Win for campaign against Dunnstown battery storage scheme

TMHSN campaign meeting in 2023.

The High Court has quashed the decision of An Bord Pleanala to grant permission for the Dunnstown Battery Energy Storage Scheme, writes Brian Byrne. The Court granted an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision on the basis that the Board had failed to adequately engage with the submissions made to it concerning water supplies for firefighting submitted on behalf of the applicants, including the report of fire safety consultant Dr Paul Christensen. The Board also has to pay the the applicants' High Court costs.

This follows the granting last April of a request by the Two Mile House Says No campaign for a Judicial Review of the Bord's decision to overturn Kildare County Council's original refusal of permission to Strategic Power Projects Limited.

The High Court decision has been welcomed by the TMHSN campaign as 'good news'. However, the developer has the option of remittal, where ABP reconsiders the appeal, and makes a new decision.

The original planning application for the BESS, which would be one of the largest in Europe if it was built, was refused by KCC in 2021. ABP overturned that in September 2022.

The campaign membership against the proposal includes residents, community groups, and agriculture and equine business interests in the area. They have major concerns on environmental and biodiversity grounds, and risks of fire and explosion. 

The group put together an extensively researched opposition to the plan that included details of over 50 instances of fire incidents in such installations around the world. They also showed the unsuitability of the project's design and location in the event of a battery fire incident requiring access by emergency services and possible evacuation of the local community. The inadequacy of the county's current fire service resources in dealing with such an incident was also noted.

KCC had refused permission on the basis that the proposed development was premature pending the outcome of a related application for a 220kV sub-station which had not yet been determined, that fire safety aspects of the proposed development had not been adequately addressed, and that there had been inadequate details for dealing with waste-water as well as lack of information in relation to noise and vibration.

On that second reason, the ABP Inspector had overturned the fire safety concerns of KCC on the basis that they were 'matters of technical detail better left to the certification system managed under the Building Control Act' and did not give rise to reasons for refusal of planning permission in this case.

Photographs use Policy — Privacy Policy