By Iain Ramage
Objectors are celebrating after plans for six giant wind turbines on the
edge of a stunning Highland glen were scrapped.
The proposed Beinn Mhor scheme at Tomich would have consisted of half a
dozen 392ft tall masts.
It was rejected by a Scottish Government reporter.
Energy firm wpd planned to challenge the decision at the Court of Session –
but has now dropped the appeal.
Neither the company nor the landowner could be contacted yesterday.
The scheme provoked a chorus of opposition in a fragile community with a
big investment in tourism.
It prompted 1,252 objections. There were 181 letters of support.
Ian Campbell, of local campaign group “Glen Affric Friends Say No”, said:
“We’ll definitely celebrate with a glass of champagne.
“We’re delighted and, in the same week as ABO Wind’s (Allt Carach) proposal
was withdrawn along Strathglass as well, it really is a great Christmas
present.”
Fellow objector Paul Stirling, who has holiday homes at Tomich, said: “This
is a huge relief for residents and those who campaigned against the wrong
development in the wrong place.”
In October, objectors sought an apology from wpd for implying that people
were “misled” about the “conservation status” of the village.
wpd had carried an item on its website headlined “Public misled by misuse
of ‘conservation village’ title”.
It was a reference to Forestry Commission Scotland signposts which stated
“Conservation village, please drive carefully”.
The signs were vandalised in June, while the inquiry reporter was
considering the evidence.
They were erected years earlier to try to curb the speed of timber lorries
travelling through the community.
Highland Council confirmed that Tomich “includes a conservation area which
covers much of the village”.
Anti-windfarm campaigner Lyndsey Ward said: “This is fantastic news, hot on
the heels of the ABO Wind withdrawal. The legal action by wpd was unfounded
and an unnecessary expense for the Scottish people.”
wpd had expressed “shock” at Scottish Government reporter Richard Hickman’s
conclusions.
It also questioned the democratic process, claiming the verdict had “severe
impacts on the integrity of the Scottish planning system”.
1 Comment