Battery storage refused at Terlicken solar farm: the fire-safety risk our analysis flagged
BNRG Ballymahon solar farm, Tirlickeen and adjoining townlands, Co. Longford
Longford County Council ref. 2560265 · An Coimisiún Pleanála case PL-501476-LD-26 · Decided 8 October 2026
All 56 containerised battery storage units, and about 550 m of security fencing, removed from the scheme.
The time allowed to build was halved.
The solar farm itself (c. 94 ha, up to 80 MW) was permitted, with 22 conditions.
Longford County Council granted the whole scheme, battery included, in May 2026. On appeal, An Coimisiún Pleanála took the battery out. It was the biggest single change the Commission made to the development, and fire safety was the reason. That was the risk our analysis put at the centre of a local resident's appeal.
What our analysis found
We read the applicant's own documents, including their fire consultant's report. The fire-safety work for the battery compound was not finished: key matters were left to be agreed with the fire authority after permission. The appeal argued that a safety risk of this kind cannot be left to a later agreement.
What the Inspector said
The Commission's Inspector took up that point directly:
The information submitted appears to rely significantly on post permission consultations/agreements/compliance that cannot adequately address the fire related risks to public safety for such a proposal prior to a grant of permission.Inspector's Report, para. 8.8.18
The Applicant has put forward their design for planning approval and it is not clear to me why consultations on this basis were not held with the Fire Authority.Inspector's Report, para. 8.8.9
The Commission's decision
On the basis of the information submitted with the application and appeal, the Commission is not satisfied that it can be demonstrated with certainty that the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) development has sufficiently incorporated adequate measures for emergency planning, firefighting, including provision of available storage for water and for management of contaminated water in the event that a significant fire event and including the need for a controlled burn and subsequent implications for drainage. In the interests of public safety and having regard to Water Framework Directive concerns, it is determined that such deficiencies within the application and appeal documentation, cannot be addressed through planning conditions.Commission Order, Reasons and Considerations (2)
The build period, cut in half
The developer asked for 10 years to build. The appeal based on our analysis was the only one to question that. The Inspector found the 10 years unjustified, given the developer's own 12-month construction programme:
However in the context of the proposed construction programme this has not been justified.Inspector's Report, para. 8.5.3
The Commission granted 5 years.
Why it matters
A grant from the council is not the end of the process. A close reading of the applicant's own documents found a gap the council had accepted, and the Commission agreed it was serious enough to refuse that part outright. A planning condition was not enough to fix it.
Our audit of the application: Terlicken solar farm, Longford 25/60265.