September 10, 2017

Council says no to turbine extension at Hadyard Hill

Pippa Smith, Reporter | Carrick Herald | 9th September |

South Ayrshire Council have objected to plans to extend a wind farm near Dailly.

And now the final decision will rest with the Scottish Government.

The council opposed the building of 22 turbines at the existing Hadyard Hill wind farm, near Dailly and Barr.

It became operational in 2006 and already contains 52 turbines. The original plan was for just 31.

The proposed plan would be for the turbines to stand at a maximum height of 126.5m.

At the Regulatory Panel at the South Ayrshire Council buildings last week, the proposal was described to have ‘significant visual impacts’ on the area.

John Esslemont from Ayrshire Joint Planning Unit, said: “There will be significant visual impacts on the area with prominent visuals of the turbines.

“The point I wish to make is the view from Dailly. The landscape is roughly 200-300 metres in height and we are talking about turbines that are 156 metres in height so that is almost 50 per cent in terms of elevation.

“From South Balloch, which is in the Stincher Valley, I want to highlight the significance of the height of these turbines and it shows the prominence and distinction against the features of the landscape. There is a standing objection from the forestry commission on the scale of the development.

“Should this development be granted, this will be a significant intrusion of the centre of Carrick in terms of visual.”

Cllr Peter Convery, commented: “The original development destroyed a great deal of significant values in the first place.

“I wonder if the original turbines must be getting pretty old and I was wondering if the new technology of the new turbines will make a difference?”

Cllr Convery was told that technology has moved on significantly, with turbines being a lot quieter and more efficient.

It was recommended an objection be submitted to the Government as the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposal would not have unacceptable impacts on landscape, residential amenity and cultural heritage.

URL to article: