The site of the planned Stronelairg windfarm. Photo: Karl and Ali CC-BY-SA-2.0
A leading conservation charity has won a legal battle against Scottish Ministers approval of a controversial windfarm proposal.
The John Muir Trust said it was delighted that a judicial review of the decision to give the go-ahead for the Stronelairg development found in its favour.
Lord Jones today delivered his decision at the Court of Session, ‘reducing’ ministers’ consent for the windfarm in the Monadhliath Mountains, effectively reversing their approval for the Scottish and Southern Energy plans.
The trust urged the Government and Scottish Natural Heritage to designate the area as wild land. SNH had removed the area from its wild land area maps after the initial approval for the windfarm was granted.
The 67-turbine development, which would have extended over an area the size of Inverness, was given the go-ahead by the energy minister in June 2014. The John Muir Trust said 70 per cent of the Stronelairg site consists of wet peatland, Scotland’s miniature version of the rainforest, which would have faced severe disruption as a result of the excavation of 22 million cubic feet of stone from the area.
Lord Jones ruled in his decision released today that members of the public had been denied the opportunity to comment on a revised planning application for the proposed windfarm, and that Scottish Ministers did not take into account Scottish Natural Heritage’s objection in principle to any windfarm development at Stronelairg.
Due to these errors, Lord Jones reduced the Ministers’ decision to grant consent for the wind farm.
Stuart Brooks, John Muir Trust chief executive said: “This is great news for all those who love Scotland’s wild land and wish to see it protected. A financial appeal brought a tremendous level of support from over a thousand wellwishers, allowing the trust to proceed. Lord Jones has now decided the Trust’s court action was well founded.
“Due to the impact this approval had on a wild land area – which led to Scottish National Heritage removing a significant area from its wild land areas map – the trust very reluctantly took this judicial review against the government.
“Crucially, in rejecting an argument by the Scottish Ministers that the trust was not prejudiced by the minister’s decision, Lord Jones concluded that the trust was taking the action for the public good. He said: ‘The interest of any non-governmental organisation, such as the trust, is deemed sufficient. The question, therefore, is not whether the trust was prejudiced, but whether members of the public were prejudiced’.
“Lord Jones rightly identified that this case was taken and won in the public interest so the right thing for Scottish ministers to do is not to appeal this decision.
“The trust will now be asking Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Government to reinstate the Stronelairg area in the wild land areas map, giving an important piece of our natural heritage – including vast swathes of peatland which help to mitigate climate change – some measure of protection.
“SSE should recognise that this was the wrong development, of the wrong size and in the wrong place. The company now has an opportunity to show that they are listening to communities and tourism bodies and to engage with others to revitalise the natural environment there rather than pursue this damaging development which would cover a footprint the size of Inverness.
“Lessons need to be learned from the lack of proper procedure and incorrect decision-making by the government.”
The National Trust for Scotland also welcomed the ruling. Director of conservation and projects Terry Levinthal said: “This is an incredibly significant decision and a tribute to the persistence and bravery of the John Muir Trust in going to law to address clear weaknesses within the planning system.
“The National Trust for Scotland supported the JMT because the evidence from Stronelairg, as confirmed by the judicial review, was that the Scottish Government appeared to ignore its own advisors on the detrimental ecological impacts of the 67 turbines on an exceptional area of wild land.
“As a nation, we count on the Government to have in place a fair and transparent process that ensures proposed developments like Stronelairg are properly scrutinised. All factors must be considered fully, and not ignored if they happen to be inconvenient in respect of political priorities.
“Together with the JMT and RSPB Scotland, we raised our concerns in an open letter earlier in the year and were promised a meeting with the First Minister as a result. This has not materialised but we are going to meet with Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for planning, later this month.
“Clearly, this decision should have an influence on the current review of the national planning system, and this is one of the things we will be raising with the Cabinet Secretary.”
An SSE spokesperson said: “We are disappointed with the result of the judicial review of the consent decision for Stronelairg windfarm.
“We will now review the judgement in detail and consider our options accordingly.”
The full judgement can be read online.
GeorgeH
04 December 2015Wonderful news! Well done to all at John Muir Trust.
Colin Wells
04 December 2015Incredible (good) news. When I supported the fighting fund I admit I sensed it was almost certainly a lost cause due to the extremely powerful interests arrayed against JMT (one of the biggest energy companies in the world - plus an actual national government) but contributed anyway as I felt so strongly that an attempt at least had to be made to opppose such an enormously environmentally-damaging scheme. This is a true David v Goliath result therefore - well done JMT, you're truly living up to the ideals of your namesake - keep it up!
alan.sloman
04 December 2015Your piece says "Due to these errors, Lord Jones reduced the Ministers’ decision to grant consent for the wind farm."
I would point out that these were no 'errors.' The SNP Scottish Government knew exactly what it was doing at the time. The day before the Wild Land Map was to be published the Stronelairg patch was removed from the wild land area, and the wind farm given the go-ahead.
This was a deliberate abuse of power, and the minister responsible should be held to account for his action.
But of course, the SNP control Scotland as a one-party state, and so nothing will be done. Thank heaven we have the JMT who understand the difference between right and wrong.
James Ferguson
05 December 2015er, I don't know what reduced the ministers decision means, so maybe i am missing the point, but for the sake of another perspective, don't people generally think the energy sources that don't cause climate change are a good thing? And if the JMT really has calculated that the peat being left in the ground will have less emissions than building a wind farm, has it suggested where else the wind farm could go, or at least supported wind farm construction elsewhere?
Ignoring the question of how to minimise carbon emissions just for one second and looking at the question of conservation, it seems we have the option to oppose anything which will change Scotland's "natural beauty" (personally I like the look of wind farms and think they enhance beauty) and lose it all to climate change (which has already caused some small island states to be abandoned elsewhere in the world) or we can accept some changes, avoid climate change altogether (so to speak) and enjoy these lands with a few modifications.
I can respect someone who funds offshore wind farms and/or some other clean energy source and then campaigns to have some areas left alone. But to raise your voice only only in opposition to clean energy does rather make it look unpopular, and if non-fossil fuel energy sources do become unpopular then it will leave us with an altogether larger problem.
Peter Owens
05 December 2015James, you are indeed missing the point completely.
Of course the JMT, and all of us who are celebrating this landmark decision, know as well as anyone the importance of renewable sources of energy in achieving the vital goal of a zero-carbon economy.
Yes, on-shore wind may have a part to play in this, but it is not the only possibility by a long way, and destroying our precious areas of wild land should be far down the list of options.
Wild land is far more that just a convenient bit of empty space, where it doesn't really matter what you do and which can actually be improved with a wall of wind turbines visible from hundreds of square miles.
It is not a case of one thing or the other - put wind-farms on wild land, or allow climate change. We can achieve zero-carbon objectives without permanently scarring our finest land.
Given the recent series of rejections of applications to build wind-farms near to wild land, it seems that this view is, at last, being fully understood in Scotland if not, yet, elsewhere. Well done JMT, again!
stigofthenest
10 December 2015If you like to see windfarms I suggest paying a visit to the previously unspoilt Cambrian mountains in mid Wales. Theyre everywhere. The irony of these whrilygigs is theyre supposedly enviro friendly, yet when you see all the construction traffic destroying the landscape forever and then even on breezy days you see numerous turbines not turning you cant help feeling duped.
Heres something worth researching. How many turbines does it take to produce the same power as one 1950s magnox nuclear plant?... I think most people would be very suprised by the answer.
Wind is a load of hot air.
Margaret
10 December 2015Local wind and solar generation etc (farms, business and homes) has been suggested as the renewable way forward.
As the planet is in 'immediate danger', why shouldn't we use nuclear power to resolve the current problem; while working to create a satisfactory method to deal with the resultant nuclear waste?
OutdoorsAndy
10 December 2015Wildland
noun
1.
land that has not been cultivated, especially land set aside and protected as a wilderness.
Simply put, we pretty much have none, (except a few mountain tops). We removed our forests and never re-planted and seem not to want too. There’s much more to talk about here, such as maintaining moorland, (buy burning and releasing carbon), for the shooting of small birds to plantations that acidify fragile ecosystems.
Nuclear would seem a good option, but the waste is terrible stuff and the risk of accidents, though small and manageable, are frightening, (though I am not wholly opposed to them).
Wind is an option and needs to be used, but I understand it’s a sensitive issue. So while I appreciate people been happy at seeing perceived wilderness as been protected I also understand that the energy needs to be produced by other means and this has just pushed the same problem onto another environment with resulting damage.
Environmental destruction is all our problems, but its so dam complex.
Reduce, reuse and recycle, it is the only way.
stigofthenest
11 December 2015Every new house should be built with solar/pv panels and a small wind turbine. That way each new house could generate enough power for itself and have a healthy surplus going to the grid. If every new house had them we would solve the housing and energy crisis in one go. Theres also plenty of scope for low impact hydro schemes and yes nuclear should be used.
cuckoo
08 July 2016James Ferguson - if you like the look of wind turbines then perhaps you would like to buy my house - with the consenting of Stranoch just having been announced, it will be surrounded on all four sides by up to 350 turbines, once Killgallioch is completed. My estate agent says it is 'virtually unsaleable' but perhaps you will be the one to buy it?! Perhaps if the value of your home was being reduced from £250k to nil you might not like turbines so much after all!!!