by LESTER CROSS
The recent majority decision on a windfarm application by members of the Scottish Borders planning authority to ditch a recommendation by their own officers is being challenged by one of Europe's leading wind energy developers who failed in a previous bid to erect turbines in the same area.
Energiekontor UK Limited has been attempting to create an eight turbine windfarm called Wull Muir, near the village of Heriot, since 2018. But the original proposal was rejected by Scottish Borders Council at committee stage and again on appeal in 2020.
Grounds for the dismissal in February 2020 included "unacceptable landscape and visual impacts and a (subsequently resolved) potential impact on defence aviation safety. An appeal against the refusal was kicked out in October 2020.
But it seemed Energiekontor's persistence would pay off when a revised and relocated scheme received the thumbs up [with conditions] from Borders planning staff. A recommendation for approval was submitted to councillors in July of this year.
The developers were surprised when the Planning Committee voted by a majority of six to three to throw out the new Wull Muir project. While one SNP member backed approval, two other Nationalist councillors successfully moved an amendment.
It meant the plans were rejected with the decision notice for refusal citing the following: "“The proposed development is contrary to Policy 11 - Energy of National Planning Framework 4 and Policy ED9 - Renewable Energy Development of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that the windfarm would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts particularly to the north and south of the proposed site.
"The impacts are not localised, and it has not been demonstrated that design mitigation has been applied. The landscape and visual impacts do not outweigh the potential benefits of renewable energy in this location.”
According to the printed minute of the July planning meeting Councillor Viv Thomson, who moved for rejection of the application "omitted the word 'not' from her reason for refusal. The omission was subsequently identified and the decision reflects the accurate review of the committee".
Now, Energiekontor has lodged an appeal against that decision with the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division [DPEA] and the case will be allocated to a planning reporter who will consider evidence.
An appeal statement includes a detailed assessment of the project by planning consultant David Bell who points out in his report that with an installed capacity of approximately 36 MW of wind, the proposed development would make a valuable and important contribution to the attainment of the UK and Scottish Government policies of encouraging renewable energy developments; and in turn contribute to the achievement of UK and Scottish Government targets.
Mr Bell explains: "There is now a distinct shift in policy emphasis from the displacement of higher carbon electricity generation to extending the use of electricity as the critical energy response to the climate emergency. The proposed development would generate enough electricity to power approximately 38,000 average Scottish households."
The Wull Muir windfarm would require capital investment of approximately £44 million; and in terms of the construction phase, the estimated employment at a local level is 60 jobs contributing £3.5 million into the Scottish Borders economy. According to Mr Bell, there would be a range of benefits to the local community that would be delivered through the proposed community benefit fund of approximately £180,000 on annual basis over the lifetime of the wind farm.
The assessment by Mr Bell says it is considered that the professional planning officers of the Council undertook, as they put it “a full and proper assessment”. The planners stated that “it is considered that repositioning the wind farm further south within the Moorfoot plateau, the proposed development has moved back from the edge of the Moorfoot Escarpment.
"In comparison with the previous scheme, the potential landscape and visual impacts experienced from the north are reduced.”
Although the planning officers also claimed the proposal had not fully mitigated the concerns previously expressed by the Reporter in the Appeal for the previous application, they also stated that “it cannot be ignored that NPF4 is now more tolerant of significant landscape individual impacts arising from renewable energy development.”
Mr Bell concludes that the proposed development would be consistent with all relevant policies of the Development Plan. Furthermore, the relevant material considerations support the position that planning permission should be granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment