Permission refused for new windfarm at 'visually sensitive' location in west Clare
An Bord Pleanála upholds decision of local authority following appeal
An Bord Pleanála has refused permission for the development of a wind farm in west Clare which was the subject of strong local opposition.
Clare County Council had earlier rejected proposals from Slieveacurry Limited to erect seven 175m-tall turbines at a site which is located 6.5km east of Milltown Malbay.
In a detailed report, which runs to more than 170 pages, senior planning inspector Kevin Moore commented that the site of the proposed development is located in a "prominent and visually sensitive location" on the summit of Slieveacurry.
Recommending that permission be refused, he said there is a "significant risk" that the proposed development would result in water pollution and habitat destruction given that the site is a "peat-dominated environment".
The report also notes the site is an "ecologically sensitive area of significant ornithological value" and that the habitats of several species of bird and the Annex II Marsh Fritillary butterfly, would be impacted by the proposed development.
"If the development proceeds at the location proposed, the habitat will most likely be substantially altered, interfered with and, ultimately, the value of the habitat will be degraded and lost. This is an unacceptable threat to this protected species and the proposed development would evidently be proceeding at the expense of highly sensitive biodiversity in this instance," wrote Mr Moore.
The height of the proposed turbines was also highlighted in the report which stated the visual effect of the proposed development "cannot be considered to be ‘moderate, ‘not significant’, or ‘slight’ as the applicant seeks to present."
Mr Moore noted the potential noise impact of the proposed development on local residents and the likely impact on the “amenity and tourism value” of the area.
In refusing permission, the Board indicated it did not agree with a number of Mr Moore's observations and conclusions.
However, in its direction, it stated that it considers the proposed development "would present a significant risk of adverse environmental impact on the sensitive natural habitats of the site and the wider area and would constitute an unacceptable risk of pollution of watercourses in the area."