The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2560400 - Submission - Martin Beagan (2)Figure 1 — Proposed Development Site Martin Beagan Drumshancorrick Road Drumshancorrick Roslea Co. Fermanagh BT92 7HP 26 September 2026 Planning Department Monaghan County Council County Offices 1 Dublin Street Monaghan Co. Monaghan Re: Further Submission and Objection to Planning Application for Single Wind Turbine Development at Carney's Island & Altartate, Clones, Co. Monaghan Planning Reference Number: 25/60400 Dear Sir/Madam, I previously submitted an objection dated 24 October 2025 concerning the proposed single wind turbine and associated infrastructure at Carney's Island, Altartate Glebe, Legarhilt and Clonavilla, Clones, Co. Monaghan, submitted by Art Generation Ltd. My father owns land adjacent to the proposed development site, and I intend to build a family home there in the future. My proposed home would be approximately 500 metres from the turbine and could be directly affected by noise, shadow flicker and visual intrusion. Please see Figure 1 below identifying my proposed development site. arbr � ya h'a Cahtr I have reviewed the applicant's Further Information and the responses to my original objection. Although additional reports have been submitted, I do not consider that my concerns have been resolved. The proposal continues to rely heavily on predictive modelling, future monitoring, turbine shutdown, adaptive mitigation and construction -stage controls. Key Grounds for Objection: Shadow Flicker Impact: The Further Information confirms predicted exceedances at nearby homes before mitigation. The applicant proposes an automatic shutdown system, but the final specification, independent verification and long-term enforcement arrangements are not clear. My proposed dwelling site has not been assessed as a sensitive receptor. Reliance on recurring shutdown indicates that the turbine location is constrained. Noise Pollution: The assessment relies on predicted operational noise and does not provide a site -specific assessment for my proposed home. It also does not establish a clear independent post -commissioning testing programme or complaints procedure. Tonal, impulsive or amplitude -modulated noise cannot be excluded solely through pre -construction modelling. Visual Intrusion: No visual assessment has been provided from my identified proposed dwelling site. A turbine of approximately 143.8 metres would become a dominant feature when viewed from adjoining land and a future family home. The description of the area as a working rural landscape does not remove the need to protect rural character and residential amenity. Ecological and Wildlife Risks: The updated information confirms high bat activity, including 4,888 bat passes, and proposes five years of monitoring, mortality searches, blade feathering and possible curtailment. It also confirms clearance of conifer plantation within the bat buffer and approximately 340 metres of hedgerow removal. Bird monitoring and possible shutdown are also proposed in relation to Bishop's Lough. These measures rely on identifying harm after operation has begun rather than demonstrating in advance that unacceptable effects will not arise. Flooding and Drainage Risks: The Further Information confirms that part of the access route lies within Flood Zones A and B, crosses the Legarhill Watercourse and requires a raised track and new bridge. These works are significant interventions within an active floodplain. The hydraulic modelling, bridge capacity, blockage risk, climate -change allowance and floodplain storage should be independently verified. Appropriate Assessment: The updated screening report acknowledges a hydrological pathway through the Finn River catchment to Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC. The screening conclusion appears to depend on drainage, sediment and pollution -control measures intended to avoid environmental effects. If likely significant effects cannot be excluded on complete and objective scientific information, the application should proceed to Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment before any decision is made. Light Pollution: The turbine would require fixed red aviation warning lighting of at least 2,000 candela, visible in all directions and operating continuously. The fact that the lighting is not directed towards the ground does not mean that it will not be visible to nearby residents. Its night-time and cumulative effects should be fully assessed. Lack of Community Engagement: No direct consultation took place with my family regarding the adjoining land or my intention to build nearby. A project website and contact details are not the same as meaningful engagement. There is no evidence that local concerns influenced the turbine location or design. Failure to Consider Alternatives: The applicant has not shown whether a less constrained turbine location was available. The site -selection information does not explain how residential proximity, flood risk, Bishop's Lough, high bat activity, plantation clearance and hedgerow removal influenced the chosen location. The public and the Council cannot determine whether impacts were avoided or merely left to future mitigation. Cumulative Environmental Impact: The assessment should fully consider existing turbines and aviation lighting, combined landscape effects, rural tranquillity, ecological connectivity, habitat removal and future residential development. The applicant's response does not demonstrate how my proposed adjoining dwelling site was included in that assessment. Planning Duration vs. Operational Lifespan: The requested 10 -year implementation period and 35 -year operational life could affect adjoining land for several decades. Long-term monitoring, shutdown requirements, drainage maintenance and decommissioning must be enforceable. A future decommissioning plan is not a substitute for a costed restoration plan, financial bond and clear responsibility if the operator ceases trading. Conflict with the Monaghan County Development Plan: I acknowledge that the application must now be assessed under the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. Renewable Energy Objective REO 5 does not provide unconditional support for every turbine proposal. Support remains subject to protecting environmental quality, landscape, wildlife, habitats and residential amenity. I do not believe the proposal has met those requirements. Procedural Deficiencies: The Further Information was required to introduce or expand important surveys, monitoring, shutdown procedures, hydraulic modelling, water controls and responses to third -party submissions. Significant matters remain dependent on future monitoring, possible curtailment, further investigation and a later decommissioning plan. These are central issues, not minor administrative details. Dangerous Precedent: Approving the application where predicted impacts depend on future shutdown, monitoring and adaptive controls would set a concerning precedent. It could allow the development potential of adjoining family land and the amenity of future residents to be overlooked. Conclusion: I respectfully request that Monaghan County Council refuse this proposal. The Further Information does not resolve the risks to existing and future residents, wildlife, habitats, water, landscape and adjoining land. The acceptability of the development remains dependent on extensive future monitoring, operational restrictions and environmental controls. I also request that, if likely significant effects on a European site cannot be excluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt, the Council requires a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment before making any planning decision. Yours faithfully, Martin Beagan