The windfarm would be built near the Glendoe Reservoir. Photo: Sarah Maguire CC-BY-SA-2.0
Mountaineers are calling on planners to throw out a controversial proposal to build 83 wind turbines in a wild area of the Highlands.
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland said Highland Council’s planning committee should either turn down the plans or take a visit to the Monadhliath Mountains to see the area for themselves.
Council officers have recommended the plans be approved.
The Stronelairg windfarm would have turbines up to 135m tall, close to the boundary of the Cairngorms national park.
The proposals are due to be considered tomorrow, Tuesday.
David Gibson, MCofS chief officer, said: “This proposal by SSE would involve building a huge power plant with vast turbines, miles of trackways, buildings and huge masts, in some of the most beautiful mountains in Scotland, at the edge of the Cairngorms national park.
“It is completely wrong-headed, putting energy company profits ahead of our national heritage.
“We are calling on councillors to either reject the proposal or, if they need further convincing, to pay a site visit and see first-hand what the scheme threatens to destroy.”
Three windfarm proposals were turned down by Highland Council last week.
Mr Gibson said: “Highland councillors have already shown an impressive determination to oppose unsuitable developments, and we hope this will continue.
“We agree with their position that this is not about being opposed to renewables, but simply that some areas are precious and should be protected.”
The MCofS, which has 11,400 members representing climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, said now would be the wrong moment to approve the scheme as a petition is due to go before the Scottish Parliament public petitions committee on the same day that they consider the application, calling for a new designation that would protect the best of Scotland’s shrinking areas of wild land.
The Stronelairg proposals also include 59km of new and 21.7km of upgraded tracks, each several metres wide. The developers also want to create a series of buildings plus four meteorological masts.
David Gibson: 'lamentable situation'
Mr Gibson said: “The petition to parliament by the highly respected John Muir Trust seeks to put an end to the lamentable situation which has seen more and more of our the wild lands being wrecked.
“Highland Council has also recently expressed its own concern about threats to wild landscapes, so we would again ask the planning committee to reject this scheme or defer its decision.”
Objections to the windfarm proposal have been lodged by the MCofS, John Muir Trust, the Cairngorms National Park Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage.
The MCofS said it is also deeply concerned that council planning officers have recommended that no objections should be made to the SSE proposals, even though it said this flies in the face of the council’s established position on protecting wild lands.
Mr Gibson said: “Councillors have recently voted to reject large-scale wind farms when officers had advised making no objection.
“The officers’ recommendations were difficult to understand as a series of important issues had been raised. It is, therefore, surprising that officers have once again chosen to advise that there should be no objection to another major scheme that would industrialise our mountains.”
SSE
19 February 2013SSE were not approached for comment on this article before publication. Here is our official statement.
"The claims made today by MCofS regarding the impact on perceived 'wild land' are misleading and fundamentally inaccurate.
Rather than wilderness, the proposed wind farm is to be built around existing hydro-electric infrastructure, including a one km-long dam, and lies within a managed sporting estate containing over 20km of roads and tracks. The planning officer's report itself states that 'human activity and development' has become 'part of the landscape' in the area and, thanks to improvements made by SSE, the scheme 'will not have such significant an impact on wild land or landscape resource.' It is also important to note that the entire development lies in Highland Council's own 'area of search' for wind energy development.
We are pleased that the planning report recommends no objection, recognising the overall impact of this carefully designed project which would bring significant benefit to local communities, businesses and the environment. It is now over to the decision makers to consider all aspects of the report objectively."
Mike
19 February 2013SSE, you have betrayed Scotland. Hydro = low impact + useful + can't be seen for 20 miles. Wind = none of the above. This project is about as carefully designed as a 1950s Glasgow tower block. Living near a turbine, how DARE you say locals benefit - I'm seeing BnBs struggle, fuel poverty and stress being caused by your miracle turbines. You should be ashamed.
Windy Miller
19 February 2013I would hazard a guess that everybody who protesting about the wind farm will be going home sticking a brew on and getting the laptop out to write about there disgust at about the proposals. Everyone of you are using the very same product that you are dead against, its a little hypocritical don't you think?
Why can't you all for once look at it from a different perspective. They aren't a blight on the landscape, they are just something else to look at. They have their smaller benefits, these tracks leading up to the turbines can be used by Mountain Rescue to get closer to a casualty, they can aid navigation and foremost they are producing carbon free power. The local communities will indeed benefit by way of locally funded projects and they will also produce jobs, something that is in decline in this current climate.
Yes there are many arguments against their construction but they aren't going to be there forever, when the lease of the land is due to expire they will be removed and you will never know they were there.
This country is falling into a decline of power production facilities, would you rather a nuclear power plant to built in the area?
Don't for one minute think i'm a townie who doesn't understand how the countryside works, i enjoy the hills just as much as anybody else. C'mon its the 21st century, the hills have been here for a long time and they will be there a lot longer than the turbines will.
Margaret
19 February 2013An aid to navigation, well that is a novel idea! Wonder how they might be used?
stigofthenest
19 February 2013shall i throw in the lifespan of the turbines? at best 25 years - into the argument?
in other words once approved they will leave their scars on the hills - then lo and behold, just as the tracks are starting to green in they'll be trucking back up into the hills to put new -no doubt, even bigger turbines up.
SCOTLAND - if you need to know how your hills will look in ten years time if the energy companies get their way then take a look at mid wales now... the whole region is blighted with them.
DON'T LET IT HAPPEN!!
Shona
19 February 2013Typical nonsense from windy miller. Our thousands of turbines are currently making, wait for it, 0.04GW (GRIDWATCH). That is the fundamental problem with these things - they represent useless political tokenism; kissing the feet of Green Stalinism for no REAL benefit. They needlessly destroy flora/ fauna/ tourism/ property prices and peoples health in the process.
Yes, wind tomorrow may produce 4 GW, but it won't be consistent thus ensuring the ongoing survival/ need for coal/ gas/ nuclear. The windustry is a sad joke devastating Scotland.
Windy Miller
19 February 2013I fail to see how turbines destroy flora or fauna, surely gorse fires destroy an awful lot more.....lets ban combustion in Scotland just in case, sorry just being flippant.
If we stop the increase in modern low/non carbon power generation then we face a future of either nuclear production or worse still we import it from abroad. If we become reliant on imported power we are at the mercy of others in both quality of supply and cost.
Shona, you say the turbines aren't producing much today, but over a year they provide a substantial amount of power that is using a natural resource to fuel it's production. If we don't harness the renewable sources we have no choice but to continue to pollute the atmosphere with CO2. The result of that will be an increase in the extreme weather patterns that we are currently experiencing. Which part of the UK has experienced the highest recorded wind speed, Scotland.
Do you not see the pattern here?
Or is it you just don't want them in your back yard!
stigofthenest
19 February 2013Windy, as you're so hot on renewables i'm surprised you haven't brought up hydro electric. Scotland certainly has plenty of fast flowing water... and certainly the lesser of two evils... as opposed to turbines..
I live in Shropshire, a long way from this particular backyard... but I shudder at the thought of driving up through the s.u's or along Loch Shin and seeing windfarm development.
its so short sighted...
Go away and look at the lifespan of a typical whirlygig.. because in 20 odd years they will have to be replaced at massive expense.
SSE are only pursuing this because of the subsidies- they dont give a damn about anything else.
jAMES
19 February 2013N I A B Y
Windy has no idea. Thorium + new nuclear research to be funded.
Use our coal, if you don't want to import it in the meantime.
YOU F"£$^%& DAFTY.
Windy Miller
19 February 2013In 20 odd years the lease will be up, the subsidies wont exist in that sector and they will be removed as they will no longer be financially viable.
In 20 odd years time there will be new technologies that will replace conventional power production and the modern phenomenon of the wind turbine will be no more. But for all the time they are producing power the local communities will be reaping the benefits of large injections of cash.
So yes, your absolutely correct, in 20 years time they probably wont be there.
So 20 years of renting space on hill side in exchange for large sums of cash and jobs for the local community. Add to that they produce no CO2 which is great for the environment.
The offshore wind farm in North Wales will give not far off one million pounds to the affected communities, every year, indexed linked for the length of the lease. So yes we can all benefit from these schemes. And yes if we are all totally honest, the wind turbines will not resolve the supply of electricity to the UK, but they will help reduce CO2.
This is all enforced by the EU, if the UK do meet the targets they will be heavily fined, hence the subsidies in place to attract private investors. So we have two choices, we either deny all future turbine projects and give away billions to the EU or we all benefit from the billions that are spent in the country through jobs, taxes etc for projects that will more than likely be short term..........it ain't rocket science.
Johnson Jones
19 February 2013The foundations will remain and the tracks will remain. In 20 years I'll be long gone - so that's my enjoyment of areas gone and my bills rising till I die paying for this gimmick and folly.
They affect tourism - this is what gives money to most of these rural folks - myself included. Even an SNP/ SNP supporting VisitScotland survey said 20% would avoid a turbine area. My business, like every other one, cannot afford this. Local RSJ polls with simple yes/no to turbines show locals at 90% against them.
You say correctly, that "new technologies will replace conventional power production." Great. So why continue to invest in ill functioning wind farms which don't do anything to replace current power sources for obvious reasons. To say 'locals get loads of cash' is also nonsense. Why does every Scottish planning application have more objections than support comments? Why is it we never hear of 'Outrage in Straiton as fears turbines may not now be built in the locality! Local uproar at outsiders saying turbines can't be built here etc.' In short, they don't want bribes for these 150m high potato batteries to be erected and they are not wallowing on the floor in poverty without the 'cash injections', as you put it.
The CO2 argument is nonsensical - especially since CO2 companies our ripping up peat bogs; bogs which store more CO2 than rain forests. A single Boeing 747 produces more CO2 in a year than an on-shore wind farm with a capacity of
60MW -- between 30 and 60 wind turbines. If co2 was a genuine issue we'd use more gas and further develop nuclear.
Another choice, do what all other countries do and ignore the EU.
hORGON
19 February 2013Well said JJ. Spot on. She probably has her snout in the subsidy trough.
Frimousse
26 March 2013Scotland's wild land is precious and unique. Once it's been tainted, it's forever spoiled. If you haven't enough poetry in your soul to believe that beauty of that calibre is worth protecting, you should move to the Netherlands. Landscape matters. There are less destructive options than wind. Whatever happened to "cutting back"? Don't think that we all selfishly want to have our cake and eat it. I'd agree to the hill outside my window being covered with turbines if it would save the Highlands.