Copyright 2003 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Europe Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2003 Independent Newspapers (UK) Limited
The Independent
December 1, 2003
LENGTH: 803 words

HEADLINE: FORESTRY COMMISSION ACCUSED OF BETRAYING ITS RESPONSIBILITY BY
ALLOWING WINDFARMS ON ITS HILLS

BYLINE: Michael McCarthy

BODY:




THE FORESTRY Commission is betraying its responsibilities to the landscape
by allowing its mountains and hills to be used for giant windfarms,
countryside campaigners claim.

Britain's biggest landowner, with more than a million hectares (2.5 million
acres) of land in England, Scotland and Wales, is involved in no fewer than
27 windfarm developments in all three countries.

In 24 cases, it is leasing the land for energy companies to site wind
turbines on directly, and in the other three it is leasing land to give
access to the generating sites. This is just the start, and it is likely
that many more windfarms will be built on forestry land as the Government
aims to provide 20 per cent of Britain's energy from renewable sources by
2020 to combat climate change. The vast majority of the sites are in
Scotland, where - in a remarkable but hitherto little-noticed phenomenon now
being termed "the scramble for wind" - more than 400 windfarms have been
proposed in two years, and nearly 200 are under consideration.

The windpower developments on commission land - three built, one under
construction, 11 in the planning stage and 12 on the drawing board - are
generally in the uplands, and typically involve siting windmills up to 300ft
high on ridges or mountains where strong winds are constant.

By their nature, these developments will have an effect on the landscape -
enormous, say opponents, limited, say the developers. But for the commission
to allow them at all, opponents say, is in direct conflict with its
obligation to look after the countryside it owns on the public's behalf.

For the commission to refrain from planting trees on hilltops - as it often
does, to safeguard natural landscape features - but then allow wind turbines
to be planted there instead is a nonsense, they say.

A characteristic example is at Inverliever Forest in Argyll, where Scottish
Power has proposed placing 22 turbines, each 93 metres (302ft) high, on the
ridge that runs between Loch Awe and Loch Avich, two of Scotland's loveliest
lakes. The ridge, which reaches 1,800ft, and offers vast panoramas out to
the Inner Hebrides, is at the heart of the huge forest, but has been
deliberately left free of trees by the commission. Scottish Power claims the
visual impact of the development will be limited, but so far more than 400
objections to the scheme have been received at the district planning office
of Argyll and Bute council in Oban, including letters from America, Germany
and France. Many of the objectors feel the development is out of place in
such an unspoiled area where tourism is a mainstay of the economy. The Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds fears it is a threat to local golden
eagles and other rare species.

But what angers some local opponents most is the commission's role as the
site provider. "The commission holds vast tracts of land of prime scenic,
recreational, and ecological value," said Christine Metcalfe, who lives on
the shores of Loch Avich. "It is now inflicting a damaging form of
industrial development upon the very landscapes and habitats which it has a
duty to conserve. Its officials have been unable to provide a convincing
justification for this surrender of stewardship." The Commission replies
that it has no statutory duty to protect the landscape; that the Forestry
Commissioners are within their rights under the Forestry Act, 1967, to
dispose of land as they see fit; and that in seeking to promote renewable
energy they are following government policy.

However, it acknowledges that in the past 20 years it has tried hard to
follow a sensitive landscape policy, in contrast to the unthinking blanket
afforestation of the uplands with massed ranks of dark conifers which took
place before the 1980s, and for which it was much criticised. Its booklet,
Forest Landscape Design, proclaims that "the need, and indeed vision, of a
better landscape is central to that quest of both foresters and a wider
public who use and enjoy forests". A decision not to plant trees on a
mountain top is a decision for the commission; but a decision to site a
windfarm there is one for the planning authority, it points out.

Yet this washing of hands cuts no ice with botanist and television presenter
David Bellamy. "Of course they have a duty to look after the landscape,"
Professor Bellamy said. "By allowing these windfarms, they are helping to
spoil some of the most beautiful and recreational landscapes in Britain.

"They are betraying their responsibilities to millions of people who want to
escape from the urban sprawl. Windfarms are damaging to landscapes; they
contain industrial structures the height of St Paul's cathedral which
destroy any sense of remoteness. This is our national forest, and they're
meant to be guardians of it."

JOURNAL-CODE: FIND

LOAD-DATE: November 30, 2003