Caithness Windfarm Information Forum maintains officials of the council's Far North planning committee erred in allowing what proved the successful amendment to be tabled.

The lobby group has also renewed its concern that in approving two recent large-scale wind farms in Caithness, inquiry reporters and Scottish ministers have run roughshod over guidelines to protect the interests of nearby residents.

CWIF spokesman Stuart Young was among those who spoke against Dunbeath Wind Farm Ltd's scheme when it came before councillors at the hearing in the village hall in February.

They then voted seven to three not to oppose the development if five of the 22 turbines were removed.

The developers have since submitted amended, scaled-down plans, which are set to get Scottish Government approval.

Mr Young said yesterday: "It is essential that Highland Council ensures that all wind farm proposals are subject to impartial professional assessment leading to sound and complete advice to members so they can make informed decisions on developments which will influence the lives of many people for decades to come.

"Such a process was not applied to the Dunbeath wind farm." Mr Young also hit out at the recent Scottish Government approvals of turbine clusters at Westfield and Stroupster, both on the recommendations of reporters.

He said: "It is apparent from these perverse decisions that conventional planning constraints now carry no weight at Holyrood." "These two large wind farms have received consent in spite of them clearly breaching the only piece of guidance which positively protects a person's residential amenity."

Mr Young said CWIF was concerned that scant attention was now being paid to Holyrood guidance that a wind farm be turned down if it would cause "significant long-term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby".

He said: "At the Baillie public local inquiry, the reporter acknowledged that a number of properties would be so affected but ruled - contrary to guidance - that renewable energy targets take precedence.

"At the Stroupster inquiry, the reporter also acknowledged the existence of substantial numbers of properties significantly affected, but chose to raise the threshold for refusal from 'significant' to 'overbearing'."

He said recent decisions on wind farms planned in Caithness had variously ruled out tourism, visual impact, cumulative visual impact, residential amenity, historic setting and significant peatland issues as reasons for refusal.

Mr Young said the protection of residential amenity has been further eroded in newly-amended Scottish planning guidelines.

He said: "CWIF wishes to raise awareness in other communities of the inexorable spread of wind development with no apparent defence available to stop it now that Scottish ministers have effectively removed the robust defences formerly available in guidance." The council has defended its handling of the Dunbeath application, insisting that the successful amendment was competent.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---