John Thurso fears that the cumulative effect of wind farms in the county has not been properly addressed and he would like to see a halt to further development so that a proper assessment can be made.

The concerns are raised in a letter to Highland Council planning manager Gordon Moody setting out the MP's opposition to the Spittal Hill wind farm, which will be considered by the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross planning applications committee in a special meeting in Halkirk on June 22.

John Thurso argues that once the existing sites have been developed, the density of turbines in Caithness will be higher than anywhere else in the UK, the true impact of which has not been considered.

He explains: "In 2000/2001 I began a long correspondence with the then Highland Council in respect of policies to be pursued by the council regarding applications for wind farms. In general terms I have always been in favour of the development of wind energy and, indeed, have supported a number of applications in the constituency.

"I was, however, concerned that there was no principle or policies being applied to the overall accumulation of wind sites and the cumulative impact that it would have.

"At the time the then convener, David Green, responded to the effect that there was no mechanism by which the council could develop a strategy which was a matter for the Scottish Government.

"On taking up the issue with the Scottish Government, I was told that it was a matter for local authorities and that it was they who should develop policies. In 2004 I continued to press the case and the new council, under the leadership of Alison Magee, agreed, with the result that the authority did formulate a policy with regard to wind farms. This was a step in the right direction but did not address some of the issues of the cumulative effect."

He continues: "If we now look at the number of sites in the county of Caithness which have been approved and where construction has either started or is about to start, it is clear that there has been a massive development and that Caithness, when all existing sites have been developed, will have a turbine density far greater than any other part of the UK.

"This cumulative impact must now be taken into account and I am arguing strongly that there should be no further major wind-farm development in the county of Caithness until after all the existing sites have been constructed and the true impact of accumulation can be gauged."

Opposing the 30-turbine wind-farm development at Spittal Hill, which is being proposed by Spittal Hill Windfarm Ltd, run by local businessmen Tom and Steven Pottinger, the MP says that the impact on nearby residents would be too great.

He writes: "With regard specifically to Spittal Hill, the proposed development is almost diametrically opposite to the Causewaymire wind farm on the other side of Spittal.

"The impact in terms of turbine noise is easily gauged in Spittal on those days when the wind is coming from a southerly direction. At the moment the residents have respite when the wind is in a northerly direction. Were the development at Spittal Hill to go ahead, that would no longer be the case and the noise imposition would be doubled. The Highland Council criterion is for a maximum night-time noise of 38dB. If this criterion were to be applied then it is unlikely that Spittal Hill would meet it.

"Finally, taking into account these and other points, it would seem clear to me that this development would not meet the criteria laid out... for most of the households in the vicinity.

"In summary, I believe it is now time to properly assess the cumulative impact of development within a relatively small area as a general reason for permitting no further development in the immediate future, and specifically, with regard to Spittal Hill, this application contravenes the council's own policy and the reasonable noise limits which neighbouring residences might be expected to endure."

The application has recently caused controversy in Watten where the local community council has done a U-turn over its stance against the development in favour of benefiting financially from a community-owned turbine, which is expected to net the area hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Watten Community Council chairman Jim Macdonald acknowledged that a local ballot had come out against the development but said that such surveys in other areas had been "totally rubbished by the authorities".

He said at the time: "We as a community council felt that we would achieve nothing by opposing it - and lose any opportunity to benefit from a wind turbine of our own.

"The developer would not allow us to have a wind turbine in a development we opposed.

"As community council members we are here to do a little, if possible, to better our community. Just to turn down the opportunity to get this amount of money for the betterment of the community would be plainly ridiculous."

However, chairman of the Spittal Windfarm Opposition Group John Brown took the opposite view.

He said: "The Watten community made its position abundantly clear in 2007.

"The community council has gone against the community's wish. Those responsible for this shoddy behaviour have treated their constituents with contempt."

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---