We found 76 problems in this application.

Crayfish plague on the Dinin is ruled out as a project risk by reasoning that contradicts the NIS's own zone of influence, and no biosecurity mitigation is prescribed in the NIS

What we found

The NIS records white-clawed crayfish eDNA at site A10, inside the SAC, and crayfish plague at site A12 on the Dinin River. It rules out plague spread by the project on the basis that plague was not detected at A10 and is therefore 'present outside the ZoI'. The same NIS treats Atlantic salmon at A12 as 'present within the ZoI of the Proposed Project', so A12 is inside the zone of influence for one species and outside it for another. The aquatic baseline report records plague at A12 (10 positive qPCR replicates) and says this is 'likely to jeopardise any such remaining populations within the sub-catchment'. The NIS mitigation sections (7.2.1.2 to 7.2.1.11) contain no crayfish biosecurity or equipment-disinfection measure for the works, and the 'No instances of disease' conservation objective target is marked 'No' on the footing that disease 'will not be spread'.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“sample at site A10 as such crayfish plague is considered to be present outside the ZoI of the”Natura Impact Statement (NIS)

“no. sites in total, with Atlantic salmon present at six of these (i.e. A6, A7, A9, A01, A11 & A12)”EIAR Ch6 Biodiversity Appendix 6-3 Aquatic Baseline Report

“Regrettably, crayfish plague was also detected on the Dinin River, at site A12 (10 positive qPCR”EIAR Ch6 Biodiversity Appendix 6-3 Aquatic Baseline Report

“Surveys undertaken as part of the Proposed Project identified that salmonids were present at 7 no. sites in total, with Atlantic salmon present at six of these (i.e. A6, A7, A9, A01, A11 & A12) (see Figure 2.1, Aquatic Baseline report, Appendix 1) a number of which are located within the SAC. This QI species is therefore present within the ZoI of the Proposed Project.”Natura Impact Statement (NIS)

“The detection of crayfish plague in the River Dinin is also likely to jeopardise any such remaining populations within the sub-catchment.”EIAR Ch6 Biodiversity Appendix 6-3 Aquatic Baseline Report

Why it matters

An inspector cannot adopt a conclusion on a Bad-status, Deteriorating Annex II species that rests on an exclusion the NIS itself contradicts. With no biosecurity measure for works adjacent to a plague-positive river, reasonable scientific doubt remains. This is the 'no comment about SCI species' type of lacuna that was fatal in comparable refusals.

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)."

Internal inconsistencies in the grid-route crossing and HDD description leave the mitigation and the assessed method uncertain

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement says the Grid Connection Route is 'located adjacent to the SAC' and that all bridge crossings will be by horizontal directional drilling (HDD). The construction environmental management plan is inconsistent on this. It refers to 'potential directional drilling at the 7 no. bridge crossing locations', and elsewhere says the route 'will involve 6 No. bridge crossings, all of which will involve' HDD. EIAR Chapter 9 says HDD 'will be completed at all of the bridge crossing' locations. The NIS cross-refers for HDD mitigation to a 'Section 6.2.1.5' that does not exist. The general mitigation uses a 50 m buffer and the HDD works use 15 m. These can be read as separate measures for separate activities, but the document does not say so.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“Surface water quality effects on local watercourses may occur during drilling and groundworks”EIAR Ch 4 Description App 4-4 Construction Env Mgmt Plan

“associated with potential directional drilling at the 7 no. bridge crossing locations along the Proposed”EIAR Ch 4 Description App 4-4 Construction Env Mgmt Plan

“Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) will be completed at all of the bridge crossing”EIAR Chapter 9 Water

“Mitigation measures for HDD are detailed in Section 6.2.1.5 below.”Natura Impact Statement (NIS)

“The Proposed Grid Connection Route will involve 6 No. bridge crossings, all of which will involve Horizonal Directional Drilling (HDD).”EIAR Ch 4 Description App 4-4 Construction Env Mgmt Plan

The planning authority refused permission on this ground

“In the absence of sufficient information to adequately assess the proposed grid connection route and associated works it is considered the proposed grid connection would have a detrimental impact on the environment, traffic safety, architectural heritage (Black Bridge) and the amenities of local residents and road users generally. The development as currently proposed would, therefore, be prejudicial to public amenity and the environment and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”Notification of Decision

Why it matters

An appropriate assessment must contain complete, precise and definitive findings without lacunae. Any mitigation relied on to conclude no adverse effect on site integrity must be clearly specified and capable of being secured by condition. The route runs adjacent to the SAC, and the CEMP acknowledges that surface water quality effects may occur during drilling and groundworks. An Coimisiún Pleanála will therefore need to know exactly which crossing method, number of crossings, buffer and receptors were assessed. Inconsistent drafting makes that harder to establish.

How this has been decided before

• In PL07-316309 (Galway County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I consider that the applicant has not demonstrated the development will not adversely affect the integrity of European sites in the area of the site. In such circumstances, the Board is precluded from granting permission."

Delivery-route alternatives are internally inconsistent: Route C, the chosen route, is described the same way as the rejected Route A, and the 'minor works' claim sits beside a new road and Protected Structure works

What we found

The EIAR's chapter on reasonable alternatives describes Route A, which it screens out 'due to the degree of works', as leaving the M9 at Junction 3 towards Athy. It describes Route C, the chosen route, in almost the same terms: leaving the M9 at Junction 3 to Athy and travelling southwest. It says Route C needs 'only minor accommodation works'. The Construction Environmental Management Plan says otherwise: 'more significant works' are needed at junction accommodation locations 6 and 7. These include a new temporary access road off the N78 in Cloneen, and a 175mm concrete slab and raised parapets at Black Bridge, a Protected Structure (RPS D84). The comparison table rates Landscape and Visual 'Neutral' for all three routes.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“Route C involves the vehicle exiting the M9 at Junction 3 to Athy and travelling southwest towards the”EIAR Chapter 3 Reasonable Alternatives

“Route A involved the turbine delivery vehicle exiting the M9 at Junction 3 towards”EIAR Chapter 3 Reasonable Alternatives

“(as presented in Section 15.1 of this EIAR), shows that only minor accommodation works will be”EIAR Chapter 3 Reasonable Alternatives

“More significant works will be undertaken at junction accommodation locations 6 and 7.”EIAR Ch 4 Description App 4-4 Construction Env Mgmt Plan

“The proposed upgrade works to Black Bridge included the raising of the parapet walls which will alter the appearance of the bridge and consequently is likely to hav”EIAR Chapter 13 Cultural Heritage

The planning authority refused permission on this ground

“In the absence of sufficient information to adequately assess the proposed grid connection route and associated works it is considered the proposed grid connection would have a detrimental impact on the environment, traffic safety, architectural heritage (Black Bridge) and the amenities of local residents and road users generally. The development as currently proposed would, therefore, be prejudicial to public amenity and the environment and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”Notification of Decision

Why it matters

The Kilkenny elements exist only because of Route C. If the choice of Route C over A is not explained, the need for the Kilkenny works and their impact on a Protected Structure is not justified.

Grid-connection trenching passes within c. 20 m of dwellings at 75–80 dB(A), above the BS 5228 threshold, assessed only qualitatively with no count of affected dwellings

What we found

The Kilkenny element of the application is the underground grid route and associated works. The EIAR models construction noise at 18 construction noise assessment locations within the wind farm site, but it assesses grid-route works only qualitatively because they fall outside that site. It accepts that noise beside a dwelling is likely to be 75–80 dB(A), and that trenching and backfilling may exceed the BS 5228 threshold within 20 m of a dwelling. The Category A daytime threshold it adopts is 65 dB LAeq. It still concludes the impact is 'not significant', relying on advance rates of 150–300 m a day and on generic good-practice measures. It gives no receptor-specific exceedance, mitigation, other than acoustic screens for small HDD works within 30 m.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“to be in the region of 75 – 80 dB(A) for a short period of time. It should be noted, however, that this”EIAR Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration

“and backfill operations may occasionally exceed the BS 5228 threshold if within 20m to a dwelling,”EIAR Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration

“may occur outwith the Proposed Wind Farm site so this has been assessed qualitatively.”EIAR Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration

“Accordingly, the impact is deemed not significant for construction activities associated with cable”EIAR Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration

“It is possible that noise levels from trenching and backfill operations may occasionally exceed the BS5228 threshold if within 20m of a dwelling, however this would only occur for a short period of time at any one location. Accordingly, the impact is not deemed significant.”EIAR Ch 12 Noise Appendix 12-1 Construction Noise Report

“Construction works related to Proposed Grid Connection Route and road and junction improvements may occur outwith the Proposed Wind Farm site so this has been assessed qualitatively.”EIAR Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration

Why it matters

The EIAR adopts BS 5228-1 (ABC method) as its own test, and the EIA Directive requires the likely significant effects on population and human health to be described. The Kilkenny CDP amenity standards also apply to works on public roads and lands near dwellings. An Coimisiún Pleanála or the planning authority can say that the applicant has not shown which dwellings will be exposed above the threshold, for how long, or with what protection. A statement that exceedance is for a 'short period' does not answer that. The conclusion of 'not significant' sits uneasily with the exceedance the EIAR itself admits.

How this has been decided before

• In abp-323655 (Fingal County Council, 2026; refused) the inspector wrote: "In the absence of documentary evidence to support the proposal, I consider that the proposal results in haphazard unsustainable development of the site and refusal recommended."
• In abp-320079 (Donegal County Council, 2025; refused) the inspector wrote: "I, therefore, conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would not detrimentally impact on the amenity of properties in the vicinity of the development by reason of cumulative noise impact. I recommend that permission is refused for the development on this basis."

The golden plover county reference population used to convert collisions into a mortality percentage is admittedly an under-estimate, so the significance conclusion rests on an unquantified denominator

What we found

Chapter 7 (Birds) converts predicted golden plover collisions into a 13.10%–26.20% increase in annual mortality by dividing them by a county population of 1,215 birds. That figure is built from I-WeBS sites plus terrestrial peak counts. The applicant says it 'likely remains an underestimate'. It explains that most I-WeBS sites within 25km have no available data, so golden plover that may use them are left out of the county total. It adds that terrestrial habitat outside the 5km radius is also excluded. No corrected or bounded population figure, sensitivity range or alternative estimate is given. The application then uses the under-estimate as a reason to discount the result, and concludes that no significant effect is predicted.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“However, as previously stated this likely remains an underestimate.”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds

“The majority of the I-WeBS sites within 25km of the Proposed Wind Farm site have no available data (see Section 7.3.4), and golden plover which may occur at these sites have therefore not been included in the county population estimate.”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds

“It should be noted that the population estimate based on I-WeBS figures alone is likely to be an underestimate of the county population6.”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds

“However, no significant effects are predicted as this collision risk is likely an over-estimate based on the following rationale:”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds

Why it matters

Where the denominator of a mortality calculation is admittedly wrong in an unknown direction and by an unknown amount, the resulting percentage cannot support a finding of no significant effect.

Vantage point watches were carried out in gale and near-gale conditions, including six one-hour VP1 watches on 22/08/2020

What we found

The EIAR states that all vantage point surveys were carried out in full accordance with SNH (2017) and that the data is 'robust' and allows 'clear, precise and definitive conclusions'. The survey log at Appendix 7-2 does not bear that out. It records six one-hour VP1 watches on 22/08/2020 in gale and near-gale south-westerly and strong westerly conditions, with heavy showers and cloud below 150 m. Several VP2 watches on 20/08/2020 were also in gale or near-gale conditions, again with heavy showers and low cloud. All of these fall in the 2020 breeding season, where VP1 recorded 36.1 hours against a 36-hour minimum, so that minimum is met only if the weather-affected watches are counted. The chapter does not discuss the weather or its effect on detecting flights.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“Visibility: good; Wind speed and direction: gale SW; Cloud”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds Appendix 7-2 Survey Effort

“The data provided in this report is robust and allows clear, precise and definitive conclusions to be made in”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds

“Visibility: good; Wind speed and direction: gale SE; Cloud cover and height: 66-100% <150m; Rain: heavy showers; Frost: none; Snow: none”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds Appendix 7-2 Survey Effort

“Visibility: good; Wind speed and direction: gale SW; Cloud cover and height: 66-100% <150m; Rain: heavy showers; Frost: none; Snow: none”EIAR Chapter 7 Birds Appendix 7-2 Survey Effort

Why it matters

The guidance the applicant says it followed in full advises against vantage point watches in poor weather such as high winds, rain and poor visibility. The EIA Directive (Annex IV) requires the information in an EIAR to be reliable enough to support the assessment. If the weather-affected watches are set aside, the breeding-season effort may fall below the stated minimum. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála is therefore likely to ask for those watches to be identified, for the effective effort without them to be shown, and for the conclusions to be tested on that basis. The claim of full accordance is not supported by the applicant's own survey log.

How this has been decided before

• In abp-320079 (Donegal County Council, 2025; refused) the inspector wrote: "I do not consider the bird surveys and methods undertaken to be in accordance with established best practice guidance and as recommended by DAU."