‘Undesirable precedent’: Permission refused for new battery storage facility in Carlow

Planning permission has been refused for a proposed battery energy storage system in County Carlow due to concerns it could impact nearby archaeological heritage.

Carlow County Council rejected the application from Ørsted Onshore Ireland Midco Limited for a 10-year development at Gilbertstown and Bendinstown, which was intended to support the already permitted Garreenleen Solar Farm.

The application was originally lodged in June 2025, with additional information later sought following "a number of third parties raising concerns."

Read next: Carlow brothers turn local farm 'in family for generations' into whiskey distillery

The proposed development included a battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure across a 3.9-hectare site, including an internal access road, an underground grid connection to the Bendinstown substation, modular buildings, and storage containers.

In refusing permission, the council pointed to the site’s proximity to protected archaeological features, including a recorded church and graveyard, warning that “previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological remains may be disturbed” during construction.

The local authority said that, in the absence of an Archaeological Impact Assessment, they could not be satisfied that the development “would not have a significant adverse effect on the archaeological heritage of the area.”

They also found that the proposal would conflict with key objectives of the Carlow County Development Plan 2022–2028, which aim to protect and preserve archaeological sites and ensure potential impacts are fully assessed before development proceeds.

A large number of local objections were also lodged against the proposed development, with concerns raised around potential visual and environmental impacts, road safety, and increased traffic on narrow rural routes.

Some submissions also highlighted safety concerns relating to battery storage systems, including fire risk, while others criticised the level of public engagement carried out in advance of the application.

As a result, the council concluded that granting permission would be “contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area” and warned it could set an “undesirable precedent” for similar developments.