Climate Change

null 17° London Hi 20°C / Lo 9°C

Biggest onshore wind farm plan rejected

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Tuesday, 22 April 2008

null

Getty

Plans for Britain's biggest land-based wind farm were turned down by the Scottish government yesterday, in a landmark decision with wide implications for the future development of renewable energy in the UK.

The 181-turbine development on the Hebridean island of Lewis was vetoed by Scottish ministers because it was at odds with tough protection for wildlife sites afforded by European law.

The site was designated as the Lewis Peatlands special protection area under the EU's birds directive to protect its rare breeding birds including the golden eagle, merlin, red-throated diver, black-throated diver, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank.

As the wind farm would have "significant adverse impacts" on the wildlife site and its birds, it was in effect legally impossible to approve, said Jim Mather, the Scottish Energy Minister.

The decision sends a clear signal to developers seeking to take part in the "wind rush" expected as part of the massive expansion of renewable energy signalled by the EU earlier this year.

It means their proposals will have to be in the right place, and they are likely to be refused if they conflict with the two EU wildlife laws – the birds directive and the habitats directive – which offer the strongest protection for wildlife sites in Britain.

But Mr Mather emphasised that the verdict on Lewis was not meant to block renewable energy expansion in the Hebrides and the rest of Scotland. "This decision does not mean there cannot be onshore wind farms in the Western Isles," he said.

"I strongly believe the vast renewables potential needs to be exploited to ensure that the opportunities and benefits of new development can be shared across the country in an equitable fashion. That's why we will urgently carry out work on how to develop renewable energy in the Western Isles, in harmony with its outstanding natural heritage."

He added: "Nor does today's decision alter in any way this government's unwavering commitment to harness Scotland's vast array of potentially cheap, renewable energy sources. Even allowing for [planning] refusals, we are well on the way to meeting our ambitious target to generate 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewables by 2020."

The £500m scheme rejected yesterday, put forward by Lewis Wind Power, a joint venture between the energy giants Amec and British Energy Renewables, was extremely controversial on the island. In outline the biggest land-based wind farm in Europe, it had been slimmed down from a proposal for 234 turbines.

Although in February last year the Council of the Western Isles voted by 18 to 8 for the project – leaving the Scottish government to take the final decision – many people in Lewis felt that even the slimmed-down development would damage the island, despite the community benefits and jobs it would have brought. The Scottish government received 98 support letters – and 10,924 objections.

It would have involved 88 miles of road, eight electrical substations, 19 miles of overhead cables, 137 pylons, 18.3 miles of underground cables, and five rock quarries. Two Labour politicians who supported it, the island's MP, Calum MacDonald, and MSP, Alasdair Morrison, lost their seats, and were ousted by Angus MacNeil and Alasdair Allan respectively, who are both Scottish Nationalists and opponents of the wind farm.

"This is an extremely commendable decision ... that is absolutely right for Scotland," said Stuart Housden, director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland. "It sends a very strong message that in meeting our ambitious and welcome renewable targets, we do not have to sacrifice our most important environmental resources."

But the Council of the Western Isles said it was "deeply disappointed". "The government has got the balance between the environment and the socio-economic benefits of the wind farm completely out of kilter," said its vice- convener, Angus Campbell. Maria McCaffery, British Wind Energy Association's CEO, said: "The six years it took to reach this decision and the £5m spent in the planning process will shake investor and developer confidence. The industry will now have to redouble its efforts to reach our renewable energy targets."

Victories for protesters

*Cumbria

When it was suggested in 2005 that England's largest wind farm might be built in the rolling hills of Whinash, outraged local residents blocked the £55m development. They said the 27 turbines, which would each have been 377ft high, would be a blot on the landscape and damage the area's tourism industry. By 2006, following a six-week planning inquiry, ministers abandoned the project, which could have provided power to 110,000 homes.

*Devon

A planned wind farm in Torridge was rejected by councillors this year because of the feared impact it would have on bats. More than 200 people objected to Ecotrcity's plans for four turbines at the site near Bideford. If allowed, it would have produced 9.2 megawatts of power, bringing Devon closer to its target of 151MW of renewable energy by 2010.

*Cambridgeshire

In 2004, when 16 turbines were proposed between the villages of Boxworth and Connington, residents set up the Stop Cambridge Wind Farm Group. Despite the obvious environmental benefits, campaigners said the wind farm would be an eyesore. The council was quick to make a U-turn in the face of such loud opposition, and a subsequent appeal from the developers, Your Energy Ltd, was also overturned.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

22 Comments

dimengineer: Did you even read the article? The Isle of Lewis is indeed the ideal place for wind farms and indeed wavepower but tearing up the Barvas Moor with 100+ giant turbines, roads, powerlines and quarries is not. Desecrating multiple acres of protected bird habitat, fragile ecosystems and carbon sinks is not environmentalism and certainly not the answer.

So now we have to wreck the last few unspoiled areas of this earth to feed our insatiable need for energy? This was not about Lewis folks NIMBYism, this is about their long standing tradition of preventing their beautiful island (and yes, despite what you may think, it's an exceptionally beautiful place) from exploitation by those who care nothing for the place, it's heritage and it's community but everything about money.

There WILL be wind-farms and more on Lewis but in a far more realistic fashion and I'm glad, not only because their economy needs it but because the rest of the country needs it. But there is no way the islands should be made to sacrifice their land for the sake of the UKs rampant energy use and runaway consumerism.

Islanders on Lewis are leading the way in UK in terms of environmentalism, with well established recycling facilities and practices in the majority of homes and businesses, low-impact crofting for food production, small scale and micro wind farming, active wave power projects and even hydrogen fuel / bio gas schemes now underway.

So what's your community's contribution to the Global Warming problem?

Posted by Michael | 26.04.08, 15:10 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Jeez, if you were to look at the best place for wind power in the UK, you'd come up with the Isle of Lewis. Low density of population, high wind "quotient" - pretty well perfect. There are just too many people out there who have their heads in the sand and are just against anything.
Sorry, chaps, but you're going to have to decide. If you are against wind power, and fossil fuels, and nuclear, what are you going to do? - Live in the dark?

Posted by dimengineer | 25.04.08, 16:56 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Put it in the sea for griefs sake.

Posted by Mullerman | 24.04.08, 22:49 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

At last some sanity shown regarding wind farms.
How typical though that it was concerns over wildlife protection that stymied the project, not the destruction of the landscape or the fact that they don't actual work, or that without HUGE subsidies which we all pay for through our eletricity bills, they would be economicaly unviable. Oh, and then there's the question of global warming itself. How appropriate that enviromentalists are called GREEN!

Posted by Tony Ford | 24.04.08, 11:53 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

'Course, when all of those birds have died from A) coal fired electrical power pollution B)Starvation from their food chain being disrupted by global warming, then the point will be moot. Then again, by that time, we may be moot.

Posted by normanx | 23.04.08, 23:18 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Personally I think wind is a much better technology than burning fossil fuels. How do these people expect to get their energy now? There is not many other semi-ecological solutions. The only thing I can think of is offshore wind and wave farms.

And as for the aesthetics issue I think the wind farms to be attractive. Certainly a lot better than the oil rigs off the coast of California.

No matter what there is always going to be a drawback. What we need to do is find the least damaging, suck it up, and go from there.

Posted by Paul | 23.04.08, 22:05 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

FIND OUT WHO (OR WHAT) IS FUNDING THESE "GRASS-ROOTS" ANTI-WINDFARM GROUPS!

Here in the U.S., several windfarm proposals have been stymied by seemingly-sincere, seemingly-genuine groups raising environmental alarms - but they may actually be dupes for monied interests who have a stake in the FAILURE of viable windpower:

Here in California, bird-lovers have voiced fears that the towers- and blades of the generators are causing mass deaths of protected- and endangered birds. But studies indicate otherwise: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

In Cape Cod, oil interests fund anti-wind activities: http://www.capecodtoday.com/news365.htm

Underhanded tactics are also documented in the UK: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/anti-wind_farm_group_advertising_standards_authority.

Posted by Neil Clark, LA CA | 23.04.08, 21:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Wind farms may, eventually, make an environmentally positive contribution to our energy needs but this will be some time in the future..a very long way off! The limitations of current technology make it very expensive - primarily because of massive incentives and largely disguised subsidies made to the companies that proclaim their 'green' credentials, often without justification. The negative effect of enormous wind farms on rural landscapes is often very detrimental - witness the monstrous results in mid-Wales.

Posted by Alistair Pugh | 23.04.08, 15:45 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

The Hydrovolts www.hydrovolts.com project in Western Washington State, USA, was similarly scaled down to a shadow of its former self from most of its 100 mile X 10 mile wind/tidal project. It could have provided 50% of Washington State's power. This shows that most environmentalists don't have solutions, they only have complaints.

Posted by RD | 23.04.08, 01:26 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Well done the Scottish Government. Why should we destroy one of the most pristine of Scottish wildernesses to provide energy for the conurbations of England and southern Scotland? If needs outweigh environmental factors then surely beauty spots in closer areas qualify? Perhaps instead we should have turbines on Hampstead Heath supplying London or on the Cotswolds supplying Birmingham? Electricity diminishes in power over distance when transmitted along cables. This makes perfect sense, unless of course the real argument in favour of turbines on Lewis is 'out of sight out of mind'.

Posted by John | 22.04.08, 23:49 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

22 Comments


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date