4 Jul 2024
Wull Muir Wind Farm has been rejected twice before over fears of it developing “a wind farm landscape” in the Scottish Borders, however in the past week Scottish Borders Council’s (SBC) chief planning officer has recommended its approval.
The fate of this scheme, which involves eight turbines reaching 150 metres near Heriot, is set to be determined at a SBC planning committee meeting on Monday 8 July.
The plans have been met with widespread opposition from locals, Heriot Community Council and even SBC’s own landscape architect.
Although the design has been amended since its first iteration, SBC’s landscape architect believes the developer has failed to address the planning reporter’s concerns and the increased height of the turbines would have a significant impact on the landscape.
The landscape architect made the following comments:
“I remain of the opinion that this proposal, with turbines of almost 150m in height, will be visible from some of the most densely inhabited part of Lothian plain and despite efforts to mitigate the landscape and visual effects, they will be prominent on the Moorfoot escarpment, contrary to SBC Landscape Capacity Study guidance and not satisfactorily addressing the Reporter’s concerns about ‘the highly adverse landscape impact’ of the disruption of the Moorfoot escarpment edge with turbines.”
The report raises a number of key questions.
According to SBC’s planning officer, he says the application could be approved ‘on balance’ because of the Scottish Government’s national planning framework (NPF4) which favours wind farm applications being granted (this wasn’t in place when the scheme was previously rejected).
However, regardless of the policy position of NPF4, Scottish Ministers still make decisions on the overarching principle of the right development in the right place.
The increase in height totally negates the asserted mitigation from moving the turbines south east and its effects are set in an increasingly complex cumulative setting. SBC’s landscape architect made clear that her objection fell within the parameters of the new planning framework.
So, is this a policy issue, or a landscape issue? Surely, the more favourable policy landscape doesn’t override the impact on the landscape?
However, if we dive a little deeper into NPF4, the issues become even more apparent.
Whilst NPF4 is more favourable towards wind farm development, the policy makes it clear that wind farm developments should not be approved at all costs.
As it stands, Scotland does not need the electricity from this wind farm. Wind energy generation in Scotland is at an all-time high, with current and future demand already being met, so the only outcome from Wull Muir would be an increase in constraints payments. This means the proposal does not comply with NPF4 Policy 11 as insufficient mitigation has been secured.
In line with NPF4 Policy 1, Scottish Ministers are also very clear that they are looking for an evidence-based approach to climate change policy compatibility tests, yet there is no evidence to show that Wull Muir or any other Scottish wind farm has any beneficial effect on climate.
Significant amounts of electricity in Scotland is already going to waste and is costing huge sums of money. The case for Wull Muir simply does not stack up. There are major concerns for the visual amenity and these plans would have a startling impact on the landscape, and would provide little to no benefit.
The message is clear – Wull Muir is the wrong development in the wrong place.