HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560400 - Submission - Tiarnan Bramley & Evelyn SheridanTo Whom It May Concern,
We wish to maintain our objection to Planning Ref. 25/60400 following our review of the Further Information submitted
by the applicant.
Although the updated assessment now includes our permitted dwelling, we remain concerned about shadow flicker,
noise, ecology, woodland clearance, flooding, aviation lighting, Appropriate Assessment, personal safety and
occupational risk, and the lack of meaningful community engagement.
We note that the shadow flicker modelling predicts approximately 36 minutes per day at our dwelling before mitigation.
This exceeds the recommended limit of 30 minutes per day set out in the Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006,
and compliance would depend on the turbine shutdown controls operating effectively.
While the noise assessment now includes our dwelling, we are concerned that it still relies on predictive modelling
rather than operational evidence from a comparable turbine installation.
We are also concerned that the Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan confirms high bat activity but relies on future
monitoring, blade feathering and curtailment if mortality occurs.
We note that the CEMP confirms the clearance of conifer plantation within a 91 m radius of the turbine hub and the
removal of approximately 340m of hedgerow. This could result in the loss of established habitats, nesting and foraging
areas, and important wildlife corridors. The associated ground disturbance may also increase soil erosion, sediment
runoff and pollution risks to nearby drains and watercourses. In our view, the Further Information does not clearly
demonstrate how these environmental effects will be avoided, mitigated or compensated for.
We are concerned that the AA Screening Report acknowledges a hydrological pathway to Lough Oughter and
Associated Loughs SAC through the Finn River catchment, yet concludes that a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is
not required.
In our view, the applicant's response relies too heavily on future monitoring, adaptive management and operational
controls. These measures may respond to impacts after the turbine begins operating, but they do not give us certainty
that those impacts will be avoided before permission is granted.
We do not believe the Further Information adequately addresses our concerns about personal safety and occupational
risk. We would expect the applicant to clearly demonstrate that the risks associated with turbine operation,
maintenance, component failure, ice throw, fire and emergency access have been properly identified, assessed and
reduced to an acceptable level, particularly given the proximity of our permitted dwelling and surrounding land uses.
We do not consider reliance on future operational procedures or monitoring to provide sufficient certainty at the
planning stage.
We are also disappointed by the lack of meaningful and timely engagement with us and other residents directly
affected by the proposal. We believe engagement should have taken place early enough for local concerns to inform
the design and assessment process, rather than after key elements of the proposal had already been established. We
have not seen clear evidence that concerns about residential amenity, safety and environmental effects were properly
considered or addressed, which reduces our confidence in the consultation process.
Conclusion
Having reviewed the Further Information, we do not believe it removes the material uncertainty surrounding the
proposed development. In our view, the assessment continues to rely on predictive modelling, future monitoring,
adaptive management and operational controls in relation to shadow flicker, noise, ecology and other environmental
effects. Our concerns regarding personal safety, occupational risk and meaningful community engagement also remain
insufficiently addressed. We therefore respectfully ask the planning authority to refuse permission.
Sincerely,
Tiarnan Bramley & Evelyn Sheridan
Tanderagee
Newbliss
Co. Monaghan