Planning permission has been refused by An Bord Pleanála for the second time in a year for an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility to be developed in north Co. Kerry.
The first attempt at developing the site involved Kerry County Council granting permission in 2019 for Sandford Energy Limited to retain and complete the development of a renewable energy facility at a location in Dromkeen West, Causeway.
Several parties objected to the council’s decision to allow the development, based on the site’s proximity to the local community and potential issues with odour, noise and road safety.
‘Contrary’ to sustainable development
That proposed development included two digestion tanks, a pasteurisation/pump room, a machinery shed and a storage kilo.
The proposal outlined that the plant would produce methane-rich biogas through the process of anaerobic digestion. The digester would be built to handle 14,000t of crops and cattle slurry annually, to generate 500kW of electricity and to provide biogas for nearby community buildings.
The council’s decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála and in 2020, the board determined that there was a failure by the applicant, Sandford Energy, to demonstrate that the proposed development would be “served by a satisfactory surface water drainage system”.
Overall, the proposed development would be “contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area“, according to An Bord Pleanála.
2nd application for AD facility
Following the board’s refusal, Sandford Energy applied to the local council for planning permission for another similar development of an agricultural anaerobic digester and combined heat and power facility.
The council granted permission, subject to 17 conditions, but an appeal was made by locals to An Bord Pleanála in hopes of the decision being overturned once again.
In recent days, An Bord Pleanála gave its verdict.
In making its decision this time around the board said that, on the basis of the information provided with the application and appeal and in the absence of a Natura Impact Statement, it could not be satisfied that the development “would not adversely affect the integrity of the Lower River Shannon Special Area of Conservation in view of the site’s conservation objectives”.
The appellants argued that the proposal could have an “adverse impact on their lands adjoining the site and devalue it from a development point of view”; it could “give rise to odour, release of gases and pollution, noise and nuisance”; and that there was “nothing” in the second application “to indicate an improvement in proposals”.
There were also concerns over the site’s proximity to the local school and sports field, and that traffic generated would adversely impact on the local road.
As with the first proposed development, the facility would have had an overall throughput of feedstock of around 14,000t per annum, broken down to: 5,000t of grass silage; 5,000t of maize silage; 2,000t of sugar beet; and 2,000t of cattle slurry.
The feedstock was to be sourced from the adjacent farm.