CONSERVATION charity the John Muir Trust has lost a major court case against the Scottish Government over a massive wind-farm planned for the Highlands.
Three of Scotland’s top judges led by the Lord President, Lord Carloway, overturned an earlier decision by Lord Jones to refuse permission for energy giant SSE to build 67 wind turbines at Stronelairg south of Fort Augustus in the Monadhliath mountains.
SSE originally applied in 2012 for planning permission to build 83 turbines at a cost of £300 million near its Glendoe hydro-electric scheme, but was met with a hail of objections, including a strong case against the scheme by environment watchdog Scottish Natural Heritage.
Highland Council approved a reduced scheme in 2013, but the final decision went to the Scottish Ministers, who gave approval for a development of 67 turbines in June 2014. In December last year, Lord Jones said the decision was “defective” and overruled the Government, which he said had not followed the correct processes.
It is this decision that was overturned on Friday at the Court of Session. In a judgment delivered by Lord Carloway, the appeal court rejected Lord Jones’s decision, which turned on an obscure part of planning law derived from a European Union regulation.
Lord Carloway stated that the government “held that the energy benefits and the contribution the development would make to sustainable economic growth outweighed the environmental aspects.” He added: “This was a planning judgment which the respondents (the Scottish Ministers) were entitled to make.”
The John Muir Trust, which relied on public donations to fight the long-running action, expressed its disappointment at the latest verdict and said it was taking further legal advice and considering its options.
If the trust wants to continue the legal battle it will have to ask the Inner House of the Court of Session for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of the UK in London, as the automatic right to have a Scottish civil appeal heard by the Supreme Court ceased last July.
Stuart Brooks, chief executive of the trust, said: “We are extremely disappointed by the decision.
“We took out this legal action reluctantly because of the sheer scale of the development proposed by SSE in an area of wild land, the potential ecological damage to a vast area of peatland, and the breadth of opposition – which included Scottish Natural Heritage, the Cairngorms National Park Authority the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and three out of four local councillors. Objectors outnumbered supporters of the application by 15 to one.
“Lord Jones, in the initial judicial review, found in favour of the trust’s legal arguments that Scottish Government had not followed the correct planning process. The Inner House judges have now disagreed with that assessment.
“We are confident that we did the right thing by challenging this decision – standing up against a scheme that could industrialise and decimate a precious area of wild Scotland.”
More than 1000 financial donations had been received from trust members and the public, and the trust is keeping the appeal open as it will have to meet all the expenses after the loss of the case.
Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy Paul Wheelhouse has welcomed the judges’ decision. He said: “This project will create jobs and generate important economic benefits for the Highlands and Islands economy.
“The wind farm is designed to produce electricity equivalent to the needs of more than 100,000 homes – a vital boost at a time when Scotland, the UK and Europe all need to ensure a secure energy supply for the future.
“It will also produce a further boost to Scotland’s work in leading international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here