20th November 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Errors in windfarm planning report undermine its credibility, says Viking Energy

4 comments, , by , in News

A crucial report on Viking Energy’s controversial windfarm by the SIC’s planning department contains a series of “basic errors” which undermine its credibility, project co-ordinator Allan Wishart claimed today.

Councillors will tomorrow discuss the report, which is recommending that the SIC should object to the 127-turbine windfarm because it will have an “unacceptable environmental impact”.

If the council objects to the application, which will ultimately be determined by the Scottish government’s energy consents unit, it will automatically trigger a possibly lengthy public inquiry next year.

But Mr Wishart criticised the 69-page report and said the conclusions arrived at “cannot be justified” because of the “significant number of errors it contains”.

In a statement, he said: “I highlight a few examples, by way of illustration. Firstly, the planning report says the extent of the use of floating roads is ‘not clear’. Yet the exact projected lengths and locations of all floating roads are set out in the addendum and repeated in a number of places in the document.

“Secondly, the report gets straightforward items like the numbers of borrow pits and the numbers of noise monitors wrong. Thirdly the report alleges that Viking Energy haven’t walked and surveyed the access tracks when the application documents clearly set out these survey results. There are more of these basic errors in the planning report and sadly, they undermine the report’s credibility.”

Mr Wishart said planning officers should have viewed the projected socio-economic benefits of the project as a “material planning consideration”, as had been done for windfarm applications elsewhere.

“This omission is particularly disappointing given the unique ownership structure of the Viking project which offers a far greater level of socio-economic benefit than any other windfarm in the country – both in terms of the profits generated and returned directly to the Shetland economy and in providing huge opportunities in opening up the potential in marine renewables.

“Also it is not clear why planning officers have explicitly chosen to exclude the benefits of positive proposals such as the archaeology project or the habitat management plan.”

Mr Wishart acknowledged that the original application and the addendum were both long and complex documents but added: “I am perturbed by the number of instances where the report suggests that there is missing or insufficient information, when that information is either contained within the document, or could easily have been clarified by the Viking Energy project team.”

The deadline for the SIC’s response to the energy consents unit is this Sunday. A number of consultees, including statutory body Scottish Natural Heritage, have maintained their objections to the project. Sepa has withdrawn its objection subject to certain conditions.

While planners believe the development of a windfarm of “significant scale” could comply with its development plan, Viking’s project could not be built without compromising the area’s “high quality environment”.

The report notes that the project’s carbon payback is “as yet undeterminable” because Sepa has been unable to carry out work on the emission losses and savings which the project would cause. Viking’s estimate of a worst-case scenario of paying back the carbon emissions within less than one year has been hotly disputed by the project’s many opponents.

Tags:

4 comments

  1. Phil Smith

    Pot, Kettle, Black, me thinks !!

    Reply
  2. D A Thomson

    The Viking Energy Project Team are amateurs taking on a massive civil engineering project the scale of which they have no relevant previous experience – and it shows. On the other hand SIC planning officials are professionals and their report confirms that Central Shetland is unsuited for a development of this size.

    Reply
  3. Billy Fox

    Councillor Allan Wishart firmly dons his Viking Energy Ltd project co-ordinators hat and criticises his own Head of Planning.

    He must do this today because at tomorrow’s council meeting he must declare an interest and exclude himself.

    The big question is will he then move into the audience to deliver the applicant’s say? It would not surprise me!

    Reply
  4. James Mackenzie

    Allan Wishart is wrong on at least one count. The Addendum is not consistent about the length of floating roads and their locations. An assumption is made that they will be on peat deeper than one metre, and cut-and-fill roads on one metre or less, but no attempt has been made to adjust the maps that are in the original environmental statement, where some of the cut-and-fill roads are shown to be on peat deeper than one metre. There are also discrepancies in the figures for single and double track roads. The roads would, in my opinion, need considerable re-design in order to comply with the above assumption.

    That assumption is made in order to result in a projected quantity of excess or waste peat (308,000 m³), which Viking Energy proposes to fill the quarries with, to a depth of 1.7m. This is considered to be a safe depth.

    In order to do this the peat will have to be mixed (i.e., the blue with the mossy), which will require treatment, e.g., de-watering. The total area of proposed quarries amounts to about 18 hectares or 43 acres.

    To be fair, VE has accepted that this quantity of peat will lose carbon, but there is nothing in the Addendum to say what will be placed on top of the artificial mix – apart from a totally unrealistic, and if I may say so, half-hearted suggestion in the Habitat Management Plan to plant trees in the quarries.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.