Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (CWIF) is seeking to put the brakes on the bid to erect 17 turbines on a tract of common grazings on the local estate.

The protest group claims the Highland Council's recommendation to give the go-ahead was based on faulty advice. And it is calling on the developers to re-advertise its amended environmental impact assessment because of a factual error in it.

Dunbeath Wind Farm Ltd had applied to put up 22 turbines - each 125 metres to their blade-tips - off the single-track road to Braemore, four miles from Dunbeath.

Because of the scale of the development, approval is delegated to Scottish ministers though the local authority is invited to give its view.

At a special hearing in the village at the start of February, the Far North area planning committee voted 7-3 to support the development if five turbines were removed.

Joint venture partners Falck Renewables Ltd and RDC Scotland subsequently agreed to the reduction and lodged a revised impact assessment for 17 turbines.

According to the 270-member CWIF, the outcome of the hearing was fatally flawed.

Group chairman Stuart Young said yesterday: "If you alter a proposed development by something of the order of 22 per cent, I think any fair-minded person would consider that to be significant.

"They had a motion before them to reject the 22 turbines and that could be opposed by an amendment to support them.

"We do not think the amendment which was made was competent and that should have been made clear by the professional legal and planning professionals who advise the councillors."

Mr Young also claimed officials had agreed the application would come back before the committee if the company opted to reduce the scale of its wind farm.

CWIF has meanwhile taken the developers to task for an error in its revised impact assessment.

In it, it is asserted that the amendment was passed unanimously when, in fact, three members had opposed it.

"That is a clear inaccuracy," said Mr Young. "It's important as someone reading this who was not at the hearing would think the local members were fully behind it.

"That is important as it has the potential to mislead or influence them when they consider whether or not to make an objection."

CWIF said the developers should apologise and arrange to re-advertise the environmental impact assessment, having corrected the error."

Principal council planner Ken McCorquodale yesterday defended the council's handling of the application.

He insisted the amendment, proposed by Caithness councillor David Flear and seconded by Easter Ross member Richard Durham, was competent.

Said Mr McCorquodale: "I had no concerns about its competency and the clerk to the committee was prepared to accept it."

He said that the decision of the developers to drop five turbines from its proposal had resolved the committee's objection.

Mr McCorquodale maintained that there was no commitment to convene another hearing.

At the latest meeting of the area planning committee on Tuesday, members were shown visual images of the scaled-down proposal. Officials have since written to the Scottish Government's energy consents unit, making clear its support for the scheme, subject to a number of conditions.

Charles Williams, business development director with Falk Renewables Ltd, yesterday acknowledged the mistake in its revised impact assessment.

However, the developers do not intend to re-advertise the document and extend the consultation period.

"It doesn't sound like a particularly important point," said Mr Williams. "Whatever level of support it received by councillors isn't particularly relevant given this is a revised layout.

"It still has to go through the process of getting the backing of Scottish ministers."

Representations on the amended proposal have to be received by May 7.

Meanwhile, a wind farm at Stroupster has been given the green light by the Scottish Government - five years after the application was first submitted to the Highland Council. RWE npower renewables was granted consent earlier this month for a 12-turbine development. The decision comes following a public inquiry in November 2009.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---