Much has been said in press articles about the recent failed Appeal by Community Windpower against the Enforcement Notice for Sneddon Law Windfarm. In particular, industry and legal press have suggested that local residents sought to frustrate the planning consent by refusing to accept CWP’s satisfactory alternative and replacement water supplies, which were required to be in place and fully connected to some properties before development commenced. The press have failed to provide a balanced report and unfortunately, local residents were unable to present their case before the Law Lords at the Inner House of the Court of Session. https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/renewable-energy-firm-s-appeals-over-moscow-wind-farm-refused
As one of those whose only water supply is deemed to be at significant risk from this windfarm, I would just like to point out that instead of pursuing the alternative option open to them of providing a public water supply, which all local residents would have accepted, CWP chose to drill a borehole within the actual windfarm site to provide a replacement water supply. This borehole supply, dependent on a portable diesel generator, was considerably nearer to major windfarm construction and borrow pits than existing private water supplies which had been assessed as being at major risk.
Local residents paid to have this new borehole supply risk assessed by the world renowned British Geological Survey, who concluded that the new borehole was ‘not suitably constructed’ and that there was ‘uncertainty about the long term sustainable yield’ and that the groundwater was ‘highly vulnerable to contamination’ and ‘any construction activities that involve digging through superficial deposits into the bedrock aquifer will increase the vulnerability of groundwater in the bedrock aquifer’. Obviously building turbine foundations and taking rock from borrow pits involves removing those superficial deposits and disturbing the bedrock.
Why would it be acceptable to replace perfectly good existing water supplies with a water supply at high risk, taken from within the windfarm site which is under the developer’s control?
Accepting this new borehole supply or other alternatives of a water bulk storage tank also meant allowing unilateral building work on our properties with no guarantees. It was not surprising that what was being forced upon us was not acceptable. We did not frustrate the planning consent; we accepted the alternative provision of a safe and reliable public water supply.
Dr Rachel Connor
0 Comments