A mast has already been installed at the Stronelairg site. Photo: Karl and Ali CC-BY-SA-2.0
A leading conservation charity expressed disappointment at councillors’ approval of plans for a windfarm in the Monadhliath Mountains.
The John Muir Trust called on the Scottish Government to hold a full public inquiry into proposals for the Stronelairg windfarm.
Highland Council voted not to object to SSE Renewables’ scheme to build 83 turbines, up to 135m (443ft) tall, but did impose extra conditions.
Members of the planning committee voted by 11 to three to raise no objections to the windfarm after a site visit yesterday. The council said, though it was a consultee, the decision on the plans will be made by the Scottish Government.
Helen McDade, the John Muir Trust’s head of policy, said: “We are disappointed that the majority of councillors chose to ignore expert opinion from bodies which include Scottish Natural Heritage, the Cairngorms national park, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and the John Muir Trust.
“But despite this setback, the fight to save the Monadhliath Mountains will continue.
“Reports this week have suggested that the Scottish Government is open to wild-land protection, but once we industrialise any area of wild land, it is gone forever.
“If this proposal goes ahead, one of Scotland’s core areas of wild land will disappear under a forest of steel turbines the height of the Forth Bridge, spread across an area of peatland the size of a small city.
“Given that SNH, the official agency overseeing Scotland’s landscape and ecology, maintains a substantive objection to the proposal, it would be normal practice for the Scottish Government to call a public inquiry to ensure that full complexity of the Stronelairg development is fully explored.
“It is vital that there is, for example, an in-depth assessment of the permanent damage to the ecology of the area that would be wreaked by excavating up to a million tonnes of rock from sensitive peatlands to build the infrastructure of the site, which will include concrete foundations and 40 miles of access roads.
“The Monadhliath Mountains are a national asset of cultural and geographical significance for the whole of Scotland.
“We would strongly urge the Scottish Government to heed the views of those members of its own party on the council who voted to object to this development.”
Omarkam
09 April 2013Today is the day I made my mind up about the SNP. I will NEVER vote for them again. Never.
This site is on peat. Eagles live in the area. Turbines do not make us use less coal/ gas/ nuclear. The do effect tourism. The subsidy to these things is a crime and I am outraged.
A sad day for Scotland. Actually, a sad period for Scotland.
Cameron (not the wind supporting David or Mcneish)
09 April 2013Windustry guff and the political promotion of it has just become a full blown generation-defining scandal.
This is what Ozzie Zehner, University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar, has to say about turbines/ solar:
"There is an impression that we have a choice between fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines. That choice is an illusion. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.
Since wind and sunlight are free, why are wind and solar power so expensive? Solar and wind energy technologies should be very cheap - much cheaper than fossil fuels. But they are not cheap at all. Even with massive subsidies, we see firms going bankrupt trying to sell them. And then we still have to figure in the cost of building batteries, redundant power plants or other infrastructure that arises from their low quality intermittent energy. Finally, we have to consider the mining, health, pollution and waste problems of renewable technologies. For example, we are now learning that the solar cell industry is one of the fastest growing emitters of virulent greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has a global warming potential 23,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Zehner attended Kettering University (BS -Engineering) and The University of Amsterdam (MS/Drs – Science and Technology Studies). His research was awarded with honors at both institutions.
More of his findings can be found on truth-out.
Genienne
09 April 2013This is scandalous. Up there with ripping out hedgerows, poll tax, and chopping down native Caledonian Forest.
To even consider comparing a hydro scheme to a wind one is idiotic. The hydro scheme is not 443ft tall (83 times over), not killing animals (quite the opposite), not visible from miles and miles around, not reliant on massive ROC subsidies and it's not killing our peat bogs which hold more CO2 than rainforests.
This is an absurd decision. Turbines have no part to play in Scotland.
Mikking Defton
09 April 2013This is the day that the SG went too far. They have now lost the votes of rural scots and hikers. They have betrated these people for awful subsidy poles. They are a disgrace.
George
09 April 2013Has no one noticed the 14,000 abandoned turbines, rusting in the Californian desert? It is a grossly inefficient, outdated, discredited technology. I watched the debate webcast yesterday and was astonished at the sheer, dumb, ignorance of most of the councillors.
Nothing more than environmental devastation to line the pockets of rich landowners!
Year of natural Scotland - what a farce!
Jane Meek
10 April 2013My heart has just landed in my boots. I am ashamed to be a Scot. So much for "natural Scotland". And what a slap in the face for democratic decision-making. The Scottish government has no idea of what makes Scotland great.
Matt
12 April 2013There's plenty of Scotland to go round. People need energy or we won't be able to continue going as a race. It's a shame that a few Eagles may have to relocate and I'm not naive about the ecological implications in the short term; this is however the future, a problem this needs addressing for the global population and needs doing now. Be proud you're part of the future and do your best to reduce the impact by volunteering up there. If you don't help with the problem on the ground, don't try and complain about it.
I hope that everybody posting against these proposals lives their lives as absolutely sustainably as they can, doesn't drive, lives in carbon neutral homes, plants trees in as many reasonable places as possible and actively encourages others to do the same - if not don't get pissy on great futuristic ideas which do have slight ecological implications and ruin your view. Stop being so selfish.
JeremyBoglett
13 April 2013Matt, you have no idea about energy generation if you think that wind is a solution to any of our needs.
Turbines don’t supply us with usable, useful, cheap or green electricity. They increase our CO2 emissions. They do sweet f£%$ all to ween us off other forms of energy. For every one job created 3-4 are lost in the real economy. They batter tourism and birds. They rip up our CO2 storing peat bogs (holding more CO2 than rainforests). They are increasing fuel poverty in Scotland. They are effecting the health of rural folk.
You are either ignorant about energy production or you have you snout in the subsidy trough. Your views are laughable.
If you truly cared about the nevironment then you'd want gas and nuclear power in Scotland. Hinkley, in Somerset, will powere 5,000,000 homes and cost £14 billion. For the trickle of intermittent and unreliable electricity we get from wind the taxpayer alone will be forking out £120 billion by 2020.
'Futuristic Ideas'? Pah! There is a reason we stopped using wind for power 180 year ago.
You are wrong on every level.