The decision by Fife Council’s Planning Department to recommend approval for three 67 m turbines beside Kingsmuir airfield has caused shock and alarm among East Neuk residents, pilots and anti-wind farm campaigners. They have warned Councillors that approving the windfarm amounts to “playing Russian roulette” with the lives of pilots and passengers.
The application at Bonerbo, Balmouth and Drumrack Farms between Dunino and Carnbee is due to be determined at Wednesday afternoon’s meeting of the North East Fife Area Planning Committee. (1)
An application for an identical development on the same site was refused by a Scottish Government reporter last year on the grounds of aviation safety. Montgomery Forgan Associates, the agent acting on behalf of the three farmers (Mr A Stevenson of Bonerbo Farm, Mr R Watson of Drumrack Farm and Mr I Brunton of Balmonth Farm) lodged the second identical application simultaneously with an appeal for the first application on the grounds of non-determination.
Just before Christmas the reporter determining the appeal concluded that “due to the proximity of the proposed turbines to the airfield turbulence could have a detrimental effect on aircraft taking-off and landing at Kingsmuir airfield. In the absence of any detailed analysis, I can not discount the risk that the appeal proposal could endanger the lives of pilots and passengers.” (2)
Mike Scott-Hayward, who owns a light aircraft hangered at Kingsmuir, said:
“Pilots who use the airfield are in no doubt about the dangers which turbines and the turbulence which they create pose for any light aircraft or microlight, and I am sure many will avoid an airfield beside turbines, especially if conditions aren’t 100%. But we all know how suddenly the haar can come down, so with the best will in the world pilots will end up landing at Kingsmuir in sub-optimal conditions.
“In fact Kingsmuir is the nearest emergency airfield for light aircraft and microlights crossing the Forth, and these pilots will have no choice but to take their chances with the turbines and face the double risk of collision and turbulence at low level.”
The airfield sees an average of about 800 aircraft movements per year, which include light aircraft, microlights, gyrocoptors and self-launched motor gliders (3). It is an important landing point for high-end visitors to St Andrews as well as light aircraft pilots from across Scotland, and the airfield owner fears a windfarm next door will damage business.
The current application contains new information in the form of a report on turbulence intensity assessment by SGURR Energy, and then a further consideration of the SGURR Energy report from a pilot’s perspective by Wind Farm Aviation Consultants Ltd. The first is a highly technical analysis which concludes that the increase in turbulence intensity levels at the airfield due to the wakes created by the three proposed wind turbines is negligible. The second report states that “there would be no discernible effect, caused by any turbulence from the turbines, on operations at Kingsmuir airstrip”.
Fife Council submitted the reports to the Civil Aviation Authority who are statutory consultees on aviation safety. The CAA responded: “the CAA would not wish to support or discredit the research that has been undertaken for this planning application as we do not have the results of the independent CAA research that would be required to provide supporting evidence to any CAA argument”. (1)
Jim Allen, a Contributing Editor of ‘Pilot’ magazine and former Royal Air Force jet fighter pilot with 65 years’ flying experience and almost 3,000 hours mainly on light aircraft, was one of the Kingsmuir pilots who gave evidence at the aviation safety hearing convened by the reporter on 22 October 2012. He commented:
“It’s really disappointing that no one from Fife Council has spoken to the airfield users. The Reporter did and came to the common sense assessment that the risk to pilots and passengers should this development go ahead could not be discounted.
“Fife Council has now decided instead to rely on what a bunch of consultants from England have been paid to say by the applicants. The new report is a lot of expensive pseudo-technical waffle designed to baffle and which the acknowledged regulatory expert does not support.
“If the Councillors feel they know better than the Reporter and want to approve the windfarm, they should at least do what he did – a proper site visit which includes the airfield and talking to the pilots.”
In her report to the North East Fife Area Planning Committee, Fife Council planning officer Kathleen Illingworth writes that “Fife Council as Planning Authority is required to be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of aviation safety; it is not the responsibility of Fife Council to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the level of impact, whether aviation safety or other, on receptors”.
She concludes “therefore that it is not reasonable to apply the precautionary principle in this instance since experts have given their opinion in this matter. Members are advised that Fife Council has no liability in this matter. Fife Councils Legal Team has been consulted and confirms this position”. (4)
Lucy Smith of SCALE (Save Carnbee & Arncroach Landscape & Environment) commented:
“People who live near the airfield are also at risk if the turbines bring down an aircraft. Fife Council admits it has no means of independently corroborating the self-interested reports submitted by the applicant, yet it recommends approval on the grounds that Fife Council would not bear any legal liability for any accident caused by the turbines’ proximity to the airfield. What about moral liability? Surely one of the first duties of our elected members is public safety.”
James Glen of national anti-wind farm alliance Scotland Against Spin commented:
“Local authorities must not allow themselves to be bamboozled by uncorroborated expert reports and pushy developers desperate to recoup the costs of their speculation. This is one of the worst cases we’ve seen of a wind farm developer cynically playing the system to the point where it becomes a game of Russian roulette with people’s lives.”
(1) The current application and associated documents including the CAA response is at http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=M6QTTBHFT8000
(2) The appeal documents and reporter’s decision are at http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=qA305724
(3) See attached document prepared by Mike Scott-Hayward for the reporter Kingsmiur Operations for the period 5 September 2011 to 5 September 2012
(4) Kathleen Illingworth’s report for the North East Fife Area Planning Committee is at http://publications.1fife.org.uk/uploadfiles/publications/c64_6084B153-E55D-9873-4546285010BC7C02.pdf
For further information, including about sources of comments, etc please contact Linda Holt, 01333 720 378 / 07590 994690
1 Comment
graham dawson · March 8, 2014 at 7:36 pm
I am afraid that the policy with regard to windfarms is seriously skewed in favour of landowners who have the financial ability to push their desires and politicians who give the impression that the ‘visibility’ of these monsters lets the voting public feel that their best ‘green’ interests are being met. I know turbines have their place but NOT beside an active airfield and NOT in the beautiful and very important East Neuk of Fife. Work on other forms of sustainable power production of greater reliability needs to be pushed. My bet is that these things will have a very short shelf life. Gear box problems aside. Protect Kingsmuir airfield. It is a great asset and Fife council need to realise this. But that’s often the ‘Cooncil’ for you!