Hot News: Fife Council turns down Application for Clatto Hill Windfarm

Objectors to plans to develop Fife’s first wind farm at Clatto Hill, near Cupar, were celebrating last night after councillors threw out the proposal.
The environment and development committee was expected to endorse a recommendation from officers that the 17-turbine scheme, which would generate up to 30 megawatts of electricity, be given the green light.
But in a surprise move, a significant majority of councillors backed Labour member Ron Edward’s motion to reject the proposal and it fell by 10 votes to six.
The rejection brings to an end, for now at least, a long-running and hard-fought campaign by objectors who claimed the wind farm would have a detrimental effect on their lives and the local environment.
Whether applicants ScottishPower will appeal remains to be seen but the meeting was warned a successful appeal would effectively mean Fife would lose control of planning conditions it could have imposed if the application was granted.
Councillor Edwards, who has worked in environmental management all his life, praised the professional manner in which the council’s development services considered the plans but told the meeting, “I do not think it gives sufficient weight to the concerns of objectors.”
He suggested “perhaps too much credence” was being given to the environmental benefits of wind power and a number of the council’s own policies appeared to be “clearly against” a wind farm there.
“Our policy clearly indicates that in areas of great landscape value, it (the granting of an application) should only be on the basis of maintaining or enhancing the landscape.
“A wind farm of this scale would not enhance the quality of the natural environment and…I am far from convinced that this proposal will make a significant contribution to the green agenda,” said Councillor Edwards.
He was seconded by Councillor Frances Melville who said a substantial number of community councillors objected to the proposal and said, “We would be doing them a great disservice if we did not listen to them.”
Councillor Alex Thomson said that while he appreciated people’s concerns, he believed the application should be approved.
He said, “We do have to find alternatives, there’s no getting away from that, there’s no use sticking heads in the sand and try and pretend that an energy crisis will not arrive eventually.
“We have to do something now and not wait …this (the application) is a start of that process.”
He added, “While I respect and understand some of the reasons for the objections, I am still in favour of this as part of the green agenda, as part of the crisis confronting us.”
Backing for his motion came from Councillor Alan Kenney, who worked in the energy industry, who warned Britain was likely to experience black-outs if a really hard winter strikes.
He warned, too, of the problems which could arise for Fife if ScottishPower appealed a refusal and said, “I honestly believe that if we refuse this, we will still end up with wind farms, but not under our control.”
Alf Patey considered the proposal to be “totally against Fife’s interests,” Eleanor Gunstone said it would “overshadow the lives of the people who lived nearby,” while James Simpson said “if we believe something is wrong, we should stand on our principles, regardless of what we think other people might say.”
David Rougvie said that if they did not grant the application, they would face accusations of saying “no” to alternative energy.
Tony Martin, who accepted there would be detriment to people living nearby, also backed the proposal, claiming “if you support green energy, you have to support wind farms.”
After further debate, the meeting voted to reject the proposal.

Case Against presented at Departure Hearing

CLPG supported by other voices at Departure Hearing

At the hearing in Fife House on Monday 18th October it was noticeable that all local Community Councils and several independant voices were all against the proposed Clatto Hill development. A very strong case was made against imposing these turbines on the people of Fife. It is quite clear that there is very little local support for the proposal. The only voice raised in favour was the despairing appeal of a Fife based manufacturer of turbine blades, who admitted that even if an order was placed with his company now, it is probably too late to save his business. Whilst we sympathise with any loss of local employment, this issue is irrelevant to the community loss which the development of Clatto Hill would incur.

Summary of CLPG Objection to Scottish Power’s Proposal for a Clatto Hill Wind Farm

• Scottish Power’s proposal for 17 wind turbines 300 feet tall on Clatto Hill is contrary to many of Fife Council’s planning policies. These were approved by the Scottish Executive (SE), in full knowledge of SE renewable energy policies.
• The Scottish Parliament and the SE assert that Scotland’s 18% renewables target for 2010 will be met from present/recently approved sources, and that the 40% 2020 target will involve a mix of renewable technologies.
• Clatto Hill is seen from most of southern and central Fife. This unnecessary proposal would disfigure the landscape for thousands of Fifers and completely spoil the amenity of nearby residents (~ 2000 homes within 2 miles, ~ 5000 residents).
• If this application were approved, the precedent would mean no attractive landscape in Fife would be safe from wind power developers.

1. The Proposal is Contrary to Fife Council’s Development Plan

The Council has a range of policies designed to prevent development where the location is unsuitable. The proposal for 17 wind turbines on Clatto Hill, North of Kennoway, is contrary to at least 9 of those policies.
Fife Development Plan Policies require:
• Development in the countryside to “respect the key features and character of the landscape”. (N1)
• Wind turbines not to have a strong impact on the skyline (R7)
• Wind turbines not to have “a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents”. (R7)
• Avoidance of damage to Natural environment features and preference for Brownfield rather than Greenfield development (SS1)
• The application of the “precautionary principle whenever the environmental implications of a development are unclear or inconclusive” (SP1)
• Proposals to demonstrate that a “neutral or net positive environmental impact will occur.” (COU1)
• Development in the countryside to be sympathetic to the local landscape (COU2)
• Development within an “Area of Great Landscape Value”, which this proposal is, must “maintain or enhance the character of the landscape”. (Clatto Hill is within a Council designated “Area of Great Landscape Value”. (N1 and COU4)
• Renewable energy developments to have “no significant adverse impact on local communities and/or the built and natural environment” (COU19). In connection with this policy, the Council believes the visual impact of a proposed development is particularly important
• Areas such as Clatto Hill to be protected against mineral workings except in exceptional circumstances (MIN26)
• Protection of migratory and feeding/roosting/breeding flights paths of birds and insects. (RE1)

2. The Proposal is Contrary to Government Guidance

• Specifically, NPPG6 states that developments should not be permitted where they would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents. This proposal would be detrimental to several thousand people living close by.
• Guideline NPPG15 states that rural development should benefit local communities economically, socially and environmentally. There are minimal benefits of this type from the proposal.

3. The Proposal is Contrary to the Fife Landscape Character Assessment Carried Out by Scottish Natural Heritage

• SNH particularly advises that skyline features should be minimised and that ridgelines and summit should be avoided where the visual impact would extend across the lowlands.

4. Concerns About Low Frequency Noise Being Omitted From Turbines

• A report (1) to Government has drawn attention to wind turbines as a source of low frequency noise, with reported effects of nausea, headaches, and disturbed sleep for people living nearby.
(1) Casella Stanger,Low Frequency Noise – A Technical Research Report for DEFRA Noise Programme 2001

5. Heavy Traffic Nuisance and Road Safety Problems

• Construction would involve many hundreds of heavy vehicle movements over several months related to the vast concrete turbine bases, and the turbine components. The proposed route is through Kennoway, with clear hazards to its primary school children on the narrow, congested roads.
• The minor road beside the wind farm is extremely narrow, with many blind bends and summits. The sudden visual impact of the turbines while driving this road, their movement and “stacking” effect would be a compulsive distraction to drivers, and a road safety danger.

6. The Adverse Effect on Wildlife

• The proposed site of the turbines is close to a nature reserve at Clatto Loch. The hilly and wooded site is rich in wildlife and hosts a great variety of birds and mammals, many of which are rare and protected species. The Council’s own expert on ecology believes “the site deserves SSSI status”.
• The turbines would be a danger to birds such as whooper swans, pink-footed geese, different species of owls and rare raptors. In particular, the proposed turbines are between the Clatto and Carriston reservoirs, which the swans and geese regularly fly between to feed, or when on their migrations.
• There would be severe, adverse, and illegal effects on resident badgers, including disturbance of their setts and foraging patterns.

7. Adverse Impact for People Living in the Area and the Whole of Central Fife

• The 17 turbines on Clatto Hill would be six times the height of local trees, three times the height of the Hopetoun Monument (“The Munt”), which itself is a very large and prominent feature in Central Fife, and would be as high as the Statue of Liberty. The proposal is vastly out of scale with the surroundings; the turbine height at 93m (300’) to blade tip is almost half the height of the hill ( 180 to 200m, with maximum of 246m).
• This blights the homes of the people living nearest to the site, and impacts badly on over 5,000 people who live within 3 kilometres (~ 2 miles); it would disfigure the landscape enjoyed by thousands of Fifers, who would see the turbines as a dominant presence from many parts of central and southern Fife.
• Planning expert, Geoffrey Sinclair, was commissioned by CLPG to provide a critique of Scottish Power’s Environmental statement (ES). He found that the ES conclusions about the predicted visual impact of the turbines on the landscape were “untenable”. CLPG is very concerned about the misleading photomontage images used by Scottish Power when presenting their proposals. He agreed with these concerns.
• The Clatto Hill site is a unique and popular area for quiet recreation. Views from it are as attractive as those looking in its direction. Local people derive considerable physical and mental health benefits from exercise in the area on foot, on bicycles, and on horseback. There is no available ‘substitute’ within a reasonable distance.

8. The Need for Renewable Energy

• CLPG supports the promotion of energy from renewable sources, but does not accept that it is necessary to use particularly attractive landscapes like Clatto Hill to erect wind turbines. Indeed, to replace conventional energy generation by renewables would require massive numbers of wind farms on many of the most attractive landscapes in Scotland. It would take over 150 windfarms like that proposed for Clatto Hill to replace the output of Longannet Power Station. The unpredictable intermittency of wind energy limits the scale of contribution it can make to a renewables energy future.
• A Scottish Parliament Enquiry (Report, July 2004) into renewable energy was critical of the unintended dominance of onshore wind projects arising from the Scottish Executive’s current policies. The Scottish Executive’s response has been to restate its commitment to accelerate the commercialisation of wave and tide power to diversify electricity generation, and to benefit the Scottish economy.
• The Scottish Executive supports the current planning framework for renewable energy developments. It approved Fife Council’s development policies after putting in place policies to promote renewable energy.
• The UK Government is responsible for energy policy. It envisions offshore wind, wave and tide power for electricity generation on a much bigger scale than that presently provided by onshore wind farms.

Pulling The Wool over Windfarm

An attempt has been made to mislead Fifers over the visual impact of the proposed windfarm on Clatto Hill.

As part of their application for planning permission for 17 giant turbines on a hilltop in central Fife, the developers, Scottish Power, had to submit an "Environmental Statement " to Fife Council planners. Local people have found this document, which, was made available a few months ago, confusing, inaccurate, and difficult to read.

Clatto Landscape Protection Group have pointed this out in evidence submitted to Fife planners, as part of their objection to the proposal; they have now submitted an independent critique of the Environmental Statement (ES), which they commissioned from an expert in these matters, Geoffrey Sinclair.

Comparing the CLPG evidence to the developer's in his conclusion, Mr Sinclair states:

"... many of the ES findings are ill judged, confusingly expressed, and inadequately and misleadingly synthesised."

This is the evidence, provided by a multinational company, on which planning officials, councillors and the public of Fife are supposed to decide on a massive industrial development in rural Fife!

Because the proposal breaks so many of the guidelines set out in Fife's local plans for development, there will be a Departure Hearing at Fife House on 18th October, when objectors can have their views heard.

The planning application will go before East (14th September) and Central (21st September) Development committees this month

This is for information, not for determination. Councillors are also invited on site visits this month. The Departure Hearing is pencilled in for November, but a date has not yet been set. It is possible that the application could go for determination in November.

Wind power plans are full of hot air

by JOHN CAMPBELL QC

Originally published in "The Scotsman"

The Executive, slavishly following the lead of the Department of Trade and Industry, has mistakenly thirled itself to over-ambitious proposals to replace 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity system with renewables without being able to articulate any coherent strategy for doing so.
For the foreseeable future, the vast majority of new renewables generating capacity seems likely to be from onshore wind.
There is a fundamental contradiction between energy being reserved to Westminster while renewables policy is devolved.
This botched division of powers frustrates effective strategic decision-making and has resulted in a shambles, placing power in the hands of the producers.
The Executive has given effect to its so-called renewables policy by way of a substantial levy called the Renewables Obligation (Scotland).
The ROS subsidises renewables by financial instruments called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). The net result is that consumers pay a stealth tax, not to government, but directly to the electricity industry.
Experience already shows that the Executive has misplaced confidence in the ability of a subsidised market to guarantee success.
Ministers seem to expect that a stable nationwide system can be cobbled together by private developers, driven by the incentive of ROS subsidy and the happenstance of willing landlords and easy grid connection.
Issues such as technology balance, transmission losses, security of supply and cumulative environmental impact are hardly considered in any of the official publications. Any reasonable person would conclude that replacement of 40 per cent of the electricity system is likely to have substantial consequences.
Since there is no collaboration among local planning authorities, it is obvious that separate, locally-defined search areas do not add up to a coherent strategy at all.
The Executive should also note the widespread anxiety in the engineering community over current renewables "policy" and it should recognise the potential social and economic consequences of any failure of electricity supply.
Denmark has a wind penetration of approximately 18 per cent, but, despite the advantage of being integrated into the wider European grid, it continues to suffer from grid instability.
The Republic of Ireland, an island grid with a wind penetration of less than seven per cent, currently has a moratorium on connection of new wind power for reasons of stability and security of supply.
MINISTERS’ failure to accept strategic responsibility for this key industry raises serious questions of competence and judgement.
What needs to happen now is for Scottish ministers to cease their piecemeal tinkering with the electricity system until they are able to exhibit a competent strategic plan that includes satisfactory provision for contingency and security of supply.
The Executive’s ambitious renewables proposals are domestic targets only and have no basis in any considered feasibility or other empirical study.
They were ramped up to these heady levels as a result of "greener than thou" posturing by parties vying for political advantage.
It would be tragic if Scotland now suffered unnecessary damage in a wind rush intended to save political face.
Of the technologies likely to be deployed on a large scale, wind is the least effective in the medium or long term. It suffers from low energy density, inability to store electricity and random intermittency.
To be at all effective, wind power must be deployed very extensively and with a disproportionately high environmental impact.
It is at once the lowest quality of all renewables, and the most expensive, when costs of duplicate plant and back-up nuclear and fossil fuels are included.
Despite the wind industry’s grotesquely inflated claims, the prospects for emissions avoidance using wind power are dismal, mainly due to the back-up plant that is generally polluting even when not generating.
Denmark, with the highest penetration of wind in the European Union, has the greatest deficit of any member state in its Kyoto commitments - and its greenhouse gas emissions are rising.
I reject the absurd proposition that a wind rush is a necessary prerequisite for the development of other renewables technologies.
On the contrary, an environmentally damaging and ultimately ineffective deployment of wind power will only alienate the public from the concept of renewables - as it is doing now - and choke off investment vital to the development of superior alternatives.
The wind option incurs extensive adverse environmental impact for the dubious "benefit" of a third-rate duplication technology.
The current folly of wind power is encouraged by the ROC subsidy and the hugely lucrative short-term profits it hands to private developers.
THE UK’s Kyoto commitments are already met and Scotland is - almost uniquely - in the enviable position of being able to look to the long term and practise sustainable development.
It does not have to subsidise a piecemeal, unsustainable and ultimately futile rush for wind.
One has to ask why officials and politicians cannot see that, and it begs the very question of their competence.
Current renewables policy is non-existent, beyond the vague articulation of specious targets which have no meaning.
Wind technology is third-rate, inefficient, unreliable, intermittent, grotesquely imposing and achieves the very opposite of that which is intended.
We are being failed by the Executive and our politicians, who cannot see beyond the "green" chimera of a few whirling pale intruders traversing our countryside, killing our birds, deterring tourists and making the power companies very rich at our expense.
And all the while, power reserves run down, the best technical minds in the country give clear and unambiguous advice of the unpardonable folly of it all, and our leaders choose to take no notice.
€ John Campbell QC is an advocate at the Scottish Bar

Tourist reasons to visit Scotland : SCENERY is tops, so don't damage it with wind turbines!

The above table (taken from the Visit Scotland “Tourism in Scotland” document) demonstrates the overwhelming reason why tourists come to Scotland – BEAUTIFUL SCENERY. The average from all 7 countries is 93.85%

More reasons to object to the Clatto Hill Proposal

Fife Council's local and regional plans strongly discourage major developments such as the proposed wind power plant on Clatto Hill. There must be very strong arguments in favour of any proposal which would mean departing from these plans. It has been argued that the need for wind power is such a case. CLPG is not convinced of this. The targets set by the Scottish Executive for renewable energy are set to be achieved without the need for the Clatto Hill Proposal, and the emphasis on land-based wind generation is threatening the investment needed in the much more significant long term wave and tidal generation methods.

Planning Permission Sought for Quarry Extension on Clatto Hill

Clatto Landscape Protection Group were advised recently that Devon Quarry has submitted an application to Fife Council to extend the life of the quarry for another 25 years: twenty two years as a quarry and 3 years as a landfill site. CLPG were formed primarily to investigate the proposed Windfarm on Clatto Hill but they have now been together for over one year and in that time decided their purpose would be to look after their environment and landscape as a whole. Most of the members have lived and worked in this area for many years, some of them having been born in this area and care very much for the area they live in.

Councillor flouts ban to slate windfarm bid

from "The Courier" 20th November 2003, By Gordon Berry:

A FIFE councillor has taken the radical step of breaching a recently introduced Scottish Parliament code of conduct by speaking out against plans for the region's first windfarm.

The decision by East Neuk Tory councillor Mike Scott-Hayward has been made as the pace quickens in the planning process relating to Scottish Power's proposals for Clatto Hill in the North East Fife countryside.

The move, which directly contradicts guidance that states that councillors should not make advance development comments, is sure to lead to debate and controversy within the local authority.

Mr Scott-Hayward, however, was yesterday unrepentant and stated publicly that he fully supports objections submitted over proposals for seventeen 300 ft wind turbines at the site.

He said there would be an unacceptable departure from policy and creation of a precedent which would put close-knit, relatively well-developed rural communities right across Scotland at risk from the same sort of massive venture.

The councillor said that as a former chairman of his party's environment committee, he supports and advocates alternative and environmentally-friendly energy sources.

"Support of the use of wind energy, however, does not mean any and every scheme is acceptable. On balance, the adverse impact of this dominant development in a developed rural area, overshadowing a large number of small villages, hamlets and communities, (outweighs its) justification.

"My criticism is of both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament for not having a more coherent philosophy already in place. I have long believed that developments of a strategic nature, such as this and super-quarries and the like, should only be proceeded with when there is a recognised national need.

"They should only be at sites acceptable, and possibly pre- selected, at the highest planning level-government level. A coherent policy would not have pre- selected Clatto Hill, that's for sure."

Mr Scott-Hayward acknowledged he is "stepping out of line" and could lose his opportunity to speak and vote on the issue at the east area development committee.

He made his decision following a meeting with the Clatto Landscape Protection Group, CLPG, who are lobbying against the proposals.

"I am not a part of their group, and will not join them, but I do believe they are hitting most of the important nails on the head. Elected councillors should be doing that as well-we were elected to represent our electorates as well as to sit on planning committees.

"The new gagging rules make sense where individual, non-strategic, minor developments are concerned. A councillor should not seek to influence an outcome when a local resident is seeking permission to build a house or extend a conservatory.

"But a major wind farm, not to mention a complex of radio masts that cannot conclusively be said to be safe, is a different matter.

"The electorate and the applicants have a right, in my view, to know what councillors think and what concerns councillors about these major items.

"Now, with the gag in place, there is a very limited opportunity for councillors to discuss the matter, seek answers, hear counter-views and to openly influence or be influenced on all aspects. We are limited to what can be done in a committee meeting which has a deadline and is time-limited."

The councillor said the Clatto Hill application, like other major matters, deserved better attention from elected members.

While he might now lose his vote, he said, the decision-making process had already been snatched away from the area committee.

It had not gone, he said, to the Scottish Parliament, who should determine the strategic need and siting of nationally important issues, but to Fife's "feartie" central economic and development committee.

This piece was followed by a reply in favour of the current development by Mr Gordon Pay

He argued that the current policy was adequate, and as such directed development to sites such as Clatto Hill. He appears to be in vavour of a wind power station on Clatto Hill.

We have just received the following Press Release from Councillor Scott-Hayward in reply:

COUNCILLOR RESPONDS WITH WIND ENERGY PROPOSALS

Councillor Scott-Hayward is appealing to wind energy activists to address the issue surrounding the application to erect 17 wind turbines at Clatto Hill in Fife, rather than the personalities taking part in the debate.

"It would be very helpful if individuals, especially those who have had vested financial interests in promoting wind energy, could refrain from attempts to personalize arguments.

"The issue is about the impact of the application on Fife's environment, about the degree and sense of government policy and about the efficiency and utility of wind power as a source of renewable energy."

The councillor's remarks follow critical comments made by Gordon Pay, who formerly fronted an attempt to have wind turbines erected in North East Fife, shortly before becoming a councillor, for a time, himself.

"Mr Pay says that the results of Scottish Executive funded studies, which included the conclusion that Clatto Hill can be a windy place, is 'unfortunate for Councillor Scott-Hayward' In fact, I have no vested interest, past or present, pecuniary or personal, in the matter. It would however, be considered most unfortunate by, and for, the residents who live in the area affected, and for many to whom the turbines will be visible. At least one Community Council, but not, thus far, St Andrews, of which Mr Pay is a member, is objecting to the application.

"My view stands - I do not consider that the Scottish Executive policy is coherent. Indeed, identifying windy hills could be counter-productive as that may be why floodgates are opening. Wind Energy interests will be lodging applications willy nilly across the country, wherever there are such windy hills, to find council planning authorities which will grant consent. There is no strategy whereby the Scottish Executive is selecting the best and most appropriate sites, taking those decisions for themselves against identified strategic need, and taking responsibility for their actions and policies.

"Moreover, wind only blows for about a third of the time, and that means an oversupply of turbines. Is it all worth it? What does that do to costs? Wind energy is not cheap - it has to be subsidized and that is one reason behind the push to get them closer to the client base; to developed, populated areas.

"In Denmark, when the wind fails, they need to buy imported nuclear generated electricity from Sweden and Germany. We must not buy into the myth that it is better simply because it is a turbine.

"For the moment, I must also remind Mr Pay that my remarks are about strategic developments. That means large wind farms, corporately owned, subsidized and feeding the national grid in pursuit of the government's 10% targets. That should all be controlled strategically and the decision-makers, the government, held to account.

"In contrast, I have in the past, and again recently at a meeting with a Conservative MSP, Brian Monteith, suggested we should have scope to allow less obtrusive wind farms, of one or two small turbines, to be established and owned by those communities that want them. A village, or small town, should be allowed to erect reasonably sized masts to supply their own needs supplementary to the national grid. I would even give those small communities, let's say, based on areas about the size of community councils, delegated planning authority to grant their own consent for their own community owned supply. They would make the choice between loss of visual amenity (limited by size constraints) and the benefit of their own potentially free or cheap green power.

"That may be too radical an idea for many - but it gives power to the community, in more ways than one. This would, in my view, be a better way to tap into wind power, without ramming it down people's throats, simply because it is a subsidy attracting 'cool' investment."