Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Lewis wind farm vetoed – but green target 'will still be met'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 April 2008
SCOTLAND is still on course to hit its renewables target, the energy minister insisted last night, after he pulled the plug on plans for Europe's largest wind farm.
Jim Mather finally rejected a proposed 181-turbine development on Lewis, which provoked a fierce "environment-versus-development" debate over nearly four years.

Supporters said it was a lost opportunity to advance Scotland's renewables industry a
nd the fragile economy of the Western Isles. It had been claimed the project would bring in £600 million annually and provide hundreds of jobs.

Ministers had indicated in January that they were "minded to refuse" the plan, and yesterday's announcement delighted objectors who said it was a rational decision to protect the environment.

Mr Mather said the Lewis Wind Power (LWP) project was incompatible with European law, as it would have had a serious impact on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area. The land is designated under European Commission regulations because of its important birdlife.

However, he insisted the rejection did not mean there could not be wind farms in the Western Isles, nor did it affect the government's commitment to renewables – its target was still to generate 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewables by 2020.

An action plan on how to develop renewables in the islands is to be completed in the autumn.

At present, 454 wind turbines are operating in Scotland, with a further 203 approved. Applications have been received for 1,700 others in 28 locations, including another two in the Western Isles.

Mr Mather said: "There is 6.4 gigawatts of renewable development either under construction or in existing or planned applications, well over twice the current installed renewables capacity of 2.8 gigawatts.

"Even allowing for refusals, we are well on the way to meeting our ambitious target to generate 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity demand from renewables by 2020."

But the Highland Renewable Energy Group said yesterday's decision was a social and economic disaster for the islands and raised major questions about the Scottish Government's commitment to renewable energy.

Bill McAllister, the group's secretary, said: "The Scottish administration cannot, in all strategic logic, decide to reject nuclear and opt for renewable energy instead, and then reject the large-scale scheme without which the administration has no chance of reaching its own renewable energy supply targets."

He said the future of a new interconnector between the islands and mainland was also now at risk.

Gareth Williams, of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, warned that, if the decision was allowed to set a precedent, it could mean large parts of Scotland near designated sites would now be closed to development.

The Liberal Democrats called for ministers to publish a strategy for the future of energy in Scotland.

LWP, meanwhile, said it was considering its next move. Kevin Murray, the firm's representative on Lewis, said the rejection represented a "huge missed opportunity". He went on: "For the sake of our generation and the generation coming after us, we need renewable energy. We also need this for the economy – fuel prices are going through the roof, fish farming is struggling, as is Harris Tweed."

It had been claimed the wind farm would employ more than 400 people and bring in £6 million annually to the islands, as well as using the former oil fabrication yard at Arnish for turbine manufacture.

Angus Campbell, the vice-convener of Western Isles Council, said the decision was "deeply disappointing and perplexing in view of the Scottish Government's renewable energy policy to make Scotland the green powerhouse of Europe". He added: "The government has got the balance between the environment and the socioeconomic benefits of the wind farm completely out of kilter."

The £500 million project has been controversial since it was put forward in October 2004 by LWP, a consortium of AMEC and British Energy.

Out of 11,022 representations, 10,924 were against the plan, with only 98 in favour.

Environmental bodies feared potential damage to the peatlands, which are home to species such as golden eagle, merlin, red throated diver, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank.

Stuart Housden, the director of RSPB Scotland, said the rejection of the project sent "a strong message that in meeting our ambitious and welcome renewable targets, we do not have to sacrifice our most important environmental resources".

Catriona Campbell, of the protest group Moorlands Without Turbines, said she was delighted while Alasdair Allan, the islands' SNP MSP, said the decision brought to an end a long and painful debate.

Precious peatland

THE Lewis peatlands are regarded as one of the most extensive and intact areas of blanket bog on the planet and one of Scotland's most important wildlife areas.

The development would have covered an area of 24,797 hectares (61,248 acres), much of it in the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, the second largest in Scotland.

Environmentalists claimed the wind farm would hit populations of red-throated divers, black-throated divers, golden eagles, golden plovers and dunlins.

It was also felt that construction would cause irreversible damage to the structure of the peat and that carbon dioxide would be released.

But LWP said greenhouse gases released during construction would be cancelled out by the clean energy produced by the turbines within seven months. Dr Tom Dargie, who carried out analysis for LWP, said that the long-term structure and function of the peatland habitat was not under threat.

Charity has the clout to fly in face of controversial building proposals

WITH more than a million members, the RSPB has considerable power to influence decisions.

The charity, which last year had funds of almost £80 million, has fought vigorously against Lewis Wind Power's proposal to build a wind farm on peatland at Lewis.

The RSPB argues that renewable energy targets can be met without needing to threaten environmental resources. The RSPB, the largest conservation charity in Europe, has had similar clout when opposing other high-profile developments, such as Donald Trump's controversial plans for championship golf courses at Menie Estate north of Aberdeen.

Along with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Government's conservation adviser, the RSPB has objected to part of the development being built on an site of special scientific interest, saying it could damage wildlife.

The organisation has an army of 12,200 volunteers and 150,000 youth members. It has 200 nature reserves covering about 130,000 hectares, which are home to 80 per cent of the country's rarest or most threatened bird species.

The charity, which was founded more than a century ago, is supported by a network of 175 local groups and there are at least nine volunteers for every paid member of staff.

The bulk of the charity's income is spent on conservation projects, maintenance of reserves and education schemes. It counts among its success stories the decision by governments in India, Nepal and Pakistan to ban Diclofenac, a veterinary drug that is wiping out vultures.

More than 1,000 RSPB members attended the Stop Climate Chaos Rally in London in November 2006.







The full article contains 1184 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Socrates2,

22/04/2008 01:01:13
well a bit more balanced than the herald's man


2

Edward,

22/04/2008 01:35:40
'But the Highland Renewable Energy Group said yesterday's decision was a social and economic disaster for the islands'
Absolute crap!
The arguement by Highland Renewable Energy Group was thatt it would provide employment during the construction. Then what??? Firstly most of the contraction would be done by companies from the mainland, employing mostly people from the mainland and more than likely immigrant workers. Then once constructed, the towers will not need much looking after. Ther not like factories, there not churning out a product!. They just turn all day and all night, producing electricity down cables, thats it!
3

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 22/04/2008 01:55:36
This is the best news for a long time and can only be good for Lewis. The people their have spoken loud and clear and it is time the rest of Scotland did the same and put a stop to this windfarm madness.
What is disturbing however, is that it was European legislation that stopped this and not the opinions of the people who live there.
Jim mather speaks of renewable energy targets when he really means windfarms. He should really ask what these targets mean in the real world as one thing is certain - they will not stop emissions rising whether they be good or bad.
4

Navvy,

22/04/2008 03:34:37
how does the song go?

by the light of the peat fire flame
5

Mallory,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 05:07:37
Good decision - this mad rush for windmills is only happening because of distorting subsidies. Scotland has a real chance to lead in wave-power - go for that instead.
6

Watson,

Irvine 22/04/2008 05:49:28
What is happening, no Nat bashing?
7

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 22/04/2008 07:22:02
Lewisians still demand mainland subsidies, though. Time will come when, as with the St Kildans, they'll plead to be taken off. Lord Leverhulme was right about the Lewisians when they rejected his efforts to make them wealthy.
8

McX,

22/04/2008 07:58:20
Dave, won't you be taking advantage of the 2012 London Olympics?
9

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 22/04/2008 08:13:24
#8 Dave. I've nothing against the islands. I'm on them quite a bit and met wonderful people. What sticks in my craw are those who resist the downsides of the 21C whilst demanding its upsides.

(Remind me again: what do locals pay to fly in and out of Cocklesand, and what do outsiders pay? And who pays the difference?)
10

westcider,

Isle of Lewis 22/04/2008 08:21:53
Now at last we can put this ill advised and unwelcome scheme behind us and start to repair the divisive damage done to our community here. We will have wind turbines operating on Lewis if they can be proved to be viable and with the approval and permission of a majority.No-one here is totally against progress but it has to be controlled by the people themselves who know the island best and what will work up here.
11

Unimpressed one,

22/04/2008 08:26:33
Right on Nabodican. Quoting EU wildlife and habitats directives to reject the plan seems a touch ironic since the main reason for going ahead with it would have been to comply with the EU's renewables target, regardless of the over ambitious Scottish targets set by Salmond.

So if most of Scotland is off limits for large windfarms, how will the targets be reached? Probably nuclear. the nats will twist this one by admitting that the waste storage problem 'has been solved'. Watch this space people!
12

South Ayrshire Sanny Hossack,

22/04/2008 08:35:13
Jimmy Mathers lack of "balls" has opened the door for the real government to cool our beer by the nuclear method.
This area sounds ideal to house a ultra big megga watt nuclear power station, this would be much better for the local environment, in fact why not install one on Arran and one on the isle of Whight that way we can keep mainland Britain nuclear free, meet Jimmy Mathers and the Nats energy targets and get all the benefits. So go on Gordon Brown give the people what they want, cold beer and new interconnectors.
13

AbroadScot,

22/04/2008 08:40:05
Having rejected this windfarm plan on environmental grounds, perhaps the Scottish "government" will now reject Trump's environmentally disastrous golf course/housing plans - on the same grounds
14

ignorant townie?,

Scotland 22/04/2008 08:44:49
Now the right decision has been made - what a great opportunity for the people of the Western Isles to cash in on their fantastic natural resource of wildlife and scenery.

Weve just told the world that Scotland is proud and protective of its environment - now get the rest of the world to come and see it....theres a damn sight more long term jobs in that.
15

Miss Dee,

Tayside 22/04/2008 08:53:46
Too bad they didn't ask Donald Trump to lead the wind farm project. All rules of conservation seem to magically disappear when he's about!
16

gus1940,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 09:01:15
Forget wind and wave power.

The answer is Tidal Power - it is always there and as The UK is an island the tide moves round it providing constant reliable power.

How about causeways across the mouths of sea lochs with embedded turbines, locks for shipping and roads on top.

They needn't be too much of an eyesore certainly no more so than for example The Ballachulish Bridge.

An easy one would be The Rhu Narrows on The Gareloch.
17

Old Cartha Boy,

22/04/2008 09:04:37
Right decision, for the right reasons. This was the decision that the Western Isles Council should have taken instead of crapping out of it and passing it to Holyrood.

The Herald's take on this story is laughable and worth a read because of the shocking slant!
18

Truely English,

22/04/2008 09:09:45
10
Just come home to England you will be most welcome here.
19

Coinneach Bàn,

Oxfordshire 22/04/2008 09:20:37
I'm glad it's been quashed. I don't see the point in ruining a valuable area of moorland for very little economic gain for the local community. Down here, they're all for renewable energy - so long as it's being sourced from far away. They were quite happy to support the Lewis wind farm but fought against plans for one windmill near Oxford. I must admit I would probably be in favour of a small wind farm supplying the local area, but even then, there would be an environmental impact and there would still be the need for a power station for calm days which detracts from the whole "environmentally friendly" argument. I think tidal power is probably a better option. It has less of an environmental impact, is fairly inobtrusive and gives a constant source of power. As a Leòdhasach, I know that even the Western isles have calm days, but I've yet to see a day without any wave action.
20

Returner,

Vatersay 22/04/2008 09:27:45
'Rules but not rulers'. The Air Discount Scheme does NOT apply to Barra so visitors and locals pay the same air fare. The only reason the air fare booked from Barra may be cheaper is that the tax is less as the aircraft leaves from a sand runway and has less than 20 seats.

Glad to see the comments about Trump though. Let's hope the Scottish Government see him for what he is and dump his plans too!
21

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 22/04/2008 09:40:30
A good decision but a vast waste of public money runnign an enquiry for four years? As usual, the lawyers buy another yacht in the Caribbean - when it was a foregone conclusion to begin with. European Directives on rare birds and protection of habitats guaranteed that if the govt had given the go-ahead , Europe wouild have vetoed it. Everyone knew that.

Scotland does not have an energy shortage. What it has is an INSULATION SHORTAGE! Almost every rural cottage has 2 ft thick stone walls that cannot be insulated - no cavity. The grants for retro-insulation are so hard to get that theya re almost non-existent. And new houses do not come anywhere near Swedish standards of insulation. So by far the largest factor in energy waste is people pumping electricity into houses that cannot retain it. But do you see any initiatives to remedy this? The truth is that they KNOW global warming is a busted flush - and they are doing NOTHING serious to counteract this mythical beast. They are doing EVERYTHING to tax people to death for using energy or fuel - but that's just for the cash they need to maintain the quango-state.
22

A Crofter,

Western Isles 22/04/2008 10:01:41
Are the SNP finally beginning to realise that environmental designations matter? Let's lob the Nodding Eck into the Minch and see how much hot air he can generate.

As other posts have said, how can the Trump inquiry reach any other decision? Surely time to halt this waste of time and money.
23

Luke Skywalker,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 10:53:46
Quite simple - go nuclear.
24

Neil MacMathain,

London 22/04/2008 11:17:52
The world situation on future energy requirments remains uncertain. This is obviously because of diminishing resources and the reliance on states who could withdraw assistance at any time. So proved by Russia recently. The Isle of Lewis for those who have never been is indeed a beautiful part of the world. As such, it relies heavily on Tourism and is one of the main sources of employment where jobs are scarce. This wind farm would have been a massive project with towers in excess of 180 feet in height. The island would have been visually irreprable damaged with the obvious consequences for tourism. I'm sorry but it looks like we will have to bite the bullet and consider nuclear as our main energy resource.
25

Dennis,

North Isles 22/04/2008 11:31:27
16 & 24

Let's attract more and more tourists producing more and more carbon through transportation. Don't worry another area can take the pain of trying to meet renewable targets. There again you seem to believe global warming is just a big con anyway. Still, if you are wrong another generation will pay. Perhaps you live more than 50m above sea level and away from flood plains and burns so no worries there.

If you care to read any of the miriad of scientific papers concerning climate change you would see that, besides the increasing episodes of flooding - which affect people - the biggest impact is, and will be increasingly, on Scottish habitat and wild species as we have known them.

The loss of the Lewis windfarm is an overall loss to the Scottish environment.
26

Publius,

London 22/04/2008 11:58:17
#25 A Crofter

For once the SNP government has got something right. Apart from being a blot on the landscape, the wind farm probably wouldn't have worked anyway.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Trump project. Given the credit crunch and the fall in property prices, the chances are that Trump will pull the project before building has started. Let's hope so. It would be even worse if the project was pulled after building had started leaving a half-empty, useless eyesore on the Aberdeenshire coast.
27

Publius,

London 22/04/2008 12:03:07
#2 Edward

Wind farms need more maintenance than you think. The windmills get blown over when it's very windy! yes really. In County Durham two were blown over in a gale a few weeks ago. It put the entire wind farm out of operation. This shows that windfarms aren't always a good idea.
28

Doh,

22/04/2008 12:41:00


They should of applied to build a golf course instead.
29

kimba,

22/04/2008 12:52:03
Salmond will take scotland back to the dark ages,literally!
30

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 22/04/2008 12:58:12
The Lewis decision is the right decision but it shouldn't have taken four years to reach it.

I've said this before but we really should wait a couple of years to guage the effect Eaglesham has on the grid. We might then be able to properly evaluate the efficiency of wind turbines.

On the face of it, tidal then wave generators would seem to be the way to go. Still lots of design and development work to do, but these would certainley be less obtrusive and tidal would have a more reliable power source.

In other parts of the UK, wave generators could have a double use. From the Humber Estuary down past the wash they have horrific problems with ground erosion. Wave generators could have the dual purpose of greating elictricity while acting as wave baffles by taking the power from the waves.

Kill two metaphorical birds with one stone and leave all the birds the RSPB worries about with a home.
31

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 22/04/2008 13:02:55
Publius - Leave the Trump issue alone.

For the reasons you state, I see it as ending up as Scotlands premier science park. With the best of recreational facilities of course.
32

kimba,

22/04/2008 13:05:53
33. What are you waiting for,the lights to go out!
33

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 13:07:31
Meanwhile the only thing that's keeping the lights on is coal.
34

Seoras67,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 13:10:25
Result, Locals and common sense 1 v 0 Big business and Labour party. Still no answer to the unavoidable question from the wind farm enthusiasts, where do we get electricy when the wind doesn't blow? Wind is too unreliable and intermittent. We will still need to keep all 'normal' power supplies. Comments re electricity produced from tides seem logical. I am no engineer but surely research in this area is justified? Well done the locals for having the strength to fight and defeat this proposal.
35

kimba,

22/04/2008 13:26:17
37. Are you serious! so when the lights go out all over scotland because salmond and the EU are so short sighted,you'll know who to blame.
36

Alan B,

22/04/2008 13:50:47
Would have thought the decision should have been left with the council. I can understand the government overruling a council for strategic reasons when nimby-ism applies. But the oppoposite is the case here.

One question: given that the proposal for the windfarm has exist for a couple of years why did the islanders vote in a council supporting the scheme only last yr if there is so much opposition.

Also: how many of the 10,000 objections comes from poeple from the area.
37

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 13:58:48
The supreme irony about this affair is that the islanders still burn peat as a fuel, thereby contributing to global warming.
38

Peter Parkinson,

St. Leonards on Sea 22/04/2008 15:39:52
I cannot see how an inert object such as wind turbines can damage the environment.When the wind blows in Lewis the environment can damage and hurt humans, and it is indiscriminate whom gets hurt.
I have lived lived in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis, if maybe bleak out in the countryside but the town has character that will not be bothered by wind farms, the beaches are lovely but nasty to be on in a storm.
The Highlands and islands are the right place to put wind farms saving the environment from power station pollution.
39

CHAM,

Oxford 22/04/2008 15:46:06
Excellent news. #5 is right about wave power, and the tides operate immensely powerfully and for free twice daily, without wrecking the joint.
40

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

22/04/2008 16:35:00
Although I am a supporter of sustainable energy ie wind solar and wave this was the right decision. It seems to me that offshore platforms is an idea for wind generation that might work for example on old oil platforms ie recycled old oil platforms. But ruining all nature reserves seems wrong.What is wrong with so called microgeneration ie on roofs with solar panels to heat hot water or microturbines to generate electricity.? There must be millions of roofs across both Scotland and England that could be fitted with both solar heating panels and PV panels. As the unit price of electricity and oil gas rises steadily these ideas will become more cost effective.Nuclear suffers from the same problem as oil namely so called peak oil will soon be followed by peak Uranium and then peak coal.We have got about twenty years to make the shift to sustainable energy.The Alan Turing new build mathematics centre of Victoria Manchester University has just been built with in built installed PV photovoltaic panels which generate electricity directly from the sun. This is the future because thousands of MU graduates will see this as entirely normal ie to generate electricity from the sun.Other new build projects such as the new (none pfi)hospital should have this green energy in its designThe good news is there is no peak sun for the next 10 Billion years!Oil production has peaked but the sun's capacity is there to be gathered.We don't really have much choice now but to make the shift. The Germans are doing this and steadily installing green energy capacity Brown is living in the past if he thinks nuclear has much mileage in it. As usual Salmond is ahead of the game.
41

Sarah Bubbles,

Shetland 22/04/2008 19:14:37
We are facing exactly the same thing here on Shetland. Disturbance of 9,000 acres of peat to put up 160 turbines and effectively turning Shetland into an off shore power station for mainland Britain. This prospective massive industrial project has already cost millions and it's only in the 'what if' stage. It's life span is reckoned to be only 25 years!!! What kind of ludicrous nonsense is that?
Tidal power is what we should really be looking at but because these people are spending our money not their own it appears to be quite alright to squander it in any way they see fit. Eventually this project will also be defeated and if they had put that money into secondary double (triple) glazing for every building on Shetland we could have reduced our electricity consumption by three quarters.
42

danielrober,

22/04/2008 19:15:00
# 43 Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics

Quite.

Although your comments seem to be useful, it just looks like you have swallowed or written a text book for a GCSE.

However i think you'll find the un-rulely natives of the western isles are better educated than your comment assumes. If i've miss read your comment please forgive me. I've been impressed by this community for over two years now. A part of me wishes i'd pushed that little further on my travels when i was younger.

Still, I'll be taking my kids to these islands in August (yes i'm a weather wimp). No doubt i'll bore my kids.

Nice islands, nice people (just take the complement WI).
43

Truely English,

22/04/2008 19:20:39
7
It seems the British Scots in Glasgow will be subsidised with this new Hospital, seems strange that all Scotland not just the North of the country is a Subsidy Junky.
Ah well some Brits will always remain the same no matter what is done for them.
44

KWC,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 22:21:05
So the Green Lobby doesn't want nuclear, gas or coal. Now it doesn't want ... renewables? What does it want?

If Jim Mather can't make the decision to move us forward then someone has to. He is letting Westminster in by the back door. Possibly because there's no light burning to see what's happening there.
45

Easterly,

23/04/2008 14:20:23
#44 I think the diference in Shetland is that their doing the project themselves so the money stays in Shetland same as it did for the oil.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Features

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.