Michael Viney article in Saturdays Irish Times 4/10/2008 Why we chose a wind farm

Oldtree

See Michael Viney's article “Why we chose a wind farm over a gold mine” here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2008/1004/1222959337293.html

I was saddened and disappointed to see Mr Viney’s column being used as a forum to support the development of a wind farm in Mayo, in what I would call misleading terms.

The following are not mentioned:

1. That the proposed area for this development is both adjacent to, and in, an area designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Natural Heritage Area (NHA).
2. That this area is also listed in the Mayo Wind Strategy document as being unsuitable for wind farm development.
3. That the Landscape Appraisal section of the County Mayo County Development Plan, Development Impact, states that the landscape sensitivity matrix of wind farms in this area has “High potential to create adverse impacts on the existing landscape character. Having regard to the intrinsic physical and visual characteristics of the landscape, it is unlikely that such impacts can be reduced to a widely acceptable level.”
4. That the Mayo Development Plan - Landscape Appraisal designates the Mweelrea Mountains as vulnerable and under policy 3.1(b) Policy with Regard to Areas Designated as Vulnerable: “These areas or features designated as vulnerable represent the principal features which create and sustain the character and distinctiveness of the surrounding landscape. To be considered for permission, development in the environs of these vulnerable areas must be shown not to impinge in any significant way upon its character, integrity or uniformity when viewed from the surroundings. Particular attention should be given to the preservation of the character and distinctiveness of these areas as viewed from scenic routes and the environs of archaeological and historic sites.”

Also of note is that an appeal to An Bord Pleanala for a 50 meter mast bearing wind speed and direction equipment in Moher, Co Cavan, by Organic Power, was refused. The application site was on a blanket bog, in an SAC, a proposed NHA, a High Landscape Area and in an area where there was a presumption against such development. Organic Power do “do peat”, aparently if they were allowed. See details of An Bord Pleanala’s decision and inspectors report here:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/222575.htm

Michael Viney’s publication “A Living Island” supports recognition and respect for SACs and NHAs, but laments their presentation to a rural society “generally so ill-equipped to see their point.”
See here to open or save a copy in Word format:

http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/comhar0310.doc

Important quotes worth noting from the Living Island are:

1. “The challenge is to identify and map the essential network of habitats so that they can be taken into account by local authority planners and recognised and respected even at community level.” “It is sad, however, that the whole conservation apparatus of Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs), the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) selected from them, and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds, has been presented to a rural society generally so ill-equipped to see their point.”
2. “But only when the damage became scandalous and undeniable was the grazing impact on blanket bog vegetation suddenly worth studying”
3. "One option is to accept – as I do – that other species and their habitats have an intrinsic claim or ‘right’ to exist which is independent of the interests of human beings.”
4. “It has also helped people to accept the idea of Special Areas of Conservation, and to accept the list of a representative range of ‘important’ habitats which were designated as SACs – Ireland’s contribution to Europe’s Natura 2000 network.”
5. “It has also helped people to accept the idea of Special Areas of Conservation, and to accept the list of a representative range of ‘important’ habitats which were designated as SACs – Ireland’s contribution to Europe’s Natura 2000 network.”

The issue of wind turbines is one that is fraught with complications. Even the offshore option would mean the destruction of valuable habitat. I understand that up 1,000 tonnes of concrete could be needed as a foundation for a large, land based turbine. It has always been a question in my mind: is there a balance to be struck, are the total emissions from the construction and placement, of a large wind turbine, offset by its renewable energy output verses alternative energy production, and I am not just counting the costs in heavily subsidised financial values. In this sum I would include the like of the emissions from the man taking his car to the factory to build a turbine, to the like of landscape value. I cannot find out a satisfactory answer to this question.

I believe that if we pursue the wind energy option, an easier and generally acceptably starting point would be that every home should have a small one (they do not require planning permission) and an export meter to the ESB, where full financial credit is given back from the ESB to the customer. Noisy and unsightly Industrial parks and IDA estates, train stations, even airports, are more appropriate places for larger turbines, the turbines can be switched off for certain hours if necessary. These are a few of the many areas that need exploration and could possibly raise a large amount of the energy needed while spreading the impact throughout the island, before we ingress on our SACs and our NHAs.

The columns use of words, such as “unremarkable slope”, “lonely inland valley” and “tucked away in a costal cul-de-sac”, could create a picture in the reader’s mind of some faraway place of little consequence, and that in my opinion is deceptive. The prevention of new houses in the area is not a reasonable reason for supporting wind farm development in a protected area. Neither is the situation a choice between a gold mine or a wind farm. It is too late to decide whether you mind about the noise from the wind turbines after the fact and the reference to 70 meter wooded poles across the bay 100 years ago, in the context of the article, was erroneous.

It is my understanding that NHAs and SACs are part of a network of sites which will safeguard the future of Ireland's fauna and flora. While some people can choose to adjust to the visual and auditory impact of such a development, I believe that it is in the national interest, and a national responsibility, to preserve designated SACs and NHAs.

Oldtree

For supporting references see the following:

Mayo County Council maps for SACs and NHAs here:

http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/Heritage/NaturalHeritage/

The secondary development is in the Sheeffry Hills would also appear to be in an SAC/NHA, see coco SAC NHA maps.

See Mayo Wind Strategy maps Figure 2, 7, 9 and strategy map.
See end of Mayo Landscape Appraisal document for appropriate diagrams and wording, just before appendix.

Mayo coco policy docs see here;

http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Planning/DevelopmentPlansandLocalAreaPlans/MayoCountyDevelopmentPlan2008-2014/

The council have issued a further information request to the applicants as of yesterday and with an Advice Note which says:

Advice Note

• Mayo County Council have serious concerns over the proposed mast at this extremely sensitive location. The applicant is advised to consider locating to an alternative site.
• The new Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014 (as amended by the Planning and Development (Mayo County Development Plan) Direction 2008) came into effect on 11 July 2008. All new applications and decisions must be considered in the context, and must be seen to comply with the requirements, of this plan. You are therefore advised to familiarise yourself with the requirements of the Mayo County Development Plan 2008 -2014 (as amended by the Planning and Development (Mayo County Development Plan) Direction 2008) and furthermore, it must be shown that this current application complies with the relevant policies and standards of the new plan.

Also the current mast’s planning application GIS report states adjacent SAC and NHA. For full details see planning application and “view related documents” see here:

http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=081500&la=1

Oldtree

Turbines to the right and turbines to the left:

Article from the Irish Times 10/10/08 on the IFA proposing 6,000 windmills (on the FOIE site):

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=12554

Article from the Irish Times on the quantity of offshore production wanted by the industry - 7,200 megawatts (not sure how many turbines that is). Projects for up to 3,000 megawatts to be given the go ahead.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/0912/1221138437043.html

Oldtree

The Answer to the energy crisis is blowing in the wind farms, Irish Times 7/10/08

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1007/1223332518333.html

The following is a letter to the editor of the irish times on the Environmental threat of offshore wind turbines: 9/10/08

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1010/1223560349538.html

Oldtree

Noise pollution is another issue when it comes to wind turbines.

Currently the DOE is doing a noise issues consultation paper and has invited submissions by the 31st October 2008. Wind turbine/farm noise is covered under section A4.9, A9.1 to A9.7 in the noise issues consultation paper. See here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/NoiseIssuesConsultationPaper/

The Noise Issues Consultation Paper is on the right hand side under publications and documents which can be downloaded.

Have your say now if you agree or disagree with the proposed guidelines
:P

The_Minister

Why are you talking to yourself?

Oldtree

Talking to oneself is a thing old people do! Old by name and old by nature.

You are right though, I should have put all the above into one post and then let it fade away quietly into the ether. I was just so incensed by Mr Viney's article, I felt I had to do something. While noone has decided to have a chat about it, there is a 205 views of this thread, so it has been worthwhile.

If we dont take an interest the vested interests will dictate how things are done. As an example the quarry registration process in 2005 had the oddest thing in it. I feel this was very undemocratic and our rights were removed by vested submissions when the call went out from the government for submissions. Simply, the guidelines stated that when an operator applied for registration of a quarry, public objections could be made. However only the operator could appeal the councils decision to an bord pleanala. That in my mind was disgraceful. Our democratic rights were removed by slight of hand. There were 104 quarry registrations in mayo alone. The negative impact of these registrations on thousands of people for the next twenty years does not bear thinking about.

Just like I would encourage everybody to vote, I would encourage everyone to take an interest in requests by the government for submissions. It may sound boring but when something appears at your back door with government backing its too late to cry foul. Information is the key.

I know, I know, I'm still talking to myself. Can't help it you see..............

Oldtree

I feel I must justify and prove my statement above.

Download the 2004 quarries guidelines here: "Quarries and Ancillary Activities"

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningGuidance/

and on Page 36

5.8 Appeals

A quarry owner or operator who provided the registration information, or further information if requested, may appeal a decision of the planning authority to restate or change conditions of a planning permission to An Bord Pleanála. 36
Such an appeal must be made within 4 weeks, beginning on the date of the receipt of the notification by the owner or operator of the change to the conditions. Following an independent review, the Board may decide to confirm authority’s decision, with or without modification, or alternatively to annul the decision. It should be noted that no other persons, even if they commented on the quarry in response to the public notice, can appeal the decision of the planning authority to impose or modify the conditions of a planning permission.:mad:

Does this sound like a government protecting its citizens??? I don't think so, more like protecting vested interests. The devil is always in the detail.

Of the 103 quarries that applied for registration in Mayo, 70 of them recieved registration with conditions and have to apply for planning permission to increase the size of their operations (an bord pleanala is predisposed to grant planning for these extentions if there is an existing quarry on site). The smart ones expanded their top working areas by as much as possible before the council visited, digging down a few feet, as this would be included in the so called current working area (this includes vast areas of limestone pavements protected under 1992 EU LEGISLATION). 30 were required to undergo planning permission to continue (COWBOYS AND UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED HERE). 3 had applied for planning permission within the last 7 years and therefore the files were closed. 5 years later this process is still ongoing with the council not taking any of the unauthorised operators to court as yet for unauthorised quarry developments. You see in the background to all this is the need to develop the extractive industry in the NATIONAL INTEREST, and it is being done on the quiet.:(

I am now off to talk to a lovely wall I noticed the other day..............

slagger

Oldtree wrote: »

Turbines to the right and turbines to the left:

Article from the Irish Times 10/10/08 on the IFA proposing 6,000 windmills (on the FOIE site):

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=12554

Article from the Irish Times on the quantity of offshore production wanted by the industry - 7,200 megawatts (not sure how many turbines that is). Projects for up to 3,000 megawatts to be given the go ahead.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/0912/1221138437043.html

Is it true that as you increase windfarm penetration the amount of co2 emissions mitigated reaches saturation and any further wind generation has no effect in reducing conventional plant co2 emissions?

Oldtree

I am searching for data as we speak and would welcome any links to studies or reports to read for myself. I for one would like to be fully informed before Ireland jumps feet first into wholescale wind generated power only to find out that the powers that be have again mislead us. I understand that our european neighbours are moving away from wind turbines for a number of reasons.

As for the quarry issue I forgot, as i do, to mention that even the registered quarries are having problems. Some were falsely granted registration, such as outlined in this article:

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4579&Itemid=38

the best quote in the article is from Ian Lumley, who highlights ‘the ineffective action’ of Mayo County Council in enforcing planning legislation, which he argues ‘is being subverted by systemic condition compliance breach and tolerance of unauthorised development’.

the appeals to an bord pleanala and can be searched here. Type in harrington quarry for some interesting reads and manouvering:

http://www.pleanala.ie/search/index.php

If thay can't get it right with quarries can they be trusted to get it right with other complicated planning issues such as wind?

slagger

Sorry, oldtree The reason I asked is that eirgrid mention it in their General Adequacy Report 2008 - 2014 and I wondering if they are telling fibs. If is the case then there is no need for these turbines in environmentally sensitive areas as the developer use reduction of emissions as their main selling point. Its about money not the enivroment.

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR%202008-2014.pdf

These should also include areas outside SAC's NHA's that have conservation value as defined in the EU habitat directive.

I believe that there is a big push in mayo to expand the wind gerention capacity and of course they are putting them in in upland/blanket bogs areas

Oldtree

Thank you Slagger for that snippet of information. It is always good to see what they are up to. You are correct that they have probably only costed the actual value of the land, rather than including any cost for the habitat value destroyed (over time) thus, in my mind, skewing their calculations in their favor and making the projects fiscally cheaper. We will discover these huge losses in years to come, as was the case with the quarries.

I have linked to the friends of the irish environment before and the following may be of interest to you on their efforts on the energy industry and bogslides:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/friendswork/index.php?do=friendswork&action=view&id=713

Their site is interesting and they have a section that is updated daily which lists environmental information from irish papers here:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/

But be warned, the bad news can be a bit overwhelming at times.
btw I am not a member.

slagger

Thanks for the links oldtree. Great to see FOIE raising awareness of the crap EIA's the developers put forward for each development. These flawed EIA's are still being submitted to the County Councils and the developers are still getting planning permission.

Oldtree

It is facinating that councils can grant permission, ignoring the likes of their own county development plan and straightforward national planning laws, amazing! But it must be said thet an bord pleanala appear to be able to do a better job, see here where mayo coco granted planning but ABP have just overturned that decison:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/227487.htm

Suffice it to say that you need to only look at the boards direction to see what the council have overlooked...................

This brings into sharp focus the need for observations on planning applications, if only to get a planning application to ABP to get a fair(ish) hearing and judgement. Anyone in Ireland can make a submission on a planning application anywhere in Ireland, and if not satisfied with the decision can then appeal it to ABP, and should! No submission and the council can (and does) what it likes.

slagger

I was suprised that ever got planning permission in the first place. Mayo Co Co had refused the majority of wind farms in the past based on the County Developemnt plan, but recently there has been a change in heart.

There's one case where the chief planner overturned the decision of the Excecutive Planners to refuse planning based on the Landscape Appriasal.

You have mentioned the old wind masts. SEI have produced a wind atlas for Rep of Ireland based on a mean historical value, no doubt at great expense with taxpayers money. The atlas gives values for different heights above ground (50m, 75m and 100m). Why can't the developers use these values instead of sticking a mast in. Its less intrusive.

Oldtree

I think its like getting the foot in the door. As with the quarries, if there is one there already then it is easier to get planning for an increase in area. So the mentality must be to get a huge mast in for a spurious reason and then there is a precedent set which may allow for other large masts (turbines) to be put in.

Or it may be an inexpensive way to find out it their larger scheme plans would be possibly allowed (or no objections, qed...).

I am not suprised at any decisions reached by Mayo Coco, after the scandelous decisions in the quarry issue and other MCC planning decisions that have been overturned by ABP, I firmly believe that the ordinary citizen needs protection from the powers that be inside this council, and that this council (probably the rest of them too) need to be made fully accountable for their decisions. I would go so far as to say that a watch dog is necessary with the power to roll heads. The ombudsman does not have wideranging powers, covering only actual administration (not decisions) and enforcement.

maniac101

Oldtree wrote: »

The following are not mentioned:

1. That the proposed area for this development is both adjacent to, and in, an area designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Natural Heritage Area (NHA).

I understood that planning laws absolutely prohibited the development of wind farms in SACs and NHAs? As far as I'm aware, wind developers wouldn't even consider a development in such areas. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Although I'd be an advocate of more renewables for electricity generation, I'd agree with at least some your views. I think the environmental impact assessment procedure is a bit of a joke to be honest, as the EIS is undertaken by the developer. My view is that some councils have been over-enthusiastic about approving wind farm developments, for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment or energy security. We'd be better served to build most of our windfarms offshore, where the wind is better and the environmental impact is lesser. It's the more expensive option for developers but, in fairness to Minister Ryan, he's put new tariffs in place this year that make offshore wind development far more attractive than it was.

Oldtree wrote: »

It is facinating that councils can grant permission, ignoring the likes of their own county development plan and straightforward national planning laws, amazing! But it must be said thet an bord pleanala appear to be able to do a better job, see here where mayo coco granted planning but ABP have just overturned that decison:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/227487.htm

That's a planning application for a peat burning power station, not a wind farm. It's good to see that the people of Killala objected to this. Promoting the burning of peat to generate electricity is the most environmentally corrupt and shameful policy ever formulated by the Irish state.

Oldtree

Hiya maniac101, I understand that wind farms are prohibited too, see further up this thread, but that dosn't stop the energy companies trying to make a buck!!!! Planning laws are bent all the time, thus the overturning of MCC decisions by ABP. Offshore is just out of sight, but that does not mean that the habitat there is any less valuable. I don't know what the solution is but I want a serious debate about the issue before Minister Ryan gives the go ahead, sacrificing one environmental issue for another, I would like all of these habitats quantified as to their real value and other options explored. I know its a power station, but in the context of this thread with planning and environmental issues I felt it appropiate to include, if nothing else just to show what still goes on.


See here where a MCC quarry decision was overturned by ABP, if was on a limestone pavement protected under 1992 EU legislation. Again just download the direction for a feel of it and see 3. The site of the proposed quarry contains areas of dry calcareous grassland and dry calcareous heath with exposed calcareous rocks, which are habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. On the basis of the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, and having regard to the impact of the proposed quarry on these habitats, the Board is not satisfied that the proposed development would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/216545.htm

See here where County Secretary, John Condon, said he was not going to comment on a specific case as a planning application was before the Council at present. He did, however, say that it was ‘disingenuous’ for people to suggest the Council had ‘vested interests’.
“Mayo County Council make planning decisions in accordance with the law and every planning application is available for public scrutiny. An Bord Pleanála are there so people can appeal our decisions and 80 per cent of the time they affirm them.”

In accordance with the law?? (not all the time in my researched opinion and 80% is not a good average when the content of that 80 % is the likes of quarries and other such developments which have a huge impact on the local residents.)

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2538&Itemid=71

This article by Vincent Browne outlines the reaction of industry to questions asked of them. Their answers are unhelpful to say the least, but shows the contenpt that joe public is held in by an industrial company.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/1017/1192458431446.html

It may also be worth noticing on page 96 of the Written Statement of the Mayo Development Plan 2008-2014 (adopted) that the following is written about planning enforcement:

4.1.1 ENFORCEMENT
In cases where development has commenced, or is being carried out, without planning permission or in breach of permission, the Council will consider taking enforcement action.

This is the same wording as the previous development plan, but the draft version of this new plan had the words will take enforcement action.

I wonder who, and why that was changed?!?!?!?!?:eek::eek:

slagger

Oldtree wrote: »

Noise pollution is another issue when it comes to wind turbines.

Currently the DOE is doing a noise issues consultation paper and has invited submissions by the 31st October 2008. Wind turbine/farm noise is covered under section A4.9, A9.1 to A9.7 in the noise issues consultation paper. See here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/NoiseIssuesConsultationPaper/

The Noise Issues Consultation Paper is on the right hand side under publications and documents which can be downloaded.

Have your say now if you agree or disagree with the proposed guidelines
:P

On the issue of noise. I believe that windfarms do not comply with the followng EU directive:

DIRECTIVE 2002/49/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:189:0012:0025PDF

In this directive the talk about "quiet areas in the countryside" This was reported on to the EPA in the following report:

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Noise in Quiet Areas
(2000-MS-14-M1)
Synthesis Report

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/land/epa_noise_in_quiet_areas_ertdi17_synthesis.pdf

In it they refer to noise levels in "rural quiet areas" . These ares have to be identified and surveyed. In my opinion windfarms will not met the criteria.

Oldtree

Slagger, let the minister know your views, opinion and interpretation on the noise issue. Very few submissions are made to public consultations like this. With regard to the Mayo Development Plan there was about 100, and I'm sure many of those were from vested interests (and this plan is law for the next 7 years.


With regard to the County Secretary, John Condon, to say that it was ‘disingenuous’ for people to suggest the Council had ‘vested interests’, and An Bord Pleanála affirm 80 per cent of the councils decisions please look at the Annual reports for ABP here and look up Mayo figures for results appealed decisions which proove otherwise:

http://www.pleanala.ie/publications/index.htm

In 2005

% of pa decisions confirmed by board 20.8%
% of pa decisions varied by board 32.7%
% of pa decisions reversed by board 46.5%

In 2006

% of pa decisions confirmed by board 33.6%
% of pa decisions varied by board 28.6%
% of pa decisions reversed by board 37.8%


"affirmed 80%" no, I don't think so...........

slagger

Oldtree wrote: »

Slagger, let the minister know your views, opinion and interpretation on the noise issue. Very few submissions are made to public consultations like this. With regard to the Mayo Development Plan there was about 100, and I'm sure many of those were from vested interests (and this plan is law for the next 7 years.

Oldtree, I have made countless representations to whoever would listen to me. I even had a couple of conservations Eamon Ryan, but I fear as an ordinary lowly Joe Bloggs noone is listening. Other larger vested interests prevail and it’s done in the name of saving the environment!!

I’ve only recently discovered that Failte Ireland have an environment department and have been instrumental in development of the Landscape Appraisals.

http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/a7fcc4a4-43b7-4609-ad15-fa5710c5ba2f/Feasibility-Study-To-Identify-Scenic-Landscapes-In

Even though Fáilte Ireland is one the prescribed bodies (i.e. should be informed of relevant planning decisions) in the Planning Regulations, they are not involved in the planning process unless the planners deem they should be.

If the planners are making decisions on developments that are in designated areas under their CDP they should be informing Failte Ireland, but this not the case ( even if the planner acknowledges that its contrary to their Landscape Appraisal!!).

Oldtree

And now there are 2 of us making representations, soon to be 4,6,8,20. Look at what a joe public outcry can do vis the medical card fiasco. Beverly Flynn was on the radio yesterday supporting the party line and my two comments were read out on air to her and she was choaked. Do what you can when you can, as you come across it. You are never failing when you are doing what you think is right.

This famous old story gives for a good frame of mind: A man was walking along the beach after a big storm. He saw another man picking up jellyfish, which had been washed ashore, and putting them back into the water. He approached the other man and said "why bother? there are so many of them washed up, the few you put back won't make any difference at all!" The man picked up another jellyfish and placed it gently back into the sea and said "it made a difference to that one!"

If we stop drawing attention to these issues then they win and get their way unimpeded. If we get a idiotic planning application to an bord pleanala and get it tossed, we win, but the war is far from over. Any effort, no matter how small will mount up to a mountain in the end.

I make submissions on whatever I come across and have learned a great deal about the system, and use that knowledge to improve my submissions and the actions I can take within that system. There are small improvements being made by the system all the time but I do not expect miracles. It will take high court action (or a complete review of the planning system) to deal with the likes of the Failte Ireland issue, but now I am aware of that piece of information, if I can use it i will. Sounds like something to make ABP aware of in a submission. Gormley has at least promised to look at planning retention and outlaw the 7 year rule with a no no no to unauthorised developments following on from the EU EIS decision in the summer.

I must stress that I have only come into this because some eejet wanted to put a quarry outside my back door and I had to fight for myself and that meant learning the planning system, which is a very complicated thing full of blind alleys and roundabouts.

One example I would give you is that while the greens appear to have power, that is indeed very limited and controlled. But I could point to a few issues that they have successfully circumvented the system to meet a greening agenda. This would be on example if looked at from an improving light, slowly slowly catchee monkey.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/NationalParksandWildlife/News/MainBody,18356,en.htm

150 meters! supervised! have fun.:P

GenericUser

slagger wrote: »

Is it true that as you increase windfarm penetration the amount of co2 emissions mitigated reaches saturation and any further wind generation has no effect in reducing conventional plant co2 emissions?

Theoretically no its not true.
In practice though, windfarms are highly variable and difficult to predict their output. At the present moment in time, it is necessary to back up the output of wind generation with conventional generators burning fossil fuels. So in the present day scenario it could be said that the polluting output from these backup thermal / gas generators may offset the gains made from wind generation. However in future this should be mitigated with cleaner thermal generation technologies and more reliable sources of renewable generation (Tidal and wave).
Wind turbines are far far better than no wind turbines.

Oldtree

GenericUser, would you be prepared to go as far as to further qualify:
"Wind turbines are far far better than no wind turbines"
with
"Wind turbines, in the right place, are far far better than no wind turbines"?

Oldtree

Thanks for the info Slagger, have found the list of prescribed bodies and their remits under Section 28 (notice to certain bodies) of the Planning and Development (Consolidated) 2000-2006, here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningLegislation-Overview/

The Development Management Guidelines -June 2007 for public authorities here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningGuidance/

says in section 8.2 Who May Appeal:

Any prescribed body which although entitled to be notified of the
planning application by the planning authority was not sent such a
notification (Section 37(4) of the Act)

If the council tries to be sneaky and avoid informing the PB, then if a good citizen informs the PB about the oversight the PB may be more inclined to take the planning application decision to ABP. Looks like the only option there.

If the PB has made a submission then it is available to see on the planning file after the council decision has been made. If its not there they didn't and it may be worth contacting them just in case (the council didn't). I am unsure what the time limits are for the PB to appeal, but i would surmise that its 4 weeks as ususal.

slagger

oldtree wrote:

If the council tries to be sneaky and avoid informing the PB, then if a good citizen informs the PB about the oversight the PB may be more inclined to take the planning application decision to ABP. Looks like the only option there.

If the PB has made a submission then it is available to see on the planning file after the council decision has been made. If its not there they didn't and it may be worth contacting them just in case (the council didn't). I am unsure what the time limits are for the PB to appeal, but i would surmise that its 4 weeks as ususal.

I don’t think the council are trying to be sneaky, but I suppose it is open to interpretation. Don’t worry; the fact of not informing the relevant prescribed was in the first paragraph of the ABP appeal. I have already read the planning file. Notification of what prescribed body received the file is recorded on the inside of the planning file on a sheet of paper listing all the bodies that have received the file (date sent and date received reply). It is conceivable that it was not recorded, but let ABP find that out.

I’ve just come off the Mayo CoCo website. I see Ian Lumley of An Tasice has had a good ole lash on the deficiencies of the EIA in his ABP appeal

Oldtree

The Planning and Development Regulations 2008 (SI 235 of 2008) have given me pause for thought, here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningLegislation-Overview/PlanningRegulations/

No wonder the IFA has been busy.

The only way that I can see to deal with inappropiate "exempt developments" is a section 5 declaration from the Planning and Development

5. —(1) If any question arises as to what, in any particular case, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development within the meaning of this Act, any person may, on payment of the prescribed fee, request in writing from the relevant planning authority a declaration on that question, and that person shall provide to the planning authority any information necessary to enable the authority to make its decision on the matter.

in that there are restrictions on exempt developments
1. Every Condition in Column 2 “Conditions and Limitations” which relates to a specific CLASS must be fulfilled, or exemptions cease automatically.

2. “Rural” exemptions do not exist for any structure within the boundaries of a city, or urban area, or town (defined as a community of more than 2000 inhabitants).

3. Developments in CLASSES 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (all farm structures, in other words) have no exemptions in any area to which a special amenity area order relates.

4. Exemptions cease for any structures that “interfere with the character of a landscape, or a view or prospect of special amenity value or special interest, the preservation of which is an objective of a development plan for the area in which the development is proposed, (or, pending the variation of a development plan or the making of a new plan, in the draft variation of the plan or in the draft plan)”.

5. Exemptions cease for anything that involves the excavation or alteration or demolition of places, sites, features or other objects of archaeological, geological, historical, scientific or ecological interest, the preservation of which is an objective of a development plan (etc. as above in No. 4). Exemptions therefore cease in all Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) as soon as these areas are publicly advertised in the newspapers. [EU Regulation].

6. There is no exemption for fencing or anything else that obstructs any public right of way. Nor is there any exemption for “fencing or enclosure of any land habitually open to or used by the public during the 10 years preceding such fencing or enclosure for recreational purposes or as a means of access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility.”

or as Mayo County Council put it:

All forms of development which are normally exempted lose this status and require planning permission if they--

contravene a condition of a planning permission;
endanger public safety by causing a traffic hazard or obstructing the view of road users;
build forward of the building line (except in the case of small porches);
involve a new or wider access to a public road;
affect a building, feature, site, etc., listed for preservation in the development plan or draft plan (check your local development plan);
obstruct a public right of way;
are not wholly related to the use of the house for domestic purposes;
involve development within a special amenity area;
involve development to a protected structure;
include any works to, or changes to, an unauthorised structure, or one where there is an unauthorised use.
("Unauthorised" means without the benefit of planning permission or exempted development status).

Needless to say Mayo Coco do not have a section 5 application form, "just send in a letter"!!!!!! you have to say:

Section 5 Application, Planning and Development Act 2000-2006

Request for a declaration as to if the following ‘is or is not development’, or ‘is exempted development’ within the meaning of the Planning Act 2000-2006.

From:
Location of Proposed Development:
Description of Development:

List of Maps submitted with this Application:
2 ordnance survey rural place maps with the site outlined in red.

Applicants interest in site:

I am an immediate neighbour and resident of ?.
reasons why development is not exempt..........

I enclose the statutory fee of €80.

Causing a traffic hazard is a serious nono too.

Might be worth a go if a need arises.

Good for Ian L, champion of the citizens, but he has far too much work to do.

slagger

Jeez oldtree you've being busy. Sunday bedtime reading.

Oldtree

Its a steep learning curve and a mountain that I am still climbing. My computer is full now of information to be used, half of which i've forgotton as i go on, but is rediscovered when I need it.

Another point about Section 5's is that they bring in any exempt development into the planning process and the Council decision can then be appealed to ABP. One such issue is Waste licences that come under the council environment section.

See:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/RL2389.htm

and the backing docs for this other one here:

http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=073091&la=1

Both require planning permission as a traffic hazard to the public road user.

Very handy if the waste licence application has been filled in, shall we say, in a very all encompassing way, that you end up with a rubbish tip outside your door.

There are a number of Section 5's on the MCC website over the last few years worth a study.

Oldtree

Eirgrid’s GRID25 plan here:

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/Home.aspx

In a diagram on page 14, of the country’s total expected renewable wind energy capacity, 35% is available in the North West region (Galway, Mayo Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal) and a further 8% in the West region, a total of 43% as against 4% in the East region!

I wonder that, as this is a strategy document, is it Eirgrid’s intention to put 43% of all future Irish wind turbines here in the west? Is that going to happen with the thousands of planned exempted turbines, cluster them in the west of the country? Of the IFA’s 6,000 windmills, are 2,850 destined for the west?

Page 25 also states the following:

Mayo/Galway is expected to have 880 MW of wind generation and also expected to have up to 240 MW of wave generation and 31 MW of offshore wind.
Donegal is expected to have up to 691 MW of wind generation,
Leitrim/Roscommon is expected to have up 269 MW of wind generation

I do not know how many turbines that is. These figures appear to represent a method of getting to the required 33% (or 40%) of energy consumption to be from renewable sources by 2020. What then I wonder?

Oldtree

I have been following Eirgrids little graphs of Wind Generation MW and System Demand MW here:

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/Home.aspx

Historical data is also available here too.

I have noticed that the wind generated power can sometimes drop off dramatically, even at peak demand. On October the 11th 2008 the total wind generated power dropped to 4MW at 21.00. type in 11/10 and hit enter to get that days info in the right hand column.

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=Wind+Generation&TreeLinkModID=1451&TreeLinkItemID=248

I had thought that the energy storage capacity system for wind power would have to equal the output of the wind system itself (in MW terms), but I had not thought of this issue over a prolonged period of time. has anyone any ideas of what reserve capacity we would need to have in a situation like this? How large would the storage facilities be and how many would we need to have based on our current energy needs?

Oldtree

from what I can gather the Pumped Hydro Energy Storage PHES does not appear to be a very good idea. Tom Raftery has this to say:

http://www.tomrafteryit.net/using-energy-demand-management-to-increase-wind-energy-in-ireland/

1. Cost - Turlough Hill cost £20m to build in 1968. An equivalent new pumped hydro storage site would cost billions to build. And Turlough Hill can only store a few hours worth of electricity. This is of no use when you have more than a few hours of calm and
2. Environmental - pumped hydro storage is, at best, 75% efficient. The environmental cost (carbon footprint) of building a pumped hydro site, with enough storage capacity to meet our needs, would far outweigh the benefit.

http://lowerfootprint.com/you-cant-store-wind-energy-easily/

Turlough Hill took six years to build between 1968 and 1974. Today that cost would be closer to €20bn and it would take considerably longer than six years to build due to the forests of planning legislation which has been passed in the meantime. Turlough Hill stores enough energy to power the country for approximately seven minutes so we’d need to build a little over 200 more Turlough hills to store enough power to run the country for one day. Even if money were no object, where are we going to find 200 hills with lakes atop?

Tom's stats are interesting but he is not aware of Organic Power's inspired :eek: notion of digging out mountains to act as PHESs!!!!!!!! Turlough Hill has four of six generators fitted and can generate 292 megawatts, within one minute of startup. Ariel and other pictures here to get an idea:

http://www-cenerg.cma.fr/more-care/activities/turlough_hill/turlough_hill.html

The "Pumped Hydro Energy Storage to Support Wind Energy Penetration in Ireland" April 2006 publication by The Sustainable Energy Research Group, University College Cork

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:priYqXWpKTwJ:www.ucc.ie/serg/pub/PS-R2.pdf+wind+energy+storage+hydro&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie

finishes by saying:

Further work is to be carried out on the economic impacts of pumped hydro energy storage. As the liberalised market operation and parameters are as yet uncertain, it is difficult to quantify definitively the benefits of installing such a system.

This does not inspire me with confidence. Why are we pushing forward with turbines, hell for leather, without proper research or information into the full system necessary to backup a wind generated power industry? Seems a bit like "for the sake of it".

muggyog

I feel I should interrupt this mutual backslapping regarding the inappropriate use of wind power to produce electricity in Ireland to bring some balance to the discussion. I agree totally that wind is not the "magic bullet" to the energy solution but it surely is has a major role in contributing to replacement to fossil fuel as a source of energy.

On the specific question of storing wind generated electricity there seems to be a biased interpretation of the facts. There is mention of the fact that at current prices 20 billion Euros would be necessary to build another Turlough Hill ( unsure where this figure is arrived at ) but no mention of advances in generator technology / techniques over the intervening 40 years. Whatever the cost surely building a storage facility would be better than building an equivalent fossil fuel plant. Maybe a more cost effective solution would be a nuclear power plant? I also notice Tom Raftery did not respond to the alternative compressed air storage option which he initially discarded as unusable but was corrected by an American contributor. The "scathing" conclusion of the Sustainable Energy Research Group

Further work is to be carried out on the economic impacts of pumped hydro energy storage. As the liberalised market operation and parameters are as yet uncertain, it is difficult to quantify definitively the benefits of installing such a system.

is hardly a damming indictment of the technology.

Wind power has a long way to go in the area of renewable energy and would need contributions from other renewables. The siting of masts is a different issue and only clouds the usefulness of the technology ( should RTE transmitters be removed from their mountain locations?).

Oldtree

My origional rant was about the siting of the turbines, and also storage lakes on mountains, on or near SACs and NHAs and is somthing i feel very strongly about. The usefulness of industrial scale of wind generated power is as you say, another issue, however i do see the benefits versus current power stations. From a small amount of research, there are a lot of questions that i would like answered, but i have not closed my mind off to wind generated power.

I did not see the conclusion of the Sustainable Energy Research Group as scathing only questioning. Their report does indicate that "The round-trip efficiency of such a system is generally in the order of 70-80%". so there will still be huge losses of energy. I do not understand, or not know enough about, the other methods of storage to adequately discuss them, but would welcome any simple descriptions of ones that you feel are worthwhile. I don't know where tom rafferty got his figures, but I can imagine that the cost of such a modern storage project would be large by any standards.

Maby a more cost effective option would be a nuclear power station, but again back to my original point of the hidden costs, such as landscape value, environmental heritage and security, peace of mind, etc, all of which do not form part of any financial budget. And not to mention that it will always be the lowest quote that gets the job of doing the construction, not very comforting.

I feel I should say that I would be very happy to install a small wind turbine outside my house, provided it was quiet and my neighbours did not mind. I would be happy to export the extra power to the grid provided it was offset directly by my ESB meter. The only thing stoping me at the moment is that I do not like batteries. A while back I came across a direct method of converting the wind energy to hot water, without batteries, which I realy like the idea of, but cannot find the information again, and the question of the excess power still would exist.

RTE transmitters should be removed from their mountain locations if they are in a SAC or NHA, that is unlikly to happen, but further masts should be prevented at such locations and other options sought.

Wind power has a long way to go, and there are many questions that need to be asked and answered. We need to avoid another electronic voting fiasco.

badolepuddytat

Old Tree.

May i start by commending your research, diligence, facts and backing up your arguments with facts! refreshing!

I have a couple of points.
1. siting of windfarms should be done carefully and considerately as they do have an environmental impact. It is possible to build one in an SPA / SAC, but only if it does not affect the purpose of the protection.

2. Noise. There are alot of myths going around about noise from wind turbines. Visit the dundalk IT campus and you have to be within 80m of the turbine to hear it over the background urban noise. I have reviewed noise studies, that were completed using microphones etc. there is very little increase in noise from WTs at 100m never mind 300+. modern WT have noise abatement features that can decrease noise production in the event of conditions requiring it. Planing permission is usually subject to noise monitoring anyway.

3. Small scale Vs Large scale. Take a 2.3MW turbine (like the enercon-70 in enniscrone - 35% capacity factor). It produces 7 GWh per annum or so. that is 7,000,000 kWh or the equivalent in energy production of 1700 irish homes. Would you rather 1700 domestic wind turbines than one large scale? or in the event of larger domestic scale like a 5kw (20% capacity factor being very optimistic) - about one for every 2 houses or 850 of these.

4. storage research is ongoing and is not yet at sufficiently high round trip efficiency to be useful..... yet, it won't be too long though. An interconnector with the uk (500MW) in the pipeline will for all intents and purpose be the same for us in ireland, allowing a much higher wind penitration.

5. The irish Carbon intensity for electricity has fallen from 643 in 2005 to 602 in 2006 to 534 in 2007.... that is fairly significant and due to the increase in high efficiency gas plants and the growth of the wind sector. If we shut down moneypoint and used a high efficiency gas plant like huntstown it would fall by at least 20% by my estimation!

6. Urban wind generation would in my opinion be a great idea... all industrial estates >300m from houses would be a great idea. High efficiency large scale. Go visit dundalk IT. it is a real eye opener!

7. about myself. my job is to save energy & CO2 emmissons. I do some work for a windfarm project that will save 8400 tons of CO2 being emmitted or the equivalent of taking 2500 cars off the roads. I personally believe wind power is a good idea.... in the right place.

8. Your alternative for Ireland. A Nuclear plant in Bellacorrig, higher prices for putin's gas, lights out.... they are the only other alternatives as i see them.

Pgibson

slagger wrote: »

IYou have mentioned the old wind masts..

Every ACRE of rural Mayo is marred by electricity poles and telegraph poles.

They are as ugly as sin but the locals are so used to seeing them they don't even notice them.

On the other hand wind farms can look quite beautiful on hillsides.

Just as a lighthouse can look beautiful on a bay.

Lots of Nimbys in Mayo.

.

Pgibson

Oldtree wrote: »

RTE transmitters should be removed from their mountain locations if they are in a SAC or NHA, that is unlikly to happen, but further masts should be prevented at such locations and other options sought..

Such nonsense.

Examine this photograph:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/539120

The left-most mountain in that picture is "Cregg" in Connemara.

When RTE built a large mast on top of it in the 1970s everyone was delighted because RTE built a small access road up to the top.

And now everyone can go there on a fine day to see both Donegal and Kerry with one sweep of the head

The mast is still there. (Trust me..or go walk up!).

And transmitting.

Utterly unobtrusive.

Nobody has ever complained about it.

The NIMBYs and pseudo-environmentalists would never permit that mast to be built today.

.

Oldtree

Pgibson, it is good to know that you spoke to everybody and got everybodys opinions to base your sweeping statement on. I can only encourage you with the idea of correcting yesterdays errors and promote the idea of protecting our tomorrow. However you are right in that I no longer notice to poles everywhere here.

You badolepuddytat!! :D:p, Thank you for commenting, I am learning more every day.

1. Certainly possible, but has every other possible option been explored? and should we open this door? Mayo County Council Planning think not.
2. I know the noise is decreasing with advances within the industry but my experiences of noise monitoring, noise guidelines and planning permissions (quarrys) leaves a lot to be desired.
3. I think it would be important to see both small scale and large scale, getting everybody involved.
4. UK interconnector means we will be getting nuclear generated power too.
5. I didn't know that.
6. Yep
7. Agreed, in the right place.
8. Agreed, the alternatives are not great.

Pgibson

I notice that the Green pseuds never objected to the turning on of Christmas lights a month early in towns all over the country.

Never object to every church and chapel in the country being floodlight all night long.

Never object to every government buildings being floodlit all night long...and often the lights inside left on as well.

(The department of the Environment's headquarters is the second most over-floodlit building in the country..only Bunratty Castle is more grotesque.)

Never objected to Duchas floodlighting every single ancient monument in the country all night long.

I bet my bottom dollar the Green Party's headquarters is expensively floodlit all night long! (I concede I may be wrong on the last point.)

.

Oldtree

While I would not defend the lack of action by our political leaders, I would say that it is a difficult thing to be "all things to all men" and as with the telephone poles in mayo, many thing slip from our streams of awareness.

I would point you to my jellyfish story further up this thread. Now that you have become aware of something wasteful, why not do something about it. Start writing to TD's and councillors and the like, believe me it will make you feel a lot better that you are doing something, and you might achieve a positive outcome to your bugbear.

Oldtree

I came across the following in my search for enlightenment:

This site offers an argument against Prof David Bellamy's stance on windfarms, but appears to be from 2004: see:

http://www.futureenergy.org/infowindblmy.html

And this link is to the Moorsyde Wind Farm Action group and is their links page. Lots of both older and recent reference material to wade through: see:

http://www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/links.html

From that page I am currently reading 'Tilting at Windmills: The economics of wind Power' by Professor David Simpson, The David Hume Institute (Occasional Papers, 65). (April, 2004) - "This paper asks whether the economic analysis of this source of energy really justifies such a major role and whether alternative policy options should be considered."

Oldtree

See here:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=12947

about SWS Energy of Bandon, another lover of the bog/environment/landscape :mad::(:eek:

Anyone who wishes to object to the Loughan North proposal can do so, have a look here

http://www.noeastclarewindfarm.net/

Deadline for submissions is 30 January '09. Forward them to

Clare County Council, Aras Contae an Chlair, New Road, Ennis, Co. Clare.

Remember to include the planning application number 08-1950,
site address Loughaun North, Tulla, Co. Clare
and your full name and address
and the fee of 20 euro,
and your genuine planning concerns/reasons for refusal regarding this proposed development.

nuff said

slagger

Oldtree wrote: »

See here:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=12947

about SWS Energy of Bandon, another lover of the bog/environment/landscape :mad::(:eek:

Anyone who wishes to object to the Loughan North proposal can do so, have a look here

http://www.noeastclarewindfarm.net/

Deadline for submissions is 30 January '09. Forward them to

Clare County Council, Aras Contae an Chlair, New Road, Ennis, Co. Clare.

Remember to include the planning application number 08-1950,
site address Loughaun North, Tulla, Co. Clare
and your full name and address
and the fee of 20 euro,
and your genuine planning concerns/reasons for refusal regarding this proposed development.

nuff said

I read that article on sunday. Its refreshing that the media are now reporting the ills of badly sited windfarms, which it should be said are the majority, as they are sited in upland areas to maximise outputs and profits for the developers at the expense of the environment.

Good to see notoeastwindfarm making reference to the General Adequacy Report 2009 - 2015 from eirgrid. It provides the evidence against windfarms on co2 mitigation and self sufficency!

Oldtree

the pdf for the Eirgrid GAR 2009-2015 can be viewed here:

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR%202009-2015.pdf

Oldtree

An article in todays Irish Times entitled: Green energy sector feels chill wind of credit crunch. Here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0220/1224241479525.html

Says that: wind farm developers were having difficulty raising the cash they needed from banks to pursue their plans. Most of the applications for planning and licensing of wind farms come from small operators. These are ultimately hoping to add value by getting these projects through the initial stages before selling them on to bigger players. The bigger players have the resources to deliver the goods, but may not be necessarily interested in the initial development stages, which involve applying for planning, licensing and grid connection.

I do hope that this will lead to planning applications which would not be a waste of the company's money and be more likely to succeed, i.e. applications that are not in or near SAC's or NHA's or areas of a high landscape value, etc!

johnathan woss

slagger wrote: »

Is it true that as you increase windfarm penetration the amount of co2 emissions mitigated reaches saturation and any further wind generation has no effect in reducing conventional plant co2 emissions?

No that is not true.

As you increase windfarm penetration the capacity credit of wind power reaches a plateau and so you have to have a minimum level of conventional generation on the grid to ensure that there are no blackouts. This is because on a day where there is a very low level of wind then ALL the wind generators will have low output.

However, over the course of say a year, the more MW of wind generation you have installed the less actual MWh of electricity will be produced by conventional thermal plant, and the less your CO2 emissions will be.

Oldtree

Mayo County Council granted permission for a wind farm

http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=08617&la=1

An Bord Pleanala Refuses permission

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/231189.htm

reasoning

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed development immediately adjoins Lough Hoe Bog candidate Special Area of Conservation and is located up gradient of the River Moy candidate Special Area of Conservation. It is policy of the planning authority as set out in Policy EHNH1 of the Mayo County Council Development Plan 2008 – 2014 to protect, enhance and conserve areas designated as candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and proposed Natural Heritage Areas listed in Appendix V of the plan. It is also a policy of the planning authority to implement Article 6 (3) of the EU Habitats Directive and to subject developments likely to impact on Natura 2000 or European Sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) to appropriate assessment. The Board is not satisfied on the basis of the information contained in the planning application, Environmental Impact Statement and appeal response that an appropriate or adequate assessment of the effects of the development on the environment has been carried out in accordance with Article 6 (3) of the EU Habitats Directive or that the integrity of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas would not be adversely affected by the proposed development, in particular, the hydrological impacts of the construction of the proposed development on blanket bog. In these circumstances, the proposed development would contravene Policy EH-NH1 and Policy EH-NH4 of the development plan and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Pesky Mayo Development Plan, habitats and SACs. will the developers/council ever learn?

Oldtree

For those who may be interested, Mayo County Council have refused permission to Organic Power for a mast at Dadreen in Louisburgh, Westport, for the following reasons:

FIRST SCHEDULE

Having regard to the scenic nature of the site and the policies and provisions of the Mayo County Development Plan 2008 - 2014, the proposed development would not be in keeping with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

SECOND SCHEDULE - SCHEDULE OF REASON FOR REFUSAL - P08/1500

1. The proposed development at this location would contravene materially development policy P/EH-LC 1 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2008 — 2014 in relation to ensuring that development will not have a disproportionate effect on the existing or future character of a landscape in terms of location, design and visual prominence, that development will have regard to the effects of developments from the public realm towards sensitive or vulnerable features and areas. It is considered that the proposed development would interfere with the character of the landscape at this location, which it is necessary to preserve. The proposed development therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. It is considered that the development would establish an undesirable precedent for similar development in the area. Therefore the proposed would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

END OF SCHEDULE

:rolleyes::D

I await to see if the decision is appealed.....................

blue5000

Ireland has to import about 90% of it's energy. Wind is a resource that we can use, why are you so against windfarms, have you got a better suggestion apart from turning all the lights off?

galwaytt

......all the reason's with regard to the formation and establishment of SAC's etc, were based at a time in society based on certain information, in a certain context. At a time we could afford them, both monetarily and socially.

That has now changed: since their inception, the price of oil has been seen to double, CO2 has become an issue (which I don't 100% accept, btw...), a huge global financial and commercial crisis has visited upon us. Now, therefore, the context of any decision we make is utterly different, and right now we need to make decisions on energy. To conserve it, and use efficiently, certainly, but that notwithstanding, that would only serve to at best, cap our usage at existing production levels - which we simply must address monetarily - but, the likelihood is that nett consumption will continue far into the future. Don't believe me ? Ask Minister Ryan what we're going to use to re-charge all those electric cars he has deemed 1000's of us will drive......

So, what to do ? I'm not saying 'undo' SAC's, or anything else, but if we have to modify them, then, I'm afraid, so be it.

From my rear windows I can see..........oh, 20+ Wind Turbines (Derrybrien and Sonnagh Old)...and tbh, they are, frankly, things of beauty. On a sunny eve, sun low in the sky from the West, the turbines glint majestically in the sun. Let us not forget the SAC that is the ingenuity of man.

Man has always harnessed his environment for his own aims, and for his general betterment. All the differs now is that we seem to have adopted a psuedo-rosy view of That That Must Be Protected - at all costs. Well, I'm afraid, I can't say I subscribe to that. Think if it were ever so: The monks of Glendalough wouldn't have built that which we accept today as beautiful - including theirs, and others, Round Towers. Uncannily like wind turbine masts one would say.......

Ditto St Feichin of the Benedictine Order when building his Abbey north of Lough Len, at Fore, in the year 630. Why, this was built on no less than a..........bog ! :eek: Surely not, an SAC or NHA ? Which is missing the point. His, or their, ingenuity which allowed them the foresight to see a way to build a permanent masonry building on a floating foundation, on bog, was nothing short of ingenious. Something the likes of the DuPont corporation of today, with their GeoTextile amoury would surely admire, given their resources today, to allow 'ordinary' people to do the same thing with more modest structures..........and far less effort. To me, that is the great feature that bog.....

Do I need to mention Skellig Micheal, (man-) built 1400 years ago...- no less than a UNESCO World Heritage site ?

More recently, we've had the Norman's and their Keeps, and more recent still, from Victoriana and the Industrial Revolution, Flour Mills, Mill Wheels and all manner of wonder. I don't hear anyone saying they should be torn down.......

Of course - what about Holland, and it's polders, dykes and - gasp - Windmills ? Even Norfolk, if the truth be known.......

Would that they too, were subject to Planning etc ? Certainly not........we'd have been as left behind as far as the citizens' of the remotest reasons, and our society wouldn't be but a shadow of what it is now. Indeed, if our forefathers had adopted our thinking, we wouldn't have towns, let alone cities, to live in, in the first place.

A relatively recent embodiment of this nonsense thinking is the refusal not-so long ago by Galway Corporation, for planning permission, for a crane. In the Docks. To unload ships. !! Now, pray tell, can anyone remember that which stood there before (certainly I remember it, in the 1970's...).......well, paint me pink and tie me the side of a pig if it wasn't.........a crane. I won't bore you with the details. Or the fact that is was dismantled and shipped to Japan for re-use...... Ironic too, when you consider Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey published a Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008 to permit the 10 State port companies to pursue a “robust commercial agenda” ........mmmm.....

My point of all the above is, we are in danger of attaching values which on one level can be described as over-zealous in the application of importance, and at the same time 'protecting us from ourselves', which is going to be counter productive. Expecting people to sacrifice either their quality of life, or to temper their expectations of same - in extremis - is simply unreasonable. Ask those not in broadband-land would they like it, at the expense of an aeriel ? Better still, ask those who have it would they give it up, to sacrifice an aeriel.............I'd wager you'd be in danger of being impaled on said item by the interviewee.......;) To ask people to forego more basic service -electricity - is nonsensical. Because we have few energy-potent resources, and woe-betide us ignoring them. Windmills are just such an item. In 100 years our children's children will hopefully look at them and say......."weren't they clever, harnessing the wind like that.........?? "

All, as they say.........my 0.02......

....

galwaytt

....which reminds me, Skellig is a UNESCO World Heritage Site BECAUSE we built on it.........otherwise, it's just a big rock..........