Mayo Abbey Wind Farm plans refused following 169 public submissions
Planning documents stated the refused turbines would have an operational lifespan of 35 years.
A proposal for a seven-turbine wind farm near Mayo Abbey has been refused planning permission by Mayo County Council.
Cunlaghfadda Green Energy Limited submitted plans for the development in May this year. The proposed wind farm was to be located across the townlands of Knockroe, Cunlaghfadda, Harefield, Cloonbaul and Knockaunakill near the central Mayo village of Mayo Abbey.
The application sought a 10-year planning permission to construct seven wind turbines, each with a maximum height of 160 metres from foundation to blade tip. Planning documents stated the turbines would have an operational lifespan of 35 years.
The proposal generated significant public interest, with Mayo County Council receiving 169 third-party submissions following the application. Those opposing the development included Mayo Gaels GAA, local businesses, residents and a number of public representatives.
Independent councillors Patsy O'Brien and Richard Finn both lodged submissions objecting to the proposed wind farm.
In his submission, Cllr O'Brien raised concerns about the location of the development, noting its proximity to the historic village of Mayo Abbey, from which County Mayo takes its name. He also argued that the seven turbines would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding landscape.
Mayo TD Paul Lawless also expressed strong opposition to the proposal. In his submission, he raised concerns about the impact of construction traffic on local roads and the increased volume of vehicles travelling through the Mayo Abbey area.
He also highlighted the environmental impact of the project, stating that construction would require the removal of ‘well over 1,000 metres of hedges and trees’.
In its decision to refuse planning permission, Mayo County Council cited several reasons, including the proposed location of the development, the extent of technology required to avoid the negative impacts it would have on the 40 residents close to the development, and the interference with the character of the landscape.