FURY erupted among windfarm protesters yesterday after a planning inquiry into a major Highland green energy project was allowed to go ahead.
Legal challenges had claimed that the public hearing into controversial plans for 34 turbines in the hills near Ardgay, Sutherland, was “unlawful” and should be postponed.
But Scottish Government planning reporter Katrina Rice decided to press on with the inquiry, insisting there was “not sufficient basis” for it to be put off.
Last night, opponents said the decision was “risky” and could lead to a massive waste of time and money.
Meanwhile, Highland Council was accused of sitting on the fence on the issue, having triggered the inquiry by objecting to the windfarm on the grounds that scenery would be harmed.
Before the inquiry opened yesterday at Ardross Community Hall, representatives from campaign group Save Our Straths, conservation charity the John Muir Trust (JMT) and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland challenged the process.
They claimed the inquiry was unlawful in light of a recent landmark legal ruling by judge Lady Clark that the application for the Viking Energy windfarm in Shetland was incompetent as the applicant did not have an electricity generation licence.
They argued that since the developer in this case, Glenmorie Wind Farm LLP, did not have a licence, its application was also unlawful – as was the inquiry.
John Campbell QC, for Save Our Straths, said the Scottish Government response to Lady Clark’s ruling had been “dismissive”.
He said: “They have treated it simply as the aberrant opinion of an aberrant judge that has gone off the rails, but just because you don’t like the decision you can’t presume that the judge has gone off the rails.”
Highland Council claimed the inquiry was lawful as it believed Lady Clark’s ruling applied solely to the Viking Energy application, but its advocate, James Findlay, argued that Scottish ministers should be liable for all costs if the inquiry was eventually found to be abortive.
Marcus Trinick QC, representing the developer, accused the council of sitting on the fence, while Ian Kelly, for JMT, said its view was “confusing” and “nonsensical”. The inquiry heard Lady Clark’s judgment could yet be overruled and none of the opposing parties had applied for a court interdict to halt the inquiry.
It was argued that there was “no good reason” to postpone the inquiry. Mr Findlay denied sitting on the fence.
He said: “We are simply saying, from our point of view, the proceedings are lawful but that we are effectively neutral on whether they should go ahead or not.”
After deliberating for an hour, Ms Rice said the inquiry would go ahead as none of the criteria for delaying it had been met.
She gave five reasons, including the expense of preparation and the difficulty in arranging a date suitable for all parties.
The others were that the Scottish Government believed its appeal had suspended Lady Clark’s order, that the government appeal could be successful, that no interdict had been made to stop the inquiry through the courts and that Highland Council viewed the proceedings as lawful.