ISLAY.COM - Islay is...

Windfarm on Islay

Malcolm Ogilvie

Just under a year ago, a public inquiry was held on Islay into the proposed siting of a five-turbine windfarm on a low hill overlooking Duich Moss, the largest roosting site for Greenland Whitefronts on the island, holding up to 1500 birds. Although Argyll and Bute Council was happy to give planning permission for this nice, non-polluting and infinitely renewable form of energy creation, Scottish Natural Heritage objected on the grounds that up to 300 of the geese regularly flighted at dawn and dusk over the hill on their way to and from the roost and their daytime feeding fields and that they would be at risk of colliding
with the 60 metre high turbines with their 22 metre long blades. SNH argued that if significant numbers were killed then this would call into question the integrity of Duich Moss as a Special Protection Area for the geese under European legislation. The Secretary of State therefore called in the planning application and directed that a public inquiry be held.

At the inquiry, the developers gave evidence about the sort of turbines, and how silent and efficient they were nowadays, and also stated their opinion that while Duich Moss was indeed an SPA, the hill wasn't included and therefore anything that was done there could not be regarded as being affected by legisation governing SPAs. SNH argued the opposite, not surprisingly. Somewhat to everyone's surprise, the crux of the argument came down, not to the legal niceties of SPAs and their environs, but to exactly what was the risk to the geese. SNH had done some sums, based on the size of the towers, the diameter and speed of rotation of the blades, the size and number of geese, etc., etc., which suggested that up to 11 geese could, in the worst case, be killed every time they flew through the windfarm, i.e. every dawn and dusk, when the light is very poor and the blades not at all clearly visible - obviously unacceptable and likely to have a very rapid downward effect on the numbers of geese. The developers' own environmental consultant had also done some similar sums but had introduced an extra factor which had the effect of dividing his results, as compared to SNH's, by no less than 500 times. At a potential mortality rate of 11/500 = 0.02 of a goose per flight, the developers not unnaturally argued that the geese didn't
really have a problem.

Unfortunately, this enormous disparity could not be resolved at the inquiry - both sides tried to show that the other was talking nonsense, but we ended as far apart as we started. SNH took some high-powered mathematical advice once we knew there was a dispute, and this confirmed our figures over those of the developers.

The Reporter (called a Recorder in England and Wales) sadly was no mathematician and his preliminary report to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who takes the final decision, when sent out to the parties concerned, clearly showed that he favoured the developers' maths over SNH's. At this stage, the parties can comment, which SNH did very strongly, but the Reporter then made his final recommendation, which favoured granting planning permission. Fortunately, the Secretary of State, or his advisors, decided that the difference was so great that he should seek independent advice, which was obtained from Stirling University. This came down 100% in favour of SNH and we have just had a letter from the Scottish Office stating that the Secretary of State has
over-ruled his Reporter and is minded to refuse permission for the windfarm.
And the grounds he gives are, significantly, because of the risk that such a level of mortality to the geese would adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. This is not just a welcome decision, but creates an excellent precedent for other developments of all kinds which, while not actually on an SPA, can nevertheless affect them adversely from a distance.

The developers have been given four weeks in which to comment and argue that they are still right, but they not only have hardly a leg to stand on but have actually dug themselves a deep hole!
That said, I believe that Islay is eminently suited to having a windfarm and that, with a bit more survey work in other areas of the island, which was noticeably omitted by the present would-be developers who had long decided that Duich Moss was the only location for them, a site could be found which would not detract from our rich natural heritage.

Windfarms are, without doubt, very green things, but there has been a lot of anti-reaction to them in Scotland on the grounds of their size in wild landscapes. It is also a fact that they are made attractive to build because of very favourable subsidies which compel the national power companies to purchase any electricity from them at advantageous (to the developers) rates.


UPDATE
The developers have asked for, and been granted, a re-opening in the last week of May in order that any new evidence can be put before the Reporter. They apparently wish to cross-examine the independent advisor from Stirling University about his calculations.

Whatever the result of that, it is still earnestly to be hoped that the developers will also take note of the Secretary of State's comment in his letter of refusal, namely that under European (and British) law, a development which adversely affects the integrity of a Special Protection Area can only be permitted if (1) it is in the national interest, and (2) that no alternative site for the development exists.
It is clear that whether or not these five wind turbines are placed beside Duich Moss or not is hardly in the national interest. It would be really good if the developers would undertake a proper investigation of the potential for wind power on Islay instead of, as hitherto, just on one estate.

--
Malcolm Ogilvie, Isle of Islay, Scotland, U.K.

Agent for ISLAY.COM

Linda McArthur
26 Stanalane
Bowmore, Isle of Islay
Argyll PA43 7LA
Fax & Phone: ++44 (0)1496 810629