage-point or flight-line work and no second winter, and the NIS then describes the key species as recorded "off site".

“The methodology employed was a scaled down version of the British Trust for Ornithology's (BTO) Common Bird Census (CBC) methodology”Ecological Survey for Overwintering Birds, PDF p.7

“Monthly visits were made across the winter season, October 2025 to March 2026.”Ecological Survey for Overwintering Birds, PDF p.7

“Eight SPA SCI species were recorded associating with the turlough. All eight were recorded in significant percentages (i.e., >1%) of their respective SPA populations.”Ecological Survey for Overwintering Birds, PDF p.18

“Notable records included a flock of over 800 Golden Plover recorded in March and 18 Whooper Swans recorded in November. The turlough habitat, within the survey area, supported significant numbers of several Lough Ree SPA QI species throughout the survey period.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.21

“The majority of terrestrial feeding birds were recorded off site with all records of Whooper swan, golden plover and lapwing recorded off site.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.40

“the nearest suitable habitat is on the turlough partly on site”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.31

“a minimum of 200m for non-breeding Golden plover, Wigeon and Whooper swan. Therefore, it is recommended that no construction take place within 200m off the turlough between October and March inclusive.”Ecological Survey for Overwintering Birds, PDF p.18

“No solar panels should be installed within 50m of the turlough habitat.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.38

• No vantage-point or flight-line survey. Transects record birds where they happen to be seen on the ground. Only vantage-point and flight-line surveys show how Whooper Swan and Golden Plover move between the turlough and Lough Ree - the movements the panels, fencing and grid works would sit across. Without them the risk to the SPA populations is unknown, not low.
• Only one winter season. Wintering-bird numbers vary markedly from year to year with weather and water levels; a turlough in particular floods to different extents each winter. A single season gives no measure of that variation, so it cannot show that the numbers recorded are typical.
• No assessment of the operating installation 50 m from the roost. The applicant's own ornithologist applies a 200 m disturbance distance for Golden Plover, Wigeon and Whooper Swan, but only to construction timing; permanent panels, fencing and 40 years of maintenance are then placed 50 m from the same roost.

The applicant's own ornithologist found that the turlough within the site supports more than 1% of the Lough Ree SPA populations of eight qualifying species - habitat functionally linked to the SPA. The applicant must therefore show, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that 40 years of panels, fencing and maintenance 50 m from that roost will not affect those populations. The evidence offered cannot do that: one winter of walked transects records where birds were seen on the ground, not how they move between the turlough and Lough Ree. This is the exact gap on which An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission in Westmeath in 2024 - where the inspector held that without data on the birds' "population, movement and activity" collision and glare effects cannot be assessed - and in Meath in 2022, where the Natura Impact Statement was not based on the best available scientific information. The Lanesboro survey is more extensive than either, but it leaves out the one element the Department specifically asked for in Westmeath: flight lines.

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, ref. ABP-317952-23 (Westmeath, 87 ha solar farm 300 m from Lough Derravaragh SPA, a Whooper Swan site; decided 2 July 2024; the planning authority had also refused, ref. 23/60178). An Coimisiún Pleanála's inspector agreed with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage that "at least one full season of bird surveys" was needed, "paying particular attention to the SPA species and flight lines", and found: "Without sufficient baseline information in relation to species including their population, movement and activity within the site and surrounds, it is not possible to assess potential impacts (if any) such as fragmentation, disruption to the species or their habitats, collision risk, and glint and glare impacts on the species". The inspector did not accept the developer's argument that "it has not been the Board's practice to request a full season of surveys for wintering and breeding birds for solar energy developments".

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, ref. PL17-311536 (Meath, 148 ha solar farm, 24 August 2022; the planning authority had also refused): "the submitted Natura Impact Statement is not based on best available scientific information. In the absence of adequate baseline information, including the limited extent and the nature of the field surveys undertaken, the conclusions presented in the Natura Impact Statement cannot be relied upon with scientific certainty".

Request or determination by the deciding authority
Cork County Council (appeal ref. ABP-320298-24): a request for further information led the applicant to submit an "Updated EcIA and Whooper Swan & Winter Birds Survey Report (including Whooper Swan Coordinated Management Programme)" and to remove panels from part of the site. Permission was subsequently granted.

In the Meath case no bird surveys had been undertaken, and in the Westmeath case only a one-day walkover survey in January. Here a winter and a breeding bird survey were carried out, but no flight-line survey - the survey the Department sought in Westmeath; the concern is their extent and method, and the absence of any assessment of operational disturbance at 50 m. The applicant does adopt the 200 m restriction for construction works between October and March.

2. The Natura Impact Statement contains no in-combination assessment

The NIS states that no other plan or project was identified. The applicant's own hydrology, landscape and EIA-screening documents identify a 24-turbine wind farm 2-4 km away, peat extraction, the Lough Ree Power station redevelopment and other solar schemes - and the Department had advised in writing that cumulative effects with renewable energy developments be assessed.

“No projects or plans were identified that may have an in-combination effect with the Proposed Works. Assessed alone, it was concluded that all impact pathways could be avoided with suitable mitigation measures in place.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.6

“No alone LSE, and no in combination assessment required.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.27

“Several nearby developments have been identified as having potential for cumulative effects with the proposed development by the Project Team… These include a 24 no. turbine wind farm (ABP Ref. 303592, approx. 4km to the east and northeast), an application for substitute consent for peat extraction (ABP Ref. 313897, approx. 5km to the east), and several infrastructure projects to the north, mainly associated with Lough Ree Power Station”Hydrology and Hydrogeology Assessment, PDF p.44

“A separate wind farm proposal is currently under consideration on Bord na Móna peatlands to the east and northeast of the proposed development. The minimum distance between the site boundaries of the two developments is approximately 1.95 km”Landscape and Visual Assessment, PDF p.24

“There is potential for significant cumulative effects, in respect of traffic, noise and dust during a simultaneous construction phase”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.54

“No cumulative effects with other developments are expected.”EIA Screening Report (Table 7.1), PDF p.72

“A 2km radius was set to review medium to large-scale developments within the development area to identify active planning applications in the surrounding environs.”EIA Screening Report, cumulation with other projects, PDF p.63

“It is recommended that a full assessment of potential individual and cumulative impacts on all designations within the zone of influence of the proposed development Lough Ree biogeographic area should be fully considered, taking into account consented and proposed renewable energy developments. An EcIA was recommended.”Community Engagement Report, Table 2-2 - Dept. of Housing, Local Government and Heritage response of 14 January 2026, PDF p.11

“An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was conducted.”Community Engagement Report, applicant's response column, PDF p.11

• The EIA screening's cumulative review used a 2 km radius; the applicant's own landscape assessment uses a 5 km study area. A cumulative conclusion drawn from a narrower search than the applicant's own visual study is incomplete on its face.
• No other plan or project is named or assessed in the Natura Impact Statement. The in-combination assessment is a required step, not an optional one. Its absence means the NIS has not answered the question the law asks, and the Council cannot fill the gap itself.
• No document identified as the Ecological Impact Assessment is on the public file. The applicant tells the Council that an EcIA was carried out in response to the Department's request for a cumulative assessment. If it exists, the public and the Council must be able to see it; if it does not, the Department's request has not been met.

Article 6(3) requires the effects of the project to be assessed "individually or in combination with other plans or projects". The Natura Impact Statement does not do the second part at all: it says no other plans or projects were identified. Yet the applicant's own hydrologist lists a 24-turbine wind farm 4 km away, a peat extraction application 5 km away and the Lough Ree Power station projects, and its landscape consultant places the wind farm 1.95 km from the site. The Department advised the applicant, before the application was made, to assess cumulative effects with other renewable energy developments. A wind farm and a solar farm acting on the same Whooper Swan and Golden Plover populations is precisely the in-combination effect the Directive is concerned with. An assessment that omits a required step is not an assessment the Council can rely on, and An Coimisiún Pleanála refused the Westmeath scheme expressly because it was not satisfied as to effects "individually or in combination with other plans or projects".

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, ref. ABP-317952-23 (Westmeath, 87 ha solar farm beside Lough Derravaragh SPA, 2 July 2024), reason 2: "On the basis of the information submitted with the application and the appeal, including the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report, and in applying the precautionary principle, the Board is not satisfied that the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would not be likely to have a significant effect on Lough Derravaragh Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004043), in view of the Site's Conservation Objectives."

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, ref. PL17-311536 (see ground 1): the conclusions of the Natura Impact Statement "cannot be relied upon with scientific certainty".

Refused by the planning authority
Carlow County Council refused permission for a 65.6 ha solar farm at Grangeford Old and Friarstown, ref. 21/23 (25 March 2021), where a Natura Impact Statement had been submitted: "the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development, would not give rise to ecological impacts and would not significantly affect the River Barrow and River Nore Special Area of Conservation". A revised scheme was subsequently permitted in 2024.

The Landscape and Visual Assessment states that there are no other pending solar farm applications within its 5 km study area. The projects of principal concern are therefore the wind farm, the power-station redevelopment and the peat extraction application, all of which the applicant's own hydrologist placed within range. The applicant's Environment Report (p.79, '6. List of Reports') lists a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal as report X of the application, and six of the applicant's reports cite it as a completed document (Tetra Tech 2026, versions V5 and V6), yet no such document is on the Council's public file. It appears to be the document the Community Engagement Report describes as an Ecological Impact Assessment. It should be placed on the file and the public given an opportunity to comment on it before any decision.

3. Karst groundwater pathway to Lough Ree SAC left to post-consent investigation

The applicant accepts that pollution of the SAC through the shared karst aquifer cannot be ruled out, on a site 250 m from Lough Ree - and then defers site-specific ground investigation and infiltration testing to detailed design.

“The SAC and the site are both located over the same aquifer, and the site is in a ground water vulnerable area. The risk of pollution from the site entering the ground and then the SAC resulting in a negative impact cannot be ruled out.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.29

“the suitability of infiltration-based drainage measures and the detailed performance of subsoils will be subject to confirmation through site-specific ground investigation and infiltration testing undertaken at the detailed design stage.”Drainage Management Plan, PDF p.21

“Lough Ree is located approximately 250 m west of Parcel 7”Drainage Management Plan, PDF p.22

• No site-specific ground investigation, infiltration testing, tracer study or baseline groundwater monitoring. These are what establish whether contaminated runoff can reach Lough Ree through the karst. The applicant defers them to detailed design, so the Natura Impact Statement reaches its conclusion before the evidence that would support it exists.
• No method for panel cleaning. Over 40 years, cleaning water and any cleaning agents drain straight to ground over a vulnerable aquifer. An assurance that they will not reach a watercourse does not address the groundwater route the applicant itself identifies.

The applicant concedes the pathway: the site and Lough Ree SAC sit on the same karstified aquifer, the site is groundwater-vulnerable, and pollution reaching the SAC "cannot be ruled out". Having conceded it, the applicant has not produced the evidence that would close it. The drainage design depends on infiltration, and whether infiltration is safe on this ground is to be established by investigation "at the detailed design stage" - after permission. The Council would be asked to certify now that the SAC is safe on the strength of tests not yet carried out. In Westmeath, An Coimisiún Pleanála refused because the information was not sufficient to determine that the scheme would not harm water quality and, through it, biodiversity; the position here is weaker, because the applicant itself says the risk cannot be ruled out.

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, ref. ABP-317952-23 (Westmeath, 87 ha solar farm hydrologically connected to Lough Derravaragh SPA, 2 July 2024), reason 1: "The information submitted with the application and the appeal is not sufficient to enable the Board to determine that the proposed development would not have a significant negative impact on water quality in the area, which in turn may cause potential adverse impacts on biodiversity".

Refused by the planning authority
Carlow County Council, ref. 21/23 (above): a hydrological pathway to a Special Area of Conservation was not adequately addressed and permission was refused, notwithstanding the submission of a Natura Impact Statement.

The applicant has submitted a desk-based Hydrology and Hydrogeology Assessment using Geological Survey Ireland mapping and two site visits. The concern is that intrusive site investigation and infiltration testing - the evidence needed to exclude the groundwater pathway - is deferred until after permission.

4. Mitigation relied on by the NIS is not yet defined or committed

The NIS conclusion is expressly conditional on mitigation being implemented in full, but key mitigation is a plan still to be written, and the CEMP measures are phrased as recommendations.

“Providing the mitigation detailed within the Natura Impact Statement can be implemented and adhered to in full, an adverse effect upon the integrity of any Natura 2000 site, either alone or in combination with any other plan or project, can be avoided.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.7

“A Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan (LBMP) will be developed for the proposed development.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.13

“Lighting on site should be directed away from existing buildings/structures, treelines, foraging habitat, and commuting habitat.”Construction Environmental Management Plan, PDF p.38

“no site clearance works or construction should take place within 200m of the turlough between October and March”Construction Environmental Management Plan, s.6.1.3

“It is recommended that temporary visual screening at a height of 2m is installed near to these receptors”Glint and Glare Study

“Any mitigation and any licensing requirements will be dependent on the results of further surveys. Any necessary surveys and mitigation should be undertaken prior to construction”Construction Environmental Management Plan, s.6.1.4 Bats, PDF p.38

• Bat mitigation and licensing are deferred to further surveys before construction. The roost assessment identifies trees on the access and cable routes that need further survey; the CEMP makes mitigation depend on surveys not yet done. The effect on a protected species is therefore not assessed at decision stage.
• No management programme for the wintering birds using the turlough. The turlough is the feature that makes this site important for the SPA. A conclusion of no adverse effect cannot rest on protection of that habitat that has not been designed.
• The Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan is still to be prepared. The Natura Impact Statement makes its conclusion conditional on mitigation being carried out in full. A plan that does not yet exist cannot be assessed, and cannot lawfully be left to be agreed after permission.

The Natura Impact Statement concludes that there will be no adverse effect only "providing the mitigation… can be implemented and adhered to in full". That makes the mitigation the whole case. But the principal biodiversity plan is still to be written, the construction measures are recommendations ("should"), and there is no programme for the wintering birds at all. Mitigation relied on in an appropriate assessment must be defined and certain when the decision is made; it cannot be designed afterwards by condition, because the Council would then be approving an outcome it has not assessed.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
On Galway County Council ref. 23/61143 the planning authority's report required a site-specific, comprehensive Biodiversity Management Plan with detailed actions, responsibilities, a monitoring programme and targets; permission was refused on other grounds and later granted on appeal (PL07-320662).

Request or determination by the deciding authority
Cork County Council (appeal ref. ABP-320298-24): further information led to the submission of a "Whooper Swan Coordinated Management Programme".

A Landscape Mitigation and Biodiversity Plan has been submitted. The concern is with the management plan that the Natura Impact Statement itself says is still to be developed, and with mitigation expressed as recommendation rather than commitment.

5. EIA screening does not test the thresholds that matter

8.9 km of internal access tracks and an unquantified length of hedgerow removal are screened out by assertion; the screening report says surveys were still running and contradicts itself on cumulative effects.

“The proposed development and component parts have been considered against the thresholds outlined in Schedule 5, Part 2 Class 10 (a) to (m).”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.74

“Construction of approximately 8.9 km of internal access tracks throughout the site.”Application Form / statutory notices

“The loss of small sections of hedgerows, treelines, and woodlands is likely to cause a permanent adverse effect of local significance.”EIA Screening Report, Table 7.1, PDF p.72

“no significant impacts on these sites are anticipated; ongoing surveys will inform further biodiversity assessments.”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.42

“All hedgerow boundaries to public roads will be cut back to provide a minimum 1 m verge from the edge of the metalled road surface”Traffic Management Plan & Site Access Report, PDF p.49-50

• No length of hedgerow or treeline removal is given. Without a figure, the extent of that loss cannot be assessed.
• The internal tracks are not assessed against Class 10(dd). 8.9 km of new tracks is more than four times the 2,000 m threshold for private roads. Unless the applicant shows the tracks are not roads, an EIAR may be mandatory; the screening does not engage with the question.

The screening report asserts that the thresholds in Class 10 have been considered but never applies them to the two elements that matter: 8.9 km of new internal tracks, and hedgerow removal that is nowhere measured. In Kilkenny, An Coimisiún Pleanála's inspector notified the applicant that an EIAR was required for 5.3 km of new private road, and withdrew that requirement only when the routes were shown to be stone tracks. Without those figures the Council cannot know whether an EIAR is required, and a decision taken on a defective screening is open to being quashed.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
An Coimisiún Pleanála, ABP-318433-23 (Kilkenny solar): the inspector notified the applicant that an EIAR was required because of "approximately 5.3km of permanent private road… in excess of the threshold detailed in Class 10(dd)"; withdrawn only when the routes were shown to be stone tracks (ref. PL10-318433).

The applicant describes the routes as permeable gravel access tracks, and may contend that they are not "roads". That is a matter the screening should address expressly. This ground goes to the adequacy of the screening; it is not contended that an Environmental Impact Assessment Report is necessarily mandatory.

6. 110 kV substation and grid connection: inside the red line, described in the notice, left to a later application

The statutory notice lists the substation among what the development will consist of, while saying it is subject to a future application to An Coimisiún Pleanála. Its design is unsettled and the grid route crosses the seasonal lake.

“A 110 kV on-site substation (0.7 ha) and approximately 1.7 km of underground cabling to connect to the national grid (subject to a separate future planning application to An Coimisiún Pleanála).”Application Form / statutory notices

“This is likely to comprise a 2-bay 110 kV Air Insulated Switchgear (AIS) substation, occupying an area of approximately 0.68 ha.”Environment Report, PDF p.20

“The 110 kV substation and associated grid connection infrastructure will form part of a separate Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) application to An Coimisiún Pleanála. However, for assessment purposes, they are considered as part of a single project under a "one project" approach.”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.21

“Both the substation footprint and the additional expansion area are included within the overall red line boundary of the proposed development.”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.21

“Along Lisrevagh Road, the grid route cuts across a small section of the seasonal lake.”Hydrology and Hydrogeology Assessment, PDF p.33

“planning application for substations of this type are required to be made to An Coimisiun Pleanala because they are considered "strategic infrastructure". This planning application will be made at a future point.”EIA Screening Report, s.2.3.4, PDF p.21

• No reference to section 182A or to pre-application consultation with An Coimisiún Pleanála. A 110 kV substation is strategic infrastructure for An Coimisiún Pleanála, not the Council. Its inclusion in the public notice, without that process, leaves unclear what the Council is being asked to permit.
• Inconsistent grid-cable length (1.7 km and 1.8 km). Minor in itself, but it confirms that the grid connection - which crosses the seasonal lake - has not been fixed.

The public notice describes the 110 kV substation as part of what the development consists of, while stating that it will be the subject of a separate application to An Coimisiún Pleanála. The Council cannot grant permission for a substation that only An Coimisiún Pleanála can consent, and the public cannot tell from the notice what is actually being applied for. The design is still "likely to comprise", and the grid route crosses the seasonal lake - the most sensitive part of the site.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
An Coimisiún Pleanála, ref. ABP-317988 (Meath): a "110kV Substation and Loop-in connection associated with an approved Solar PV Development" was determined to be strategic infrastructure development, for which application is made to An Coimisiún Pleanála rather than the planning authority.

It is accepted that the applicant has considered the substation and grid connection under a "one project" approach. The concern is the ambiguity of the statutory notice and that the design and route of the most sensitive element are not fixed.

7. Archaeological test excavation deferred until after permission

Geophysical survey found anomalies that the applicant's archaeologist says should be test-trenched - and proposes to do so after permission is granted.

“the anomalies should be subject to archaeological test trenching. The purpose of this is to ground truth the findings of the geophysical survey.”Archaeological Impact Assessment, PDF p.15

“Given the relatively low archaeological potential identified during the geophysical survey, this test trenching could be conducted following the granting of planning permission but in advance of any construction works commencing.”Archaeological Impact Assessment, PDF p.16

• No test trenching and no excavation licence. Geophysics shows where anomalies are, not what they are. Only testing can show whether they are significant enough to require the layout to change, and that has to be known before the layout is permitted.

The applicant's archaeologist identified geophysical anomalies and says they should be tested. If testing reveals significant remains, the layout must change - which is why testing belongs before the decision, not after it. An Coimisiún Pleanála required exactly this before deciding the Galway scheme.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
An Coimisiún Pleanála, ABP-320662-24 (Galway, 125 ha solar), s.132 request: an updated AIA including "a programme of Archaeological Geophysical Survey and subsequent targeted Archaeological Test Excavation" - required BEFORE the decision.

Refused by the planning authority; granted on appeal
Cork 24/6157 and 24/5630: council refusals for insufficient archaeological investigation. Both were granted on appeal (PL04-323402; PL04-323747).

The applicant's archaeologist assesses the archaeological potential as relatively low. The concern is that identified anomalies, which the archaeologist says should be tested, will not be tested until after the decision.

8. Flood risk: the turlough's flood level has never been measured

The application form confirms the site has flooded. The flood risk assessment rests on predictive mapping; its own site visit was in dry weather and did not observe the turlough, and no measured flood level for it appears anywhere. Panels are raised "to account for uncertainties".

“Has the site in question ever, to your knowledge, been flooded? Yes [X] No [ ] … There is a Turlough on the lands. See planning application reports”Application Form, PDF p.9

“This feature was not observed during the site visit, likely due to dry weather conditions at the time, and therefore no pictures of the seasonal lake are included in the report.”Flood Risk Assessment, PDF p.14

“also recommends that panels in the lower-lying areas adjacent to the seasonal lake be installed at 52 mOD (1 m above ground) to account for uncertainties in groundwater flood extents.”CEMP (citing the FRA), PDF p.25

“ORIENTATION & FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL VARY”Drawing 7425-JOD-XX-DR-P-506, PDF p.6

• No measured flood level for the turlough and no assessment of compensatory flood storage. The turlough floods; panels, tracks and equipment placed in or near its flood extent displace floodwater. Without measured flood levels and a storage assessment, the effect on neighbouring land is unknown.
• No finished floor levels for the substation or the 24 MV stations. Electrical equipment must sit above the flood level. Without levels, the Council cannot confirm that it will.

The site is acknowledged to have flooded and contains a turlough, yet the flood extent rests on a predictive map; the flood risk assessment's own site visit did not observe the turlough, and the panels are raised "to account for uncertainties". A turlough's flood level is observable in winter. Until it has been measured, the layout, buffer and equipment levels rest on assumption.

The Flood Risk Assessment places the site in Flood Zone C for river flooding and locates the substation outside mapped flood extents. The concern is the uncertainty, acknowledged by the applicant, in the extent of groundwater flooding associated with the turlough.

9. Residential amenity: glare modelled for one design, noise modelled without plant data

63 observation points already fail the glare standard with panels modelled at a single 20° tilt, while the application seeks 20-35°. Noise is predicted without any data for the proposed plant and without a tonality assessment.

“In all, 251 dwellings, yielding 675 individual observation points, were analysed. 63 of the observation points had predicted glare outside of the acceptable standards”Environment Report, PDF p.76

“The array is to be mounted with an inclination to the horizontal of 20°, with an orientation of 180° (due south).”Glint and Glare Study, PDF p.8

“a tilt angle between 20° and 35°”Environment Report, PDF p.37

“A minor revision of the redline boundary was made subsequent to the production of this report.”Glint and Glare Study, PDF p.2

“for the purpose of this application, it is assumed that the panels will not exceed a maximum height of approximately 3.0 m above ground level”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.19

“No noise data has been supplied for the inverters/transformers. However, noise levels have been measured by Irwin Carr at similar sites”Noise Impact Assessment, PDF p.11

“Specific frequency data was not available in association with the proposed site components”Noise Impact Assessment, PDF p.11

“Within the 1km radius, four minor roads were identified: L1167, L1166, L1165 and L1159, one regional road R392 and a national road N62”Glint and Glare Study, PDF p.25

“Local roads L1167, L1166, L1165, L1168 and L1159”Glint and Glare Study, receptor list, PDF p.7

• Two of the four public roads carrying the cabling (L5264, L1164) are not in the glare study's road-receptor list, and the study's own two lists disagree (L1168 and N63 on p.7; neither on p.25, which has N62). Road users on those roads are receptors the Plan's criterion (d) requires to be assessed. A receptor list that differs between pages cannot be relied on as complete.
• Glare modelled at one tilt (20°), with every residential observation point at 1.6 m above ground (receptor tables). Glare depends directly on panel angle. The application seeks permission for tilts of up to 35°, so the modelled results do not describe the development applied for; and at 1.6 m no upper-floor window is assessed.
• No assessment of tonal noise; glare screening only recommended. Inverter and transformer noise is often tonal, which the EPA's noise guidance (NG4) treats as more intrusive than broadband noise. A mitigation measure that is only recommended cannot be relied on.

The glare model assumes a single panel tilt at the bottom of the range applied for, with every residential observation point set at 1.6 m above ground; 63 points fail even on that case. The noise model uses equipment data from other sites and does not assess tonality. The Council would be permitting a design that has not been assessed for the 251 dwellings around it.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
Longford County Council, solar farm ref. 24/60325: further information was requested to demonstrate no glint and glare impact at any identified dwelling at any time of year.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
Cork County Council (appeal ref. PL04-323402): further information required predicted noise levels "pre and post screening" and "evidence to support the claim that no audible tonality is predicted" at noise-sensitive locations. Permission was subsequently granted on appeal.

The glint and glare study states that the majority of the 63 observation points do not have a view of the arrays. That conclusion depends on the single configuration modelled.

10. Roads: narrow local roads, no passing provision, 3.13 km of cabling in public roads without consent

The applicant accepts roads as narrow as 3.5 m, inspected about 5 km of them once, says passing lay-bys are unnecessary, and leaves consent for cabling in four public roads to be agreed later.

“the pavement widths along the N55, R392, L1164 and L1168 generally range between 3.5 m and 7.0m… Where road widths narrow, the availability of informal passing opportunities or existing roadside verges will assist in maintaining safe vehicle operations… the provision of formal passing lay-bys is not considered necessary along the proposed routes.”Traffic Management Plan & Site Access Report, PDF p.32-33

“An initial inspection of the R392, L1164 and L1168 was undertaken on 17 July 2026… A total distance of approximately 5 km was covered.”Traffic Management Plan & Site Access Report, PDF p.34

“The laying of this cabling will be subject to the road opening license procedures to be agreed with Longford County Council.”Construction Environmental Management Plan, PDF p.14

“Installation of underground cabling and ducting, comprising approximately 3.13 km along the public roads R392, L1168, L5264 and L1164.”Application Form / statutory notices

“The Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 specifies a standard X-distance of 3 m, with unobstructed visibility provided over a Y-distance of 160 m in each direction from the access point for roads with an 80 km/h speed limit (R397), and a Y-distance of 65 m for roads with a 60 km/h speed limit (L5232).”Traffic Management Plan & Site Access Report, s.9 Visibility, PDF p.42

• The visibility standard for the site entrances is stated for roads R397 and L5232, which are not roads of this application; no speed limit or sight distance is stated for R392, L1168 or L1164. The entrance sight distances are the core road-safety test. The application quotes them for another site and does not state them for its own.
• No Road Safety Audit and no agreement with the roads authority. HGVs on roads as narrow as 3.5 m, with no passing places, is a road-safety question that requires an audit. Cabling in public roads requires the roads authority's consent, which is outside the applicant's control - the reason Galway County Council refused permission in a similar case.

The applicant accepts roads as narrow as 3.5 m, relies on informal verges and delivery timing rather than passing places, and needs the roads authority's consent for cabling in four public roads that it does not yet have. Galway County Council refused permission where consent for cabling in public roads had not been demonstrated.

Refused by the planning authority
Galway County Council refused permission, ref. 23/61008 (19 October 2023), for cabling in public roads: "in the absence of satisfactorily demonstrating the necessary third party consent of proposed grid connection underground works adjacent and / or within… public roads… which are outside the control of the applicant", the works would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard. The applicant's appeal was withdrawn.

Refused by the planning authority; granted on appeal
Limerick City and County Council refused permission, ref. 24/60320, because the development would generate traffic on a local road network "not designed to accommodate such traffic"; Galway County Council refused ref. 23/61143 for similar reasons. Both were subsequently granted by An Coimisiún Pleanála on appeal.

The 3.13 km of cabling in public roads is the internal medium-voltage connection between land parcels and is separate from the grid connection.

11. Ecology: otter unsurveyed; the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is not on the public file

Otter is a qualifying interest of Lough Ree SAC; the NIS says disturbance cannot be ruled out and relies on a future pre-construction walkover. The ecology baseline document the NIS relies on is listed by the applicant but is not on the public file.

“Otters may be using the woodland adjacent to the site for holts and resting places and therefore impacts of disturbance during construction cannot be ruled out at this stage.”Natura Impact Statement, PDF p.31

“X. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal XI. Badger Reports”Environment Report, "6. List of Reports", PDF p.79

“The full Badger Survey Report is available in Badger Reports.”Environment Report, PDF p.45

• The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Badger Reports are not on the public file. The Natura Impact Statement relies on the Appraisal. The public cannot test a baseline it cannot see.
• No otter survey method, dates or results. Otter is a qualifying interest of Lough Ree SAC, and the Natura Impact Statement says disturbance cannot be ruled out. A pre-construction walkover after permission does not allow the effect to be assessed before the decision.

The ecological baseline on which the Natura Impact Statement relies is not available to the public, and otter - a qualifying interest of Lough Ree SAC - is to be surveyed only after permission. The public participation rights attached to appropriate assessment require that the information relied on be available.

Request or determination by the deciding authority
Cork County Council solar farm (appeal ref. PL04-320298): the inspector recorded that further dedicated surveys were required in relation to badger and otter; permission was granted with conditions on appeal.

Badger survey reports are commonly lodged on a confidential basis because they identify sett locations, and the Environment Report summarises the badger survey results. The observation is confined to what is available on the public file.

12. Wrong-project errors in the documents the AA and EIA conclusions rest on

The sentence stating the appropriate-assessment conclusion in the EIA Screening Report names a different project; the same report's major-accident assessment places the nearest Seveso sites in "County Meath" at towns that are in County Cavan, measured from Ballymahon rather than the site; the Traffic Management Plan sets its entrance visibility standard by reference to roads R397 and L5232, which are not roads of this application; and both survey-transect maps in the wintering bird report are titled with another project's name.

“The assessment confirms that, with the implementation of appropriate safeguards, the proposed Ballymahon Solar PV and BESS development will not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”EIA Screening Report, PDF p.43

“The nearest Seveso sites to the proposed solar PV project in Carrowroe, are located in County Meath, including areas near Carrickaboy, Cross Keys, New Inn, Drumanespick, Bailieborough, Kilinkere, Kilnaleck, Castletown, Ballyjamesduff, and Lisgrea. These sites are 50–60 km east of Ballymahon, outside typical consultation zones, so the proposed development is not expected to be affected.”EIA Screening Report, s.4.7.3 Major Accidents/Hazards, PDF p.35

“unobstructed visibility provided over a Y-distance of 160 m in each direction from the access point for roads with an 80 km/h speed limit (R397), and a Y-distance of 65 m for roads with a 60 km/h speed limit (L5232).”Traffic Management Plan & Site Access Report, PDF p.42

“Client: BNRG Limited Project: Ballynakill Solar Farm Title: Survey Transects - South”Ecological Survey for Overwintering Birds, figure title block, PDF p.24-25

• The Traffic Management Plan's visibility standard names roads R397 and L5232. Neither road is in this application. R397 is the regional road of a different scheme that appears in the applicant's own cumulative-projects table. This is the fourth passage on file written for another project.
• Wrong project names in the EIA Screening Report and the bird survey figures. Errors of this kind in the documents that state the key conclusions raise the question whether those conclusions were prepared for this site.
• The major-accident (Seveso) assessment describes a different location. Carrickaboy, Cross Keys, New Inn, Drumanespick, Bailieborough, Kilinkere, Kilnaleck and Ballyjamesduff are in County Cavan, not County Meath, and the distances are measured from Ballymahon, not from the site. The EIA Screening Report's conclusion on major accidents therefore does not rest on an assessment of this site.

A screening report that states the appropriate assessment conclusion for a different project and assesses major-accident risk from a different town, and survey maps labelled with another project's name, cannot be given full weight. The inspector in the Meath case relied on errors of this kind in finding the Natura Impact Statement unreliable.

An Coimisiún Pleanála decision
In PL17-311536 An Coimisiún Pleanála's inspector noted "a number of errors in the NIS including the site description… completely unrelated to the site" in concluding that the Natura Impact Statement could not be relied upon.

The survey maps appear to show the application lands; the error is one of labelling. It is raised because it goes to the care with which the assessment documents were prepared.

13. The application cites the Development Plan's solar policies under the wrong numbers and never cites its solar assessment criteria (DMS 16.181)

The Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 sets out solar policies CPO 5.142 to 5.145 and, in DMS 16.181, twelve criteria against which renewable energy proposals are assessed. No applicant document cites CPO 5.145 or DMS 16.181. The Landscape and Visual Assessment presents CPO 5.15, CPO 5.158 and CPO 5.160 as the county's solar policies; in the adopted Plan those numbers belong to the route-corridor selection process and to telecommunications, and the criteria list it gives under "CPO 5.160" is the substance of CPO 5.145 under the wrong number.

“The Longford County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 (LCDP (2021-2027)) does not have an established renewable framework or designated zoning for solar developments.”Environment Report, s.4.1 Site Location, PDF p.36

“CPO 5.15: Promote the development of solar energy infrastructure in the county, in particular for on-site energy use”Landscape and Visual Assessment, s.1.4.1.2 Renewable Energy – Chapter 5, PDF p.14

“CPO 5.158: Encourage the development of solar energy in suitable locations in an environmentally sustainable manner and in accordance with Government policy and any forthcoming Renewable Energy Strategy for County Longford.”Landscape and Visual Assessment, s.1.4.1.2, PDF p.14

“CPO 5.160 Require that proposals for solar energy address the following”Landscape and Visual Assessment, s.1.4.1.2, PDF p.15

• No reference to CPO 5.145 or DMS 16.181 in any applicant document. These are the criteria the Council applies to a solar proposal. An assessment that does not identify them cannot show that each has been met.
• The LVIA's policy chapter cites CPO 5.15, CPO 5.158 and CPO 5.160 as solar policies. Those numbers belong to other policies in the adopted Plan; the criteria listed under 'CPO 5.160' are CPO 5.145's under the wrong number. The chapter was not checked against the Plan it claims to apply.

The Council's decision will be taken against the Plan's own solar criteria, CPO 5.145 and DMS 16.181. Those criteria cover almost every matter raised in this review: landscape character and the zone of visual influence, protected views, glint and glare on the adjoining roads and dwellings, road access and haul routes, the grid connection, designated sites, the cumulative impact on protected bird and mammal species, mitigation and decommissioning. The application never cites either. Its Landscape and Visual Assessment presents three policy numbers that, in the adopted Plan, concern infrastructure route-corridor selection and telecommunications; the criteria it lists under "CPO 5.160" are CPO 5.145's under the wrong number; and its Environment Report says the Plan has no solar framework at all. A policy chapter carrying the wrong numbers cannot be shown to have been checked against the adopted Plan, and no document sets the proposal against the twelve DMS 16.181 criteria as a list, so the Council cannot see a criterion-by-criterion demonstration.

The Planning Statement cites CPO 5.143 correctly and states that the development has been assessed against relevant policies, and the Landscape and Visual Assessment does list the substance of CPO 5.145's criteria, under the number 5.160. Much of the substance of those criteria is addressed across the technical reports. The observation is that neither CPO 5.145 nor DMS 16.181 is cited, that no criterion-by-criterion demonstration is given, and that the policy numbers do not match the adopted Plan.