The responses of companies after councillors turned down schemes near Auckengill and at Lieurary have come under fire from Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (CWIF).

According to the protest group, RWE npower renewables and Scotrenewables are cocking a snook at the democratic process.

While acknowledging both have acted within the rules, spokesman Stuart Young yesterday maintained their actions are "morally wrong". And he claimed it is unfair that the public is having to foot the extra cost.

In May 2006, npower was refused consent to build 12 turbines – with a blade-tip height of 113 metres – on the Hill of Stroupster, off the A99 near Auckengill.

The Highland Council's then Caithness area planning committee unanimously rejected the 30-megawatt venture, which attracted 240 letters of objection. Soon after, npower lodged an appeal.

In the meantime, the company made a fresh planning application in 2007 for the same number and size of turbines on the same site. The new application has been processed by council officials but has not yet been put before councillors.

Meanwhile, the appeal against the knockback of the initial application is due to be heard at the end of September or start of October.

The pre-inquiry hearing was to go ahead at Auckengill Hall yesterday after the John O'Groat Journal went to press. Orkney firm Scotrenewables is continuing its marathon bid to win approval to develop a small wind farm at Lieurary, west of Thurso.

The council's refusal to sanction the go-ahead for three turbines towards the top of Lieurary Hill was upheld after a public local inquiry.

Reporter David Gordon ruled that the £3.5 million development would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape.

The Stromness-based firm has since tabled a new application for two smaller turbines lower down the hill, further away from Loch Calder. Each would stand 90 metres from ground to blade-tip – 26 metres shorter than the previous plan.

The council will next week launch a 28-day period of public consultation on the scheme.

Mr Young, who was to represent CWIF at yesterday's meeting in Auckengill, believes the public will be incensed by the way both companies have reacted to the knockbacks of their original schemes.

He maintains it is wrong that npower is effectively being allowed to get two bites at the cherry.

He said: "I think they considered whether it would be better for them to go to appeal or to submit a fresh application and then decided they would double their chances by going for both."

Mr Young said the same option does not appear to be open to someone who fails to win planning approval for a new house.

He also maintains Scotrenewables has submitted a fresh, amended application for a site which the inquiry reporter made clear should be a wind farm-free zone.

Mr Young said: "The reporter made very clear in his findings that the site is not suitable for wind turbines of any size.

"For them to make their turbines slightly smaller and move them down the hill a wee bit does not make any material difference."

Mr Young said that in both cases the developers are exploiting the planning system at public cost. "It's morally wrong," he insisted.

The Highland Council's principal planner Gordon Mooney said so-called "double-tracking" of applications – as in the case of Stroupster – is a technique which developers can employ.

Mr Mooney said it is an issue which may be resolved at the pre-inquiry hearing.

He explained that any application – whether for a house or a wind farm – turned down on appeal cannot be re-submitted for two years.

As npower's appeal has not yet been heard, the company was free to make a fresh application.

In Scotrenewables' case, the current scheme was different to the one turned down at the inquiry.

Asked about the cost, he said: "If applications submitted to us comply with the regulations, we process them as normal.

"If it's a proposal well outside policies or if we feel applicants have acted unreasonably, we could ask for costs but that does not apply in either of these cases."

Both RWE npower renewables and Scotrenewables were contacted for comment but neither had responded by the time we went to press.

iain-grant@ukf.net

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---