Anton McNulty
AN BORD Pleanála have upheld a decision by Mayo County Council to grant planning permission to the ESB for the resumption of a 52 mega-watt Electricity Generation Unit at Tawnaghmore Lower, Killala (at the rear of the Asahi factory), and the construction of an identical type generation unit located immediately north of the existing unit.
However, in granting the planning permission, the Senior Planning Inspector with An Bord Pleanála, Mr Paul Caprani, limited the period of planning permission to five years, after which all plant and equipment shall be removed from the site unless before the end of the period a further grant of planning permission is secured. There were also a further eight conditions attached to the decision to uphold the planning permission.
The ESB lodged an application with the Council on July 21 last and stated the system was to operate as a peaking electricity power plant which would be operated when there is a shortfall in the supply of electricity generation, principally during the winter months. On December 19 last, the Council issued notification to grant permission for the proposed development but the decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by Mayo Power Limited.
In their appeal, Mayo Power Limited stated that they were in the process of preparing a planning application to build a ‘Baseload’ power station (used to provide a mainstay of electricity supply) at the former Asahi plant, while the application before the board was for a peaking power plant. The appellant looked to build a power station fuelled by peat, biomass and coal on an adjoining site and they felt the ESB plant was inefficient and dependant wholly on imported, oil-based fuels.
Mayo Power Limited argued that the planning permission should be temporary only, and that a condition should be added requiring that the proposed development remain on site for a period of five years only or until an alternative provision of power to the area was available. They also claimed that the nature and extent of the proposal had not been adequately described in the public notices.
In their response, ESB International stated that the fundamental requirement for a peaking plant is that it should be capable of starting quickly when required and the type of plant proposed by the appellant could not provide that sort of service.
In his planning assessment, Mr Caprani rejected the inference by Mayo Power Limited that a base power station should be given ‘higher priority status’ than a peaking power station. He said it was clear that peaking power plants provided a necessary service and the type of plant proposed by the appellant could not provide this service. He also stated that requirements by ESB to show new public notices were met on May 1 and the issue of the development being inadequately described in public notices was addressed.
However, Mr Caprani agreed with the appellant in relation to sustainable energy requirements and agreed to review the types of energy production available in the area at a later date in order to facilitate more sustainable forms of renewable energy. He limited planning permission to a period of five years.
