FURTHER objections have been made to a controversial wind turbine in Parteen, for which the developer is seeking retention.

The structure, which was the subject of an enforcement notice shortly after it was erected last year, remains in place, with the Council, having received Further Information (FI) on the application, expected to make a decision in the coming weeks.

In response to a series of planning queries, agents for the applicant, Seamus Madden, recently provided an assurance that the turbine has never been operational. The company also supplied technical reports on predicted shadow flicker and noise, asserting that the turbine will operate in compliance with wind energy guidelines.

Locals have not been reassured, however. Mirroring the public concern, reflected in more than 100 submissions on the retention application, lodged in March, the FI documentation has generated further opposition.

In recent days, a raft of objections have been made. The newly-formed ‘100 Metres Tall Group’ have employed expert planner, John Bird, to make their submission. The detailed document urges the Council to refuse retention permission.

A spokesperson for the group told The Champion that many aspects of the FI response have angered local people. “At one point, they’re saying people should get blinds for their windows,” he said. “That’s taking their problem and making it our’s.”

The spokesperson said tensions locally have ratcheted up as the decision date draws closer.

“We want to defend our property values, our environment and our picturesque village,” he said.

“Some people have property around 280m from this thing and there’s a school just 400m away. There’s also a lot of heritage and natural beauty in Parteen that people want to preserve. We have Hooper Swans and had the sea eagles here recently. We’re all worried about the dominance of this structure. It’s so over-powering.”

The 100 Metres Tall Group, is described in its submission as “a large group of local people and businesses in the Parteen area”.

The objection asked that consideration be given to several technical planning issues, including the potential noise from the turbine, the visual intrusion and loss of amenity.

The submission raised concerns over the accuracy of the noise and flicker projections. It added that, in relation to mitigation measures like window blinds to block flicker, the developer had put the burden back on local residents.

The submission claimed there had been no public consultation, as required under the current Windfarm Guidelines. It urged planners to consider the multiple objections from residents and businesses.

The submission also asked that enforcement action by the Council “be pursued with all possible vigour on behalf of the residents and businesses who form the 100 Metres Tall Group”.

Planning permission was originally granted in late 2010 for one 800KW wind turbine, of 73 metres in height, and with a rotor diameter of 53 metres at Knockballynameath.

In 2016, that grant was extended and the turbine installed in 2021. Householders and businesses contacted the Council and an enforcement notice, citing “non-compliance with planning permission” was issued.

The Council ordered Limerick Blow Moulding to remove the turbine alleging it was “not sited at the location as permitted under planning”.

An application for retention of the turbine was lodged on March 23 of this year, attracting numerous submissions including objections from two Clare TDs and a Senator.

Significant Further Information (FI) was sought by planners in May and submitted on behalf of the developer last month. Multiple fresh objections have since been received.

In planning documents, a representative of the company asserted that the turbine is needed given a steep rise in energy costs and the need to find sustainable solutions to climate change.

Following an advertisement, by the developer, of the FI submission, the Council ordered that it be re-advertised. Last Friday, the authority said “the newspaper notice as submitted does not specify the location, townland or postal address” and did not adequately inform the public. The Council gave the developer two weeks to publish an additional newspaper notice and to provide it with a copy of that.