Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Highland Council faces financial black hole over turbines

Caithness rural councillor Matthew Reiss spoke passionately against an extension to the unpopular Limekiln windfarm consented in June 2019. Photo by Sandy McCook
Caithness rural councillor Matthew Reiss spoke passionately against an extension to the unpopular Limekiln windfarm consented in June 2019. Photo by Sandy McCook

Highland Council is facing a financial black hole over windfarm applications after it emerged that the fees collected from developers have virtually been wiped out fighting costly planning battles over the most controversial bids.

Almost £300,000 collected from 300 applications has been spent by the local authority on just 23 appeals lodged by developers after their bid were refused.

Last night a row was sparked over the money Highland Council has been forced to spend dealing with wind turbine proposals.

Calls have been made to force developers to pay more to make such applications and bring Scotland into line with England on planning fees.

It comes given the huge level of resources – including staff hours – spent handling the bids.

The matter has been raised by Councillor Matthew Reiss, who represents Lanward Caithness, an area with one of the UK’s highest concentrations of giant turbines

He said the council had considered 306 planning applications for wind energy projects over the past three years and that the fees paid to the council amounted to £295,013.

But legal costs incurred by appeals and public inquiries involving 23 of the schemes landed the council with bills totalling £288,000, which do not include the staff time involved.

Mr Reiss said: “It is obvious that the costs to the council are much more than the income from the planning fees. Many would suggest the council should receive full cost recovery

“But in order to achieve this a more detailed breakdown of all the costs should be sought, bearing in mind that south of the border planning fees are up to 10 times higher.”

Speaking last night, Inverness member Jim Crawford, who is barred from speaking in council debates about windfarm applications because of his open opposition to them, said the planning system was now suffering.

He said: “I’m sure the weight of windfarm related applications is now so great that it has an impact on non windfarm applications. It’s bound to have a knock-on effect.

“Developers pay £25,000 here for an application for a windfarm compared with £250,000 south of the border. No wonder we’re at saturation point in Scotland.”

Linda Holt of Scotland Against Spin believes no council publishes figures about the “true cost” of wind applications because they do not equate that to staff time involved in the process.

“The costs outstrip the paltry sums paid by developers,” she said.

Industry watcher Stuart Young, an engineer who has monitored the growth of giant turbines, said: “Two or three years ago councils complained to the Scottish Government about the cost of processing windfarm planning applications.

“The government put up an extra fund that councils could bid into to help them with the expense. Highland Council bid for a very amount and got it. Other, less strapped councils bid for much larger sums and got them.”

Helen McDade of the John Muir Trust wild land charity said: “Cash-strapped councils who try to stand up for the environment and for their communities are often hammered by legal costs while giant energy companies who can potentially make tens of millions of profit from a single windfarm are paying a relative pittance in fees.

“This underlines our concern that the planning system in Scotland is strongly skewed in favour of developers.”