Windfarm protestors celebrate Loch Hill rejection. Plus: Aarhus Convention bites

Posted: September 27, 2013 by tallbloke in government, Legal, Robber Barons, wind

NowindSep 26 2013 by Stuart Gillespie, Galloway News

Plans for a £38 million windfarm in the Glenkens have been blown away.

Campaigners against the proposed Loch Hill development near Dalry protested outside a meeting of the council in Dumfries yesterday.

And councillors agreed with their concerns, voting against 2020 Renewables’ application for 11 turbines.

Alison Chapman, co-ordinator of Galloway Landscape And Renewable Energy (GLARE), said: “We’re absolutely delighted that the councillors examined the issues and felt the application was not appropriate in the area.

In other relevant news:

Hedigan J granted a protective costs order to applicant wishing to use Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act to prevent alleged unauthorised development at a waste facility close to her home.

Protective costs orders originate from Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention which provides that litigation in certain environmental matters should not be prohibitively expensive.

From the Scottish story:

“Lochinvar is not just a beautiful place, it has a special spot in Scottish culture and history.”

Keith Mycock of TW 312 added:

“The Scottish energy policy wants 82 per cent of renewable energy to come from wind. It just doesn’t work.”

The council’s own landscape architect had objected to the plans ahead of the planning applications committee, while there were also 53 letters opposing the development of the 100m tall turbines.

However planners recommended councillors should approve the plans as they felt there would be no significant environmental impact and the landscape could cope with the windfarm.

Read the rest here

From the Irish story:

“This provision was implemented in Ireland through Part 2 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 which protects an applicant from having costs awarded against them should they be unsuccessful.

This is the first time in Ireland that such an application has been successful and importantly the Court clarified the information that should be provided to ground a motion for a protective costs order.”

Read the rest here

  1. tallbloke says:

    Email sent to my local council planning dept. regarding the application for a turbine near my home;

    Dear Ms #########,

    I believe one of your colleagues at the council planning dept. Has contacted you with my request for a voice to voice today regarding the application for a wind turbine at land north of Hawksworth Quarry. I am a local resident who is attending a public meeting tomorrow regarding this application. Your colleague re-assured me that there is still time to send objections to the council as the date for consideration has not yet been fixed.

    In addition to the grounds on which applications can be objected to , I wondered if you were aware of new developments with applications under article seven of the Aahus agreement, which is legally binding on the UK. Today a high court in Ireland granted an application under article nine, which limits legal financial liability for those raising objections under article seven.

    The collection of groups opposing the ill conceived application for the wind turbine at Hawksworth Quarry intend to make full use of the law and clearly, in the light of today’s decision, the financial burden on the public purse could be heavy if it comes to a legal battle.

    I hope the council will be taking full cognisance of these recent developments as it considers the application.

    Please could you let me know when the council is intending to deliberate on application 12/01233/FU | One 74m high detached wind turbine to farmland (50m hub height). | Land North Of Hawksworth Quarry Odda Lane Hawksworth Leeds LS20 8NZ

    And give me a response to the point raised above concerning the Aarhus convention and whether it has been discussed in council.

    I look forward to your reply

    Kind regards

  2. tgmccoy says:

    Well, here in NE Oregon the local wind farm expansion application has just been withdrawn. Vestas got hit by a poor economy, and reception by everyone-including the local Greens-that and a lack of money from subsidies in Oregon has put the project off indefinitely.
    Love it…

  3. Brian H says:

    The rent-seekers are coming up empty …

  4. oldbrew says:

    The Irish decision may give encouragement to wind farm protesters in the UK, but clearly Irish legislation can’t guarantee that UK protesters will receive the same financial protection.

    ‘This provision was implemented in Ireland through Part 2 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011’ etc.

    No harm in a bit of bluffing though 😉

  5. Tenuk says:

    oldbrew says:

    …No harm in a bit of bluffing though.

    Not sure it is a bluff, the UN is on the case regarding the lack of public consultation from previous finished projects, which they consider illegal!

    Have a look at this from Aug 2013…


  6. oldbrew says:

    Just in: another one bites the dust – until any appeal at least.

    ‘A judge in Edinburgh has ruled that the Viking windfarm project, set to be one of the largest in the UK, should not have been given planning consent last year, in a victory for local anti-windfarm campaigners.

    To add insult to injury the judge ‘also found against Viking Energy because the company did not yet have an electricity generating licence.’

    Back to the drawing board 🙂

  7. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    The winds of change!

  8. Brian H says:

    Or the change of winds. 😉

  9. J Martin says:

    Rog, I think you might have to chase your local council for a reply. They have probably ‘mislaid’ your email.

  10. tallbloke says:

    They have replied, and state that they believe they have complied with the Aarhus convention. They haven’t though.