We found 23 problems in this application.

Post-consent geophysical survey does not satisfy requirement for updated AIA

What we found

The application's archaeological assessment states that testing for previously unrecorded archaeological remains will be carried out at the pre-construction phase, after consent, beginning with a geophysical survey by a contractor appointed by the client. The results of that survey are only then to identify anomalies of possible archaeological character. The same assessment accepts that currently unrecorded deposits are likely to be present within the solar farm site and would experience a 'very high' impact, with a residual effect of Moderate, Negative, Permanent. The site contains recorded monuments and zones of archaeological potential, yet no survey results are before the decision-maker. The assessment also says that, if possible, the design will be altered or blocks of panels removed to avoid groundworks in affected areas, so the layout is not fixed at application stage.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“Regarding potential previously unrecorded archaeological assets archaeological testing will be carried out at the pre-construction phase where the Proposed Development has the potential to impact upon archaeological remains. This testing will initially take the form of an archaeological geophysical survey undertaken by an archaeological contractor appointed by the client.”Other Assessments

“The results of the archaeological geophysical survey will identify anomalies detected which may be of possible archaeological character.”Other Assessments

“Potential currently unrecorded archaeological deposits which are likely to be present within the Proposed Solar Farm Development site will experience a very high impact from the Proposed Solar Farm Development.”Other Assessments

“If possible, the design will be altered (or blocks of solar panels removed from the design) to avoid groundworks in these areas.”Other Assessments

The planning authority refused permission on this ground

“The proposed development contains 14no. sites/monuments that are listed on the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) which is subject to statutory protection in the Record of Monuments and Places, established under Section 12 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994. The Planning Authority is not satisfied based on the submission received, and in the absence of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (including geophysical survey and investigative works), that the proposed development would not have an undue impact on the integrity of said National Sites/Monuments and therefore that the proposed development would not contravene the provisions of the Galway County Development Plan 2022 – 2028 including Policy Objectives ARC1, ARC2, ARC4, ARC 5, ARC9 and ARC10. The proposed development would, accordingly, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”Notification of Decision

Why it matters

A decision-maker must be able to judge the likely extent of impact on archaeology from the evidence submitted, and to be satisfied that the layout can avoid or limit that impact. Here the extent of the remains is unknown, and the application itself says panels may have to be removed or redesigned once the survey is done after consent. Deferral to the pre-construction stage is common practice, but the planning authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála may regard the assessment as too thin to decide on and ask for pre-decision survey, and test trenching if needed, either by further information or by a condition beyond the standard ones.

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 desk-based Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (AACHIA) report contains insufficient information to allow for an informed planning decision."
• In PL01-323496 (Carlow County Council, 2026; granted with conditions) the inspector wrote: "three previously unrecorded areas of ‘archaeological significance’ were identified during the survey and that five further areas of possible ‘archaeological significance’ are also present."

Unquantified agricultural land loss and food production impact

What we found

The Other Assessments deal with the loss of agricultural land in a single sentence. They conclude that the impact is not significant "given the scale of the site and the availability of agricultural land in the wider area". No figures are given for land quality or for current food production on the 125 ha site, which is to be used for a solar farm for 40 years. The application accepts that the site will change from predominantly agricultural use to energy infrastructure. It also states that the site is grazed primarily by cattle and/or horses and that "alternative agricultural practices such as sheep grazing can continue amongst the solar panels". It does not say how much grazing would be retained or on what basis.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“However, given the scale of the site and the availability of agricultural land in the wider area, this is not considered to be a significant impact.”Other Assessments

“The site is currently grazed primarily by cattle and/or horses, however alternative agricultural practices such as sheep grazing can continue amongst the solar panels.”Other Assessments

The planning authority refused permission on this ground

“Having regard to a large portion of the development being located within an area designated as less likely visibility viable for solar potential within the Councils Renewable Energy Strategy, the absence of a robust assessment in terms of the loss of agricultural lands and no estimated quantum in terms of potential megawatts of energy which would be generated, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development of the scale proposed has been satisfactorily justified. In the absence of sufficient robust analysis, the proposed development would therefore result in the loss of a substantial area of agricultural land which would be contrary to Policy Objective RE 4 and DM Standard 70 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the rural area, and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”Notification of Decision

Why it matters

Development on agricultural land should not unduly undermine sustainable agriculture and food production. The decision-maker cannot test that standard against a statement of general availability elsewhere, because it says nothing about this site. Without the land take, the land quality and a grazing-retention statement, the authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála may ask for further information. The point is a gap in the evidence rather than a demonstrated conflict with policy.

How this has been decided before

• In eplanning_WicklowCC_211131 (Wicklow County Council) the council planner's report records this as a concern: "A report on any potential impacts on the local area from the loss of approx. 172Ha (permitted & proposed) of agricultural land in the one area should be submitted."

Lesser horseshoe bat mitigation deferred and seasonal survey limits Natura Impact Statement

What we found

The Natura Impact Statement confirms that lesser horseshoe bat was present on the site, foraging and commuting across it, with constant activity by a small number of bats in September and October 2022, particularly on the Northern Parcel. It treats the site's grasslands as functionally linked habitat for the Lough Fingall Complex SAC. The bat surveys it relies on were carried out only in September and October 2022. The NIS does contain grassland management mitigation and an estimated 3% loss of grassland.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“The presence of lesser horseshoe bat on the Site was confirmed during the field surveys in September and October 2022.”NIS

“The presence of lesser horseshoe bat foraging and commuting across the Site was confirmed during the field surveys, with constant activity of by a small number of lesser horseshoe bats during September and October, particularly on the Northern Parcel.”NIS

“Mitigation measures for bats are set out in the Biodiversity Chapter of the ECR (AECOM, 2023a).”Other Assessments

The planning authority refused permission on this ground

“The proposed solar farm is located on rural site within 300 metres of the Lough Fingall Complex SAC, which form part of the Natura 2000 network of sites of highest biodiversity importance for rare and threatened habitats and species across the European Union. These European sites are protected under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) & EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, as amended by Directive 2009/147/EC) and the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, as amended by the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, and are also further protected under Policy Objective NHB 1, Policy Objective NHB 2, Policy Objective NHB 3, Policy Objective NHB 5, NHB 9 and DM Standard 50 of the Galway County Development Plan, 2022-2028. Having regard to the requirements of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, the Planning Authority is not satisfied, based on the information available and the information included in the planning application, that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect individually or in combination with other plans or projects on the integrity and qualifying interests/conservation objectives of the nearby European Sites. Furthermore, the Natura Impact Statement in the absence of Bat Surveys being conducted in the summer months has failed to satisfactorily consider the impacts on the Lesser Horseshoe Bat which is a qualifying interest of the Lough Fingall Complex SAC. Therefore, in the absence of addressing these potential impacts, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and qualifying interests/conservation objectives of designated European sites, in view of their conservation objectives. Therefore, if permitted as proposed the development would contravene materially policy objectives and a development management standard contained in the current Galway County Development Plan, would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development within European sites, and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”Notification of Decision

Why it matters

Lesser horseshoe bat is a Qualifying Interest of the SAC, so the authority must be able to conclude, on the NIS's own evidence and the mitigation set out in it, that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Mitigation that sits in a separate document, and survey data confined to the autumn months when bat activity varies through the season, leave room for doubt about whether harmful effects on the SAC can be ruled out. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála is likely to require the bat mitigation to be set out in the NIS, and may require further survey effort outside the autumn period. If the further information is significant, an updated NIS may have to be prepared and re-advertised.

Landscape policy compliance undermined by conceded Significant/Adverse effects and deferred screening

What we found

The landscape and visual impact assessment concludes that the development will not significantly alter the Kilchreest Basin Unit. The same assessment accepts that, within 400–500m of the site boundary (including on the L4506), the magnitude of landscape change is High and the landscape effects are Significant/Adverse. It rests that conclusion on the unit's Low Landscape Sensitivity classification, which it describes as "unlikely to be adversely affected by change". The proposal involves a 16km run of 2.7m palisade fencing, removal of hedgerow and stone wall, and a change from agriculture to light industrial use. The assessment also states that effective screening depends on further detailing at detail design stage: native planting mixes, a landscape and ecological maintenance plan, and protection measures for retained vegetation. None of these is before the authority now.

The evidence, in the application’s own words

“The magnitude of change to the landscape character in these areas is considered High. The significance/quality of landscape effects in these areas is therefore considered to be Significant/Adverse.”Other Assessments

“Effective screening will rely on the successful implementation of all embedded mitigation measures and additional screening planting which requires further detailing during the detail design stage in order to develop appropriate native planting mixes, a landscape and ecological maintenance plan, and protection measures for retained vegetation during the construction phase to ensure the successful retention of existing planting and the establishment of proposed planting.”Other Assessments

“The entirety of the Kilchreest Basin Unit is classified as having Low Landscape Sensitivity, meaning that it is “unlikely to be adversely affected by change”.”Other Assessments

“Effective screening will rely on the successful implementation of all embedded mitigation measures and additional screening planting which requires further detailing during the detail design stage in order to develop appropriate native planting mixes, a landscape and ecological maintenance plan, and protection measures for retained vegetation during the construction phase”Other Assessments

Why it matters

LCM 1 and LCM 2 of the Galway County Development Plan require the proposal to be tested against the landscape character of the area, with the Low Sensitivity classification as the starting point. A Low classification does not make local harm acceptable. The assessment concedes Significant/Adverse effects and leaves the screening that is meant to reduce them to a later stage. The authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála is therefore likely to find that compliance with these policies has not been demonstrated on the material submitted.

How this has been decided before

• In PL88-317240 (Cork County Council - West Cork Section, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "the potential for significant visual impacts and adverse effects upon the Landscape i.e. the 'High Value Landscape' and archaeological heritage is one that cannot be avoided, managed and/or mitigated by measures that form part of the proposed scheme, or through suitable planning conditions"
• In abp-317265 (Waterford City and County Council, 2024; refused) the inspector wrote: "I consider the proposal would affect the integrity of the character of this area and would therefore materially contravene policy LO2"