| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Court rejects challenge to wind farm consent
Credit: 16 June 2017 | www.planningresource.co.uk ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
A Perthshire landowner’s challenge to a permission allowing amendments to a wind farm has been rejected in the Court of Session.
A reporter had granted permission for the seven-turbine wind farm in 2014. In 2015, the developer applied for an amendment to the permission to allow changes to the size of the turbines and lay electrical and fibre-optic cables to connect the scheme to the national grid.
The claimant argued that the developer had submitted inadequate information to assess the scheme’s impact on two protected species – osprey and wildcats – and consequently the council had insufficient information to conclude that no significant environmental impact would arise. Denying interested parties the opportunity to submit comments on potential impact had also led the council to give inadequate reasons for its decisions, she claimed.
The Outer House of the court dismissed the challenge. Supporting its decision, the Inner House held that in accordance with Wordie Property Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland [1984], the application of planning legislation was entrusted to local planning authorities as decision-makers, and the courts would only interfere where the decision-making process was legally defective. The use of conditions to assess the range of ecological measures to ensure that the protected species would not be significantly harmed was appropriate and competent, the court held.
Lord Drummond ruled that the decision was lawful and rejected the claimant’s challenge. He acknowledged that the public’s right to participate in the decision-making process was an important consideration. However, he thought it sufficient to assume that the planning authority would act in good faith in ensuring that the conditions were fully discharged, noting that their scope included the appointment of a clerk of works to oversee their implementation. Substantial prejudice had not arisen, he held.
Douglas v Perth and Kinross Council
Date: 4 May 2017
Ref: [2017] CSIH 28
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=83263 ]
