[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Go-ahead for wind farm as legal bid rejected  

An attempt to block a major wind farm project on a Scottish island has been thrown out by the Court of Session.

Campaigners claimed the granting of planning permission by Highland Council for 18 turbines on Skye was illegal and wanted it overturned.

It was claimed the turbines would present a danger to rare birds, such as golden eagles.

Amec Project Investments had applied for permission for the development at Edinbane on the island, which Highland Council granted last May.

Initially the plan was for 28 turbines, but this was reduced after discussions with the council and community.

Separate but related application for pits to extract road aggregate material for the development was also granted.

The court decision follows a letter from the Scottish Government last week, to developers Lewis Wind Power, that permission for an 181 turbine wind farm on the island was unlikely to be approved.

Skye Wind farm Action Group (SWAG), established to campaign against proposals to site turbines on the island, claimed the environmental statement provided by the company was defective because the developers had failed to consider alternatives and the plan presented a risk of flooding.

In a 30-page judgment, Lord Hodge found against the campaigners and dismissed their petition. He said: “While the documents which comprised Amec’s environmental statement fell far short of the ideal statement, I am satisfied that the respondents did not act illegally in accepting them as an environmental statement in this case.”

He added: “I am not persuaded that in the circumstances which eventuated the respondents were under any legal duty to require the study of alternative sites or that in failing to examine such sites they failed to take account of a relevant consideration.

“For the same reasons I am satisfied that the respondents did not act unreasonably in not instructing Amec to consider alternatives. Accordingly this ground of challenge fails.”

On the flood risk, the judge said: “There was no evidence before me, other than the petitioners’ assertions in correspondence, to support their averments that such flooding was likely to be a significant environmental effect.”

A series of studies were considered concerning the danger to golden eagles and Lord Hodge concluded the plan would not be a threat to pairs of the species.

The campaigners said they were considering an appeal while the developers were keen to start work on the wind farm.

John Hodgson, chairman of SWAG, said: “SWAG is naturally disappointed by the outcome of the case.

“The arguments were finely balanced and the conclusion seems to be that while the council’s procedures fell short of the ideal, the decision was not illegal.

“We will need to consider the judgment in detail before deciding on our response and a possible appeal. On a related note, we welcome Amec’s recent decision to further reduce the number of turbines on the Edinbane site.”

David Hodkinson, managing director of Amec’s wind energy business, said: “We are naturally delighted that Lord Hodge has found no fault with the work of the Highland Council’s team.

“We are confident that the Edinbane wind farm will make a real contribution to renewable energy generation and to the local economy. We look forward to delivering this project safely and with due consideration to the communities of Edinbane and Struan, whose support throughout the planning process has been inspiring.”

No-one from Highland Council was available to comment.

By Stewart Paterson

The Herald

2 February 2008

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.