IMPORTANT INFORMATION 7th September 2015

NOTE that the Helensburgh wind farm application has been withdrawn, though another one may be submitted. For details see under "News" on this website.

What follows on this page is therefore past history and TEG-H will be revising its whole website when relevant. 

The TEG-H position on the previous (now withdrawn) wind farm application

TEG-H assessed the Helensburgh wind farm planning application. TEG-H has reached its conclusions on several aspects. Those conclusions are based on data available to us which may require adjustment or be subject to updating.

TEG-H considered that these evaluations mostly provided grounds for serious concern and for objection.

Overall position

TEG-H considered that this wind farm application could have adversely affected Helensburgh in the long term. Any new application would have to be evaluated according to the same criteria.

The 2014 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states in paragraph 170 :

“Areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity.”

We have checked with the Scottish Government. We understand that this means that Argyll and Bute Council will not just be adjudicating on this current proposal, but also on the potential use of this site for wind turbines for an indeterminate period of time. That could be after government subsidies have reduced or even been withdrawn.

The SPP as a framework

This 2014 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is an important document. We are informed that local authority plans ought to be compatible with it.  TEG-H has therefore used the SPP’s list of wind farm considerations as a key reference source for its assessment of the proposed wind farm.

TEG-H conclusions grid

The grid which follows shows the current TEG-H position and advice.  Where you see ‘Click here for details’ you will access evidence related to our conclusions.

TEG-H uses the following codes to indicate degrees of importance :

            ****       =          Major concern
            ***        =          Substantial concern
            **         =          Lesser concern
            *          =          TEG-H still assessing or leaving to others to assess

            O         =          Object
            S         =          Support
            U         =          Uncertain

Topic	Brief summary	Conclusion
Renewable energy S and O ****	TEG-H supports renewable energy. But it should be the right sort in the right place. TEG-H has concluded that the proposed Helensburgh wind farm is not in the right place. Click here for details.	Support renewable energy, but not this proposal
Height of turbines O        ****	At 86.5 metres in height, these turbines are well in excess of the Council’s guidelines which are adopted policy. They will be conspicuous. Section 174 of the SPP allows subsequent increase in height, though that is not part of the submitted application.  Click here for details	Strongly advise object
Visual impacts O        ****	The turbines, as proposed, would be seen from across Helensburgh, the south of the National Park, across the Clyde and from elsewhere. They would be visible daily to a large population. Click here for details.	Strongly advise object
Landscape O        ****	Landscape is addressed in European, Scottish and local policies. Landscape is precious to Scotland’s heritage, economy, health and welfare. Damage to local landscape would be a serious failure for generations to come. Click here for details.	Strongly advise object
Probable adverse impacts on local economy O        ****	Helensburgh’s economy largely depends on people: residents and visitors who spend money. Our population is declining.  A&BC policy is growth by 9%. (‘Population for prosperity’).  Attractiveness attracts. Anything that reduces the attractiveness of the town damages its economy.  The same applies to the National Park. Click here for details.	Strongly advise object
Questions about developers’ finances O        ****	The developers’ finances are in question, in part because there are unknowns (e.g. how much wind) in part because some information seems not to be public yet.  So-called ‘community benefit’ is not a planning matter. But it has been emphasised by the developers who seek public support. Cash for affected communities (which communities?) is likely to be small relative to population and uncertain in amount. Government subsidy may reduce or end.   Click here for details.   (.pdf file)	Advise object, but recognize ‘community benefit’ is not a planning matter. It is a PR device
Impact on communities/ residential amenity O        ****	This is a broad category. The turbines would change the character of the town which is the basis of its success. Noise can affect closest houses. Other impacts are related to the size of populations of the different communities affected. Click here for details.	Advise object
Impacts on historic monuments / listed buildings O        ***	TEG-H has been advised by a professional archaeologist whose detailed report shows both historical and archaeological features of high value which need to be protected.	Advise object
Impacts on tourism O        ****	Tourists / day visitors to Helensburgh matter. Evidence is mixed, but if only 20% visitors are deterred by wind turbines, that is 20% less visitor income. The opening of the John Muir Way and the Three Lochs Way, the CHORD project, and other improvements could increase visitor numbers. Turbines would not. Click here for details.	Advise object as harm to visitor income
Public access O        ***	In planning terms, this refers to countryside access. On the ‘plus’ side, the public would be allowed to walk on the developers’ construction and maintenance roads. On the ‘minus’ side those roads are irrelevant because the area is well provided with major paths. The area is well provided with major paths. The turbines would damage quality of the countryside experience and harm bird life.	Advise object
Bird life O        ****	Bird life is a designated planning consideration. The site is rich in bird life, including some threatened species. The RSPB has noted the dearth of developers’ data. TEG-H has further information.  Click here for details.	Advise object
Other natural heritage U        *	TEG-H has insufficient evidence yet.	Insufficient evidence to advise
Cumulative impacts O        ****	The new SPP (2014) provides a fuller definition of ‘cumulative impacts than previously. It includes the above aspects and others. It is an important consideration.  Click here for details.	Strongly advise object
Aviation & defence interests O        ***	The National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Airport have objected. There would be ‘clutter’ on the radar caused by the turbines. It is therefore a matter of air safety.	Respect air safety objections
Impacts on telecommunications U        *	TEG-H has insufficient evidence.	Insufficient evidence to advise
Impacts on road traffic U        *	TEG-H has insufficient evidence yet, but does not expect road traffic to be a major consideration, especially if construction materials are conveyed by night.  However, if the new road across the development site gets used for other purposes (e.g. to transport felled timber) this issue could escalate.
Effects on hydrology/ flood U        **	TEG-H has insufficient evidence.	Insufficient evidence to advise
Proximity of turbines to grid S        **	TEG-H recognises that the turbines would be close to the grid and supports the intention to place cables under the ground.	Support
Decommissioning of the site S / U *	Developers have given assurances.  However, the site could still be used ‘in perpetuity’ (Para. 170 of SPP, 2014).	TEG-H views pending