RSPB DISMAY AT SUPREME COURT'S GREEN LIGHT FOR 'DAMAGING' OFFSHORE WINDFARM

Guillemot - one of the vulnerable marine species

A PROPOSED new windfarm off the East Coast of Scotland will be “among the most damaging in the world for seabirds ”.

That is the warning from the new director of  RSPB Scotland, Anne McCall, after the Supreme Court this week  refused the society’s  application to block a 64-turbine development  north of Torness.

Anne McCall - plea to Scottish ministers

Said she:  “We have worked on the Firth of Forth and Tay projects for nearly a decade to try and ensure that they progress without causing unacceptable harm to our internationally important seabird colonies.

“The  risks are huge to seabird populations, including puffins, gannets and kittiwakes - collectively one of the country’s most impressive and internationally renowned natural assets - which nest on our coasts and feed in the shallow waters in and around this area.

“There is little doubt this will be among the most damaging offshore windfarms for seabirds in the world. “

M McCall is disappointed that Scottish ministers are supporting the scheme.

She continued: “They have made many welcome statements about the value they place on being seen to safeguard Scotland’s environment.

“We would call on Scottish ministers to put those words into action and ensure that improvements are made to Scotland’s planning and consenting processes to ensure that such damaging consents cannot be issued in future.”

Developer Mainstream Renewable Power said it now looked forward to starting construction next year on a windfarm which it claims will be capable of powering 325,000 homes.

The company’s chief operating officer, Andy Kinsella, commented : “After more than two years and two court hearings, we hope that the RSPB allows us to get on with delivering the very significant benefits this project brings to the Scottish economy and its environment.”

Andy Kinsella - "very significant benefits"

                                                                                 
Mr Kinsella believes the windfarm can be built without harming wildlife and said the introduction of more powerful turbines had made it possible to reduce the number from 125 in the original planning application to a maximum of 64.

Earlier in the year, Dr Eddie O’Connor, who co-founded Mainstream in 2008, chided the RSPB in a blog.

He wrote: “We have been working on this project since 2009. 

“At every stage, we have worked closely and patiently with our environmental partners to assess and mitigate the potential impact on marine wildlife.

Eddie O'Connor - combatting climate change is vital

                                                                                                      
 “For us, it is not just about this one project. It is about building new energy systems that will make a material contribution to combatting climate change - the very climate change that is warming the waters around the British Isles and, by driving sandeel populations northwards, depriving iconic bird species of their traditional feeding grounds.

“We all recognise that the RSPB has a duty to its members to act to protect the UK’s bird populations, and we have had a constructive relationship with them for many years.

“What is disappointing is that they have sought  dramatically to overstate the potential impact of this project on birdlife in the Forth and Tay estuaries.

“Recent suggestions that thousands of gannets could be harmed are so far from reality.

“Several reports in recent years have suggested climate change is the major factor in the decline on many seabird populations.

“Alongside advances in turbine technology, there have been similar advances in our understanding of seabird behaviour around offshore turbines.  

The ORJIP (Offshore Renewable Joint Industry Programme) Bird Collision study has used real data from the 100-turbine Thanet offshore windfarm to identify bird behaviour around large offshore infrastructure projects.

“While the draft findings have not been released, I am reassured by what is being discovered about bird activity and avoidance. 

“The RSPB is also aware of this data, which is why their strident reaction to the court decision is so puzzling.

“The advances in turbine technology, reduction in turbine numbers and improvements in knowledge of seabird behaviour, mean that previous assessments of risk to birds are gross overestimates.

The turbines  will be spaced more than  a kilometre apart, providing huge corridors for transit. 

 “Mainstream is committed to undertaking studies of a similar scale to the ORJIP study when NNG is operational, to reduce risk to wildlife and to further improve science in this area.  

“We hope that this can be undertaken in collaboration with the RSPB and other environmental organisations.

“I am reassured by the more measured views of the RSPB’s sister environmental organisations. 

“We all want to do the right thing for the environment. I set up Mainstream to help the world achieve its once off transition to sustainability. 

“This is a huge driving force for us at Mainstream, where the company has committed itself to leading the drive to make electricity without emitting CO₂.

“I want to work with the RSPB and all our partners to build NNG in a way that has the least impact on the environment.

 “The project will also act as an artificial reef and by so doing enable the build-up of fish stocks, which have also been decimated by climate change.

Dr O’Connor concluded: “It is time for our friends in the RSPB and across the environmental movement to sit down with us, and with the Scottish government, to agree on a common objective - the imminent risk to all life, avian and human, posed by climate change, and the necessity to work together to find solutions to this, the greatest challenge of our age.”

* The Supreme Court judgement is below:

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers and others (Respondents) (Scotland) - UKSC 2017/0143

On appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland)

Permission to appeal has been refused in this case in which the RSPB objects to the decision of the Respondent to grant consent under the Electricity Act 1989 to the construction of wind farms in the North Sea. The Appellant objected to the developments on the basis that they could have an adverse impact to seabirds.

Appropriate Assessments ("AAs") were carried out on behalf of the Respondents under the Habitats Regulations 1994 and 2010 and the Offshore Marine Regulations 2007, which concluded that the wind farms would not adversely affect the integrity of the special protection areas. The RSPB raised concerns about the scientific methodology used in the AAs and argued that it did not receive sufficient information in relation to the applications for consent. The Appellant raised judicial review proceedings against the Respondent. The Lord Ordinary reduced the decision of the Respondents to grant the consents to the Interested Parties. The Respondents successfully appealed to the Inner House. 

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.