An oral hearing into a proposed wind farm in Co Clare has been given conflicting evidence as to the likely impact the development would have on air traffic management.
An Coimisiún Pleanála is holding the one-day hearing to specifically consider aviation-related issues that might arise from the Ballycar wind farm.
Ballycar Green Energy Ltd is seeking approval to construct 12 turbines on a 140-hectare site in the south east of the county, close to the Clare/Limerick border.
Today’s proceedings come after objections to the plans were lodged by Shannon Airport, the Irish Aviation Authority and AirNav Ireland, the semi-State company that manages the country’s airspace.
Their concerns centre on the possible impact interference from the development would have on navigation surveillance systems at the airport and at the Woodcock Hill radar site.
‘Viable options’ to address issues
In his opening submission, Edmonde Keane SC, who is representing Ballycar, said the renewable energy project was “crucially important for energy security and to meet Ireland’s energy demands”.
He said the maximum blade tip height would be 158m and that the wind farm would have the capacity to generate 54MW of power.
Mr Keane said there were “viable solutions” to address all issues raised by AirNav and Shannon Airport, and that the developers were committed to constructively engage in this regard.
Richard Ingless, of the aviation consultancy firm Cyrrus, went on to detail his company’s work on behalf of the developer.
He said he was in “broad agreement” with an independent review of the proposal, commissioned by An Coimisiún Pleanála, ahead of today’s oral hearing.
That analysis, by Sagentia Aviation, looks at technical concerns, proposed mitigations and makes a number of recommendations.
It said that while the developer had presented “credible” mitigation solutions in relation to surveillance systems at Shannon Airport and Woodcock Hill, more detail and discussion between the parties was needed to reach agreement.
The review said aviation concerns have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Mr Ingless said possible interference by wind farms on radar operations was well understood in the aviation sector.
He said there were “well established and proven engineering solutions” to ensure radar installations could continue to perform in line with operational, safety and regulatory requirements.
The developer said the nearest turbine to the airport would be located 18km away from the facility and that – with mitigation – there would be no impact on AirNav’s radar performance.
Mr Ingless said it was his view that the changes required would be “practicable and achievable”.
Safety overriding priority at all times, hearing told
In his submission on behalf of the Ballycar, planner Gavin Lawlor suggested that conditions could be attached to any grant of permission, to “formalise” these mitigation measures.
He said the developer would be happy to cover all associated costs, having agreed such a programme of works with AirNav, “post consent” of permission.
In her opening statement, Suzanne Murray SC, representing AirNav Ireland, said her client had made two submissions to ACP objecting to the proposed development.
She said the agency did not accept the issues it had raised could be addressed by a condition attached to a grant of permission, which would then be adjudicated on by An Coimisiun Pleanála.
Peter Kavanagh, General Manager for Shannon Enroute Air Traffic Control, said safety was the overriding priority, at all times.
He told the hearing that Shannon managed 75% of transatlantic flights between Europe and North America, as well as a significant volume of private, commercial and military traffic, which can operate at varying altitudes.
“All our radars blend together like a web” he said, to give the level of required coverage.
Mr Kavanagh said that from a regulatory perspective, only personnel employed by AirNav were qualified to oversee, assess and sign off on any validation of safety arguments, or to put forward mitigation measures.
He said that any suggested mitigations “must be discounted as not being credible or applicable…to supersede the views of AirNav Ireland’s experts”.
“Locating a wind farm on this site would place a risk that modern safety practices exist to prevent,” he added.
Serious concerns over operational impact
AirNav’s Manager of Surveillance systems, Charlie O’Loughlin, then raised serious concerns about the operational impact the wind farm would have on aircraft monitoring.
He said the proposed development would be located 2.4km from a secondary radar at Woodcock Hill and every turbine there would be an obstacle, causing reflections, deflections and shadowing. All of these would impact the efficiency and accuracy of the radar system.
Mr O’Loughlin said he fundamentally disagreed with the analysis put forward by the developer, which he described as “technically incorrect, irrelevant and not applicable”.
He said it was his view that mitigation measures could not be implemented while maintaining the operational service of the Woodcock Hill radar.
He went on to say that the primary radar at Shannon would detect all but one of the turbines and that this would lead to ‘turbine induced cutter and false Aircraft targets’ on every Air Traffic Control screen.
Fergal Doyle, who oversees the safety of air navigation systems with AirNav, said the wind farm would pose a significant risk.
As well as creating “major regulatory uncertainty” it would cause “unacceptable disruption to the safe and efficient navigation of aircraft to Shannon Airport”.
Proposed wind farm a divisive force in community – FF TD
Those concerns were echoed by the safety compliance manager at the airport, Paul Hennessy.
He said the facility fully supported the position of AirNav, in respect of the proposed development.
Mr Hennessy said the airport’s Category II runway, which is equipped to cater for landings in lower visibility, was centrally important to all operations there.
Access to this runway would be impacted during turbine construction. Mr Hennessy said this could not be entertained, given the significant economic and operational impacts this would have.
The hearing subsequently moved to submissions from members of the public, including one from Clare Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe.
He said the proposed wind farm was a divisive force in the community, something that he said was “deeply regrettable”.
Mr Crowe said the wind farm could not be considered in isolation, given two other similar planned developments in a five kilometre radius of Woodcock Hill, which would bring about a total of 32 turbines.
He said the domed radar station at Woodcock Hill was responsible for the safety of 78 million people flying through Irish airspace each year.
It operates perfectly at present he said, but he queried whether this would still be the case were high turbines constructed so close to it.
“There’s no space here for ‘maybes’, ‘possibly’ and ‘I don’t knows’” when it comes to the safety of air travel,” he said.
He inquired if An Coimisiún Pleanála would be willing to underwrite Irish air safety, were permission for the development granted.
Local resident, Gerry Ryan said the hearing had been given a mountain of detail, but the “as is” situation had not been fully considered.
“The system as it stands today is as safe as it possibly can be”, and had been demonstrably operating at the pinnacle of air traffic safety for the last 50 years, he added.
Mr Ryan said this “lynchpin” would be compromised by the construction of wind turbines and jeopardise the certainty that presently exists, regarding the operation of radar systems.
Proposal ‘difficult and divisive topic’
The hearing concluded at around 6pm after some further exchanges in relation to the safety of the existing air traffic management arrangements and the possible impacts the proposed development would have on them.
In her closing statement, Ms Murray said AirNav was entitled to take a view that it was not satisfied as to the appropriateness of the development.
Its concerns could not be addressed by way of a planning condition.
She said AirNav’s position was that impacts of the development on the radar at Woodcock Hill could not be mitigated and a refusal of the application, on the grounds of air safety, was warranted.
Mr Keane concluded his contribution by telling the hearing that his clients had carefully considered the issues and addressed them, insofar as it could.
He rejected the contention that a planning condition in relation to mitigating measures was unreasonable or unenforceable.
Mr Keane said Ballycar Green Energy was “utterly committed to engaging, in relation to a very significant development of very significant importance”.
ACP Inspector Adrian Ormsby said the proposal was a “difficult and divisive topic” but he said the application was being treated with the utmost diligence by the planning authority.
There is no timeframe on when a final adjudication will be made.