THE Royal Society for the Protection of Birds yesterday lost its long and expensive case against the Scottish Government over the giant Neart na Gaoithe wind farm in the Firth of Forth.
The UK Supreme Court refused permission for the RSPB to appeal against the decision of Scotland’s top civil court that Mainstream Renewable Power’s development – it will create 2000 jobs and provide enough energy to power a city the size of Edinburgh – could go ahead.
The RSPB had argued in court since the 2014 grant of planning consent that the farm’s turbines would cause carnage among the bird life in an area which is home to some of the largest concentrations in Europe of species such as gannets and kittiwakes.
The Court of Session rejected its appeal, and now the Supreme Court has confirmed that decision. That means the development can go ahead as scheduled next year unless the RSPB takes its case to the European courts – a step it did not rule out last night.
The Supreme Court stated: “Permission to appeal been refused on the grounds that the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.”
Mainstream Renewable Power’s chief executive, Andy Kinsella, said: “After more than two and a half years, two court hearings and two rejected applications for leave to appeal by RSPB Scotland, we can finally focus on delivering the very significant benefits this project brings to the Scottish economy and its environment. The project will bring £827 million directly to the Scottish economy over its lifetime. We are delighted with the decision and look forward to working constructively with RSPB Scotland to take the wind farm into construction next year.
“We look forward to seeing it up and running. We have taken advantage of significant advances in wind turbine technology, allowing the number of turbines to be reduced from the 125 in the original design to a maximum of 54.”
RSPB Scotland director Anne McCall said: “RSPB Scotland is extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse permission to appeal the recent Court of Session Inner House opinion.
“In light of this refusal for permission to appeal we will be taking some time to consider the other options remaining to us. However, we are extremely disappointed with this decision, following nearly a decade’s worth of effort from RSPB Scotland to help deliver offshore wind in Scotland in a manner that respects one of the country’s most impressive and internationally renowned natural assets – its fantastic seabird colonies.
“And, perhaps most worryingly, it could also set an extremely dangerous precedent for decision-making on future development, whereby Scottish Ministers no longer need to take heed of their own expert nature conservation advisers, nor the concerns of the public, or indeed consider the implications of development on areas known to be of international importance to wildlife.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel