By Iain Ramage
Highland councillors are being urged to reject a Caithness windfarm plan –
despite the possibility of a potentially costly appeal from a spurned
developer.
Infinergy hopes to build 24 turbines up to 456ft on the Limekiln Estate at
Reay – an area with a high proliferation of towers.
While Scottish Governmnent ministers will make the final decision, planning
officials have recommended that councillors raise no objection.
Public objections have ranged from “visual blight” and “loss of wild land”
to the “questionable need” for more turbines.
Councillors rejected an initial planning application. Ministers echoed that
after a public inquiry. The committee will today consider a revised submission.
Seasoned industry watcher Stuart Young has reminded it that hundreds of
constituents oppose the scheme.
He believes the planners’ recommendation is “almost certainly influenced by
a desire not to incur the cost of another public inquiry.”
Mr Young claims the Limekiln scheme “is simply not required.”
Industry data shows that the neighbouring Baillie and Strathy North
windfarms alone have received £5.1million for switching turbines off to
balance the national grid in the six years that compensation has been paid.
Local objector Brenda Herrick, who is fighting a plethora of other schemes
planned for the county, said: “They’re all near the NorthCoast500 tourist
route, which is in danger of becoming ‘turbine alley’.”
Fiona Milligan of Infinergy dismissed all the objections.
She said: “A material consideration in assessing this case was the report
issued following the public inquiry. It clearly stated that in all respects
other than the issue of wild land, where further assessment was required,
ministers found the scheme would ‘not give rise to any detrimental impacts,
either singly or cumulatively, sufficient to outweigh the benefits’.”
She said constraint payments were granted across the entire energy
generating sector and that a 2016 report by economic consultants concluded
there was no evidence to show windfarms have an adverse effect on tourism.
0 Comments