NO ONE except the UK government and the Scottish Executive seems to think that the present free-for-all to get wind turbines erected wherever permission can be obtained is the best way to proceed. The single-minded drive to plant turbines seems reminiscent of the equally blinkered drive to plant non-native conifers in the 1960s and 70s. The mistakes made with plantations are now having to be undone, but at least they usually can be undone without permanent damage to the landscape. It won't be so easy with turbines.
Even Scottish Natural Heritage, in its 2003-04 annual report, stated: "We believe that the present planning framework is not guiding the scale and location of renewable development with sufficient firmness. We believe that the answer lies in developing a national framework to guide the amount of renewable development in different parts of Scotland [...] This framework should also take into account the need for a balanced mix of new technologies. Offshore wave and tidal stream generators may be able to provide substantial levels of energy with fewer natural heritage impacts than onshore developments." Friends of the Ochils agrees - but, in the absence of such a coherent framework, we must engage with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
The current position is that there is one potential application for the Clackmannanshire Ochils - Burnfoot Hill - and six applications for the Ochils within Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) area. One of these, Lochelbank, will be considered by the Executive once resubmitted. The others - Green Knowes, Snowgoat Glen, Knowehead, Little Law and Mellock Hill - will be determined by PKC as a single process. (The original Snowgoat Glen application has been withdrawn, but is likely to be resubmitted soon.)
An excellent landscape analysis commissioned by PKC concluded that the Ochils was an unsuitable landscape for wind power development, but (in a concession to the present central policy) if wind power was to be developed there should be no more than one site, in a subdued landscape and with turbines of moderate height (under 60 metres). Again, FotO agrees. We do not think the Ochils is a suitable place for wind power development. There are sufficient landscapes of less scenic value around central Scotland to provide as much wind power as the national grid can accept and remain stable without having to promote industrial developments in the Ochils. We also recognise, however, that the present Scottish Executive's attitude means there probably will be a windfarm forced upon the Ochils and, if that is the case, the landscape analysis offers a way of minimising the harm it will do.
We do not know when the enquiry into the PKC sites will be held, but it is likely to be soon. FotO has made brief representations about individual sites and has recently commented on the PKC's proposed "preferred areas" map. This identified locations where PKC might find wind development acceptable. Much of the area between the M90 and Dunning Glen was included, and our comments sought to reduce the area and restrict it to where potential for landscape impact was least.
When the enquiry is announced, FotO will make a formal submission to PKC based on our constitution, the first object of which states: "To promote and conserve the landscape, natural beauty and wildlife of the Ochils, and to protect the historical and social character of the surrounding communities." We shall also mail details to members, who can then make individual representations.