Approval for the Eishken wind scheme
According to Hebrides News, the much delayed Public Inquiry has recommended approval for a scheme that has now been superceded by events.
As someone who gave evidence to the PLI, I want to study the report carefully before making any further comment, but as the applicant dryly notes:
Update 7/8: I've read the Report, carefully, and I need to read it again, even more carefully.
My initial reaction is that the Report can be read either way you wish, giving the Minister complete leeway to make whatever decision he wants. So neither approved nor rejected.
As someone who gave evidence to the PLI, I want to study the report carefully before making any further comment, but as the applicant dryly notes:
“The report is very interesting and very fair but it is now of only academic interest.”
Update 7/8: I've read the Report, carefully, and I need to read it again, even more carefully.
My initial reaction is that the Report can be read either way you wish, giving the Minister complete leeway to make whatever decision he wants. So neither approved nor rejected.
5 comments:
Report is on:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Applications-Database/Wind/Muaitheabhal-Index
You should really read the report rather than relying on Hebrides News's dubious reading of the conclusions. I begin to wonder whether they read it either. It is made quite clear in the Reporter's closing paragraphs that the application fails completely in the two subjects she was appointed to deal with, i.e., the effect of the windfarm on the NSA and whether those effects would be outweighed by the socio-economic benefits. It's a clear fail on both counts.
From the report:
12.85 As far as employment is concerned, estimates by BMP, CnES and HIE are to the effect that the wind farm project would provide between 108 and 115 direct and indirect FTE jobs. These are calculated on the basis that one FTE equates to a job of at least 30 hours per week that lasts for at least 10 years, although one job that lasts for 25 years is treated as one FTE.
Well, that's just a lie on the part of the developers and CNES/HIE, innit? How is it possible to provide, at the lower estimate, 108 full-time jobs over a ten year period when the LWP/AMEC monster was going to be built in 3-4 years and have what, 15-20 maintenance jobs at most?
Additionally, and crucially:
13.11 Having also had regard to my other findings, I have concluded that the only potential benefit that can be regarded as being of national importance is the wind farm's relationship to the provision of the reinforced interconnector that the Discussion Draft NPF 2 identifies as a national development. While this discussion draft document is subject to change, for the reasons also stated at finding 12.66, it merits some weight. In that regard, consent for Muaitheabhal would be likely to improve the prospect of an interconnector being constructed, or at least make it likely that it would be built sooner than might otherwise be the case. However, there is no clear evidence that Muaitheabhal would achieve a critical mass that would result in commercial decisions that would lead to the construction of an interconnector. Equally, as with the LWP scheme, there is no evidence that refusal of consent would result in an interconnector not being constructed at all. I conclude that, given these uncertainties, the potential for national economic benefit is not such as to clearly outweigh the wind farm's significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the NSA was designated.
and
13.13 Having had regard to the terms of NPPG 14, particularly paragraphs 24-26, I conclude:
· that the wind farm would compromise the objectives of designation of the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist NSA and its overall integrity; and
· that the wind farm would have significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the NSA has been designated and that these effects are not clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.
If you can point out, Angus, where exactly "the much delayed Public Inquiry has recommended approval for [the] scheme", I will post you a crisp fiver!
Having read most of it I can't see anything to suggest that she has recommended approval. In fact the conclusions suggest that the whole windfarm should be refused as there is no distinction between turbines within the boundary of the NSA and those outside it.
This must raise legal issues as to how the Government can now consider supplementary information to an application which should be refused. Anyway surely its pretty dodgy for supplementary information to include teens of new turbines. What say you Angus, from your planning experience?
What stinks is clearly Oppenheim had copy of the report before it aPUBLIC inquiry was put in the public domain. Hence Application 4 by the greedy b*****d
"I conclude that, given these uncertainties, the potential for national economic benefit is not such as to clearly outweigh the wind farm's significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the NSA was designated."
That can't be "read either way". That is grounds for refusal.
Post a Comment